What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Vertical Power new products

It's pretty cool to think that even in a plane as small as an RV, you could have a one-button "get me to an airport" solution. Untested and unproven at this point, of course, but it's nice to see some of the technology that's possible making it down to our level.

I hate to ask what it costs for a VP-400. I didn't bother looking. :p
 
Looks like very cool technology.

I am confused on the pricing....

Why can you get a VP-X and a VP-300 for $2,200 less than a VP-400?

What makes up the difference?
 
I just looked at these too. I am very disappointed in the direction these new models are going.

First, they seem to be entering an already crowded EFIS arena.

Second, the concept of 1-button fly-me-down seems ridiculous. Their website says
"The system automatically engages the autopilot to fly the glide path to the runway, leaving you free to focus on emergency procedures and talk to controllers."
Click to expand...
That's exactly the opposite of what we were taught: aviate, navigate, communicate, in that order. It may be that technology can indeed change what we were taught, but I really don't like letting some algorithm determine what IT thinks is the best airport...it may not pick the nearest one!

Third, VP now has given up the flight modes and soft switches that I found so attractive in the VP-200 (and I think to some extent in the VP-100). I've talked to a pilot who installed the VP-200 in two airplanes because he liked those features so much. Flight modes relieve your pilot work load every flight by automatically setting flaps and switches to the different phases of the entire flight. Soft switches remove almost all the physical toggle switches on your panel (though you can still have as many as you want, wired into the VP-200, and then it monitors their position).

Paying many thousands of dollars for a single feature that should never be used just seems bass-ackward. I was really hoping for a unit in between the VP-X (which is basically electronic circuit breakers, wig-wag, and flap/trim motor control) and the VP-200 (which had a large separate display).
 
Sell the -400 AND the -200

I compley agree with you Buggs.

The flight modes were awesome.

It meant assisting the piolt with automation not flying it for you.

It has turned from an task deloading device to a safety in case of catestrophic failure. Why!!!!

Have your -400 but bring back the VP-200. It was in a class of its own.
 
guys, as a very happy user of the VP200 i totally share your concern!

to me this is not going in the right direction... they should've sticked to the electrical / flight mode / switching part and perfect it and leave the other stuff to the EFIS people... yet another EFIS doing essentially the same features in a little bit of a different way is not really what's needed....

i actually expected something between a VP200 and the VPX...
the vp200 is a great workload reducing automation tool, but never taking control away from the pilot.

and the electrical system arena still has possibilities for further VP type developments / innovations.

regards,
bernie
 
It still does ECB duties, Vertical Power still knows how to code the flight mode functionality (such as reconfiguring for "Go Around" functionality), and now they have hardware and software that knows how to fly the airplane. Software updates for new features are becoming common in this market, so I suspect this is just the beginning...
 
Automation

Buggsy2 said:
That's exactly the opposite of what we were taught: aviate, navigate, communicate, in that order. It may be that technology can indeed change what we were taught, but I really don't like letting some algorithm determine what IT thinks is the best airport...it may not pick the nearest one!
Click to expand...

I believe it is actually doing exactly what we WERE trained to do, it is just doing a little bit of the first two for you. There have been many different forms of automation that have been helping pilots for years. Typically it begins in more expensive forms, then trickles down. Think FADEC/automatic starting in turbines, or even just turning the key in your car...no more choking the carb for start. We have many autopilot functions to help load shed a bit for easier flying...think autopilot vs simple trim. I remember some guys saying trim works just fine, why have an autopilot. Heck, I have used radios without a "flip/flop" and that is a bit annoying, but a form of automation.

I have not used the VP-400, but I think it has a possibility to bring some help in a complex cockpit. I am learning a much more complex helicopter at work, possibility of 8 simultaneous frequencies PER CREWMEMBER, radar to monitor, FLIR, targeting data, etc, etc, etc. A friend of mine was a test pilot for it about 8 years ago and said even with the automation they fully expect CFIT due to task saturation to be a high possibility.
 
Glad to see your enthusiasm about the VP-200! We will be adding these features (phase of flight determination, emergency handling, configuration checks, etc.) to the VP-400. It has been part of the design from day one. They're not there now, but will be in the future.
 
Actually, your information is incorrect.

You can manually choose an airport if you want or let it do it automatically. Simply touch the airport you want to go to.

You can use soft keys on the display to turn device on and off. Or regular switches on your instrument panel.

And it works exactly as we were taught. Press the button and the plane flies to the best place to land. The plane is now in a safe attitude and going where it should. You can now focus on emergency procedures then talking to controllers. Lots of accidents from stalling the aircraft while distracted by emergencies.

Take a look at the web site and you'll see its all there. :)
 
MCA said:
Actually, your information is incorrect.

You can manually choose an airport if you want or let it do it automatically. Simply touch the airport you want to go to.

You can use soft keys on the display to turn device on and off. Or regular switches on your instrument panel.

And it works exactly as we were taught. Press the button and the plane flies to the best place to land. The plane is now in a safe attitude and going where it should. You can now focus on emergency procedures then talking to controllers. Lots of accidents from stalling the aircraft while distracted by emergencies.

Take a look at the web site and you'll see its all there. :)
Click to expand...
My mistake. Buried in a list of features are these two which for me are the most important:
  • Control devices with switches, the display, or while on the ground using your iPad or iPhone
  • Rules-based switching that allows you to turn devices on or off based on user-defined rules. For example, you can turn on the boost pump automatically above 10,000 ft. Or turn on strobe lights above 50 KIAS
The price to get these has also gone up $2000 (from the VP-200), to $8000 not including "extras" like wire harness, etc.

This is way too rich for my build. I'm simply not going to pay that much for something that does something I don't want (fly-to-airport) and duplicates components I will have (EFIS). I can and will put a full Dynon Skyview in my RV-9A (large screen and 2-axis autopilots) for about the same price as the VP-400:

$3600 10" Skyview bundle
$1200 ADAHRS Module
$ 600 Engine Monitoring Module
$1650 Two autopilot servos
$2000 Misc (software, pitot, blah blah)
====
$9050 Total

VP is heading in the wrong direction for me. I would love to have something price between the VP-X and VP-400 but there isn't anything useful. The VP-300 duplicates everything I'll get with the Dynon, adding the unwanted fly-to-airport, and not providing the flight modes and soft switches.

If you sense I'm quite disappointed in these latest products, you are correct. VP seems to be targeting the very high end, 4-place experimental market, that wants redundancy for IFR/IMC conditions. VP is missing out, in my opinion, on the larger experimental market that is almost entirely VFR but would like flight modes and soft switches. The VP-X doesn't provide those and frankly I'm not convinced it's worth even $1800 to save me only the circuit breaker wiring. It's easy enough to get flap/trim motor control and wig-wagging separately and cheaper.

Please, VP, rethink your direction and make something for the VFR, 2-place RV market.
 
Buggsy,

I'm totally with you on this.

I was willing to buy (and had my order in to Stein) to buy the VP200 based on word of mouth of those early adopters.

The new products are much more expensive, have features not wanted, and (to date) don't have the features I do want. Even if those features are added back (at some later date), I'm not willing to pay the additional $1650 - difference between the VP200 and the VP400. Assuming price stays the same with the VP-200 features incorporated back into the VP400.

Although was entertaining the VPX or Pro, I may just rethink the ECB thing and wire conventionally. Some would say that this is the price of progress. I would say it's the price of obsolescence, to the detriment of a great product.

Really disappointed.

Phil
RV10, Finishing
Salt Lake City
 
VP-200 Plus - A required option

I concur with the setiments of the VP-200 validity. The $8k is too much for content that is already prevelent in the existing EIS without all of the benefits.

I was looking forward to an option that was a VP-200 integrated with the existing EFIS offerings and doing away with the screen utilising the benefits of the EFIS as a windowed input and utilising the input capability of the existing EFIS offerings.

To me, this would be a fantastic middle ground.

Maybe a $4k offering of a VP-200 plus (the VP-200 with full EFIS integration) would be a good option. I as one would pay for that, however the $8k for the VP-400 is just too expensive for the benefits.

In absence of the VP-200, the VPX-Pro is the only viable option.

Mark...... what about a VP-200 Plus???? ;-)
 
We have looked at the VP-200 option integrated with an EFIS (from another vendor) for several years. It would be a great product no doubt.

I don't think anyone here understands the amount of work it would take to do that though. It would be a significant effort on both our part and the EFIS partner's part. You'd likely pay more than you would for the existing VP-200. Don't forget, the VP-200 was priced in 2006 and we have not raised the price since.

You'll see that the VP-400 display is actually quite different than primary EFIS displays. It is optimized for getting you on the ground safely, while the primary EFIS is optimized for navigation in the airspace system. So that is our platform going forward and it will eventually incorporate the VP-200 features.

The Runway Seeker is a really good technology that I hope will save some people in the future. Take some time and watch the videos, it is pretty amazing to watch it in action!
 
How did we get here

Marc,

We appreciate that more products take time and people.

What we were saying is that you had a great product, one that was a leader in the market, one that we all liked and now you got rid of it to give us something that it seems no one asked for and charging us more for it.

Can you explain why you decided to go in this direction so that we can at least not scratch our heads as to what on earth made you go from what was a winning position to one of an unknown, unproven and possibily one not supported by the wider market but just a niche group.

I am certain the -400 works well, I would expect nothing less from you guys, but its the absence of a good feature set, for a feature set that doesn't seem to be asked for by the market.

do tell us the story of how you came to conclude that this is what everyone wanted.
 
Most EFIS systems now have nearest airport and autopilots. Just push direct to and enter. Does it take in consideration of terrain, airspeed, configuration, etc.? A couple of seconds of button pushing doesn't make a difference in the big picture.
 
MCA said:
We have looked at the VP-200 option integrated with an EFIS (from another vendor) for several years. It would be a great product no doubt.

I don't think anyone here understands the amount of work it would take to do that though. It would be a significant effort on both our part and the EFIS partner's part. You'd likely pay more than you would for the existing VP-200. Don't forget, the VP-200 was priced in 2006 and we have not raised the price since.

You'll see that the VP-400 display is actually quite different than primary EFIS displays. It is optimized for getting you on the ground safely, while the primary EFIS is optimized for navigation in the airspace system. So that is our platform going forward and it will eventually incorporate the VP-200 features.

The Runway Seeker is a really good technology that I hope will save some people in the future. Take some time and watch the videos, it is pretty amazing to watch it in action!
Click to expand...

If you can enable the PIN code to enable the ignition, with the VP-X... I won't complain about the VP-200 going away. :D
 
MCA said:
You'll see that the VP-400 display is actually quite different than primary EFIS displays. It is optimized for getting you on the ground safely, while the primary EFIS is optimized for navigation in the airspace system. So that is our platform going forward and it will eventually incorporate the VP-200 features.

The Runway Seeker is a really good technology that I hope will save some people in the future. Take some time and watch the videos, it is pretty amazing to watch it in action!
Click to expand...
Marc, I don't doubt that it is nifty technology. I haven't heard of anything like it: a Nearest Airport button on steroids. But I and I believe many potential customers don't want it. If I wanted to spend a few thousand more dollars for safety there are a number of choices I'd make before Runway Seeker. It's a solution looking for a problem.

I'm a civil engineer and have spent my entire career in numerical modeling of water. I've seen elaborate solutions proposed and worked on at great cost, using gee-whiz technology, but it's not what's needed for the problem at hand. I sense a similar situation with these new products.

Well, you've heard from some potential customers here. At the very least could VP continue to sell the VP-200? It's priced somewhat higher than I would like (even at 2006 pricing) but after talking to a guy who was very enthusiastic about it, I was going to plan my instrument panel around it and buy it. The VP-400 is simply out of the question...the VP-300 doesn't have anything I want, and the VP-X seems of marginal benefit/cost to me.

I've talked to you at your exhibit at airshows and you always seemed a straight-forward guy. I'm appealing to that characteristic and ask you, again, consider the 2-place experimentals that are primarily VFR planes. If something happens we can just push our Nearest button on our GPS and fly and navigate our own way while trying to figure out why the engine stopped or the electrics went out and we're on battery.

Thanks for listening--
 
Buggsy2 said:
Marc, I don't doubt that it is nifty technology. I haven't heard of anything like it: a Nearest Airport button on steroids. But I and I believe many potential customers don't want it. If I wanted to spend a few thousand more dollars for safety there are a number of choices I'd make before Runway Seeker. It's a solution looking for a problem.

I'm a civil engineer and have spent my entire career in numerical modeling of water. I've seen elaborate solutions proposed and worked on at great cost, using gee-whiz technology, but it's not what's needed for the problem at hand. I sense a similar situation with these new products.

Well, you've heard from some potential customers here. At the very least could VP continue to sell the VP-200? It's priced somewhat higher than I would like (even at 2006 pricing) but after talking to a guy who was very enthusiastic about it, I was going to plan my instrument panel around it and buy it. The VP-400 is simply out of the question...the VP-300 doesn't have anything I want, and the VP-X seems of marginal benefit/cost to me.

I've talked to you at your exhibit at airshows and you always seemed a straight-forward guy. I'm appealing to that characteristic and ask you, again, consider the 2-place experimentals that are primarily VFR planes. If something happens we can just push our Nearest button on our GPS and fly and navigate our own way while trying to figure out why the engine stopped or the electrics went out and we're on battery.

Thanks for listening--
Click to expand...

What ^^he^^ said.

I will admit, having a standalone EFIS for back up that also has this capability is pretty cool. If only for the fact that it is constantly looking for emergency landing sites. Pretty cool. Not sure how much I would trust something like this to fly the airplane to a point of landing, while managing energy given all the potential variables. Passenger still has to land right?
 
Last edited:
Why are we all of a sudden against progress?

I can hardly believe the tone of what I am reading on this thread. Marc and all of the engineers at Vertical Power have obviously invested an incredble amount of time and a boat load of money to come up with a new innovation designed to enhance safety. Is that all we can do is sit around like a bunch of old farts and complain that we don't need new innovations? Geez Louise.

I for one can't wait to get to Sun-N-Fun and see VP's new systems. They obviously enhance safety and push the technical envelope. If you do not think these new features are worth the money, then don't buy them. I for one am willing to spend extra for an electronic ticket into the 21st century and to help insure that my future flights are a little more safe and secure.

Sure we should be looking at new innovations with a critical eye (like turbine engines on RVs and hovercraft in Popular Mechanics) but let's not pillory established and respected innovators like Marc Ausman with careless criticisms. We owe it to our brother RVers to study all of the information available (the VP website has lots of information) and encourage responsible progress.
 
VP-200 vs VP-400

Marc, I do applaud you on your inovation, you are doing things that others aren't, however, as a person involved in business performance management, I have often seen successful businesses make a wrong turn, or for that matter, a product too far ahead of the market.

However, the successful ones know when to take a step back and give the product the customers want in spite of what may be the better option.

I feel here that you may be on to something, however, it may well be too far ahead of the market to be adopted and that the inovation you have shown will basically be replicated by the other EFIS providers for significantly less cost, thus rendering your solution mute.

A VP-200 integrated for button control with other EFIS would be a fantastic product that has a particular market. Backed by your reputation, I am sure has resounding market appeal. Unfortunately, from what I see here the VP-300 and 400 basically don't.

I hope I am wrong about the VP-300 and 400 for your sake, however, I can tell you from my personal opinion, I was going to purchase the VP-200, however, I won't be purchasing either of the VP-300 or 400 for the following reasons:

  1. I don't need another screen to put on my panel
  2. It does not have the features I had earmarked for my panel (i.e. VP-200)
  3. It just costs too much for what I get.
  4. I can get most of what you are offering from an alternative source
I am building a fully IFR RV-10 with (planned) 2 x AFS EFIS, GTN750, AFS Autopilot, TT ADI and some other odds and ends. The VP-200 provided a quality product that had no equal. Now that this is gone with no replacement, the VPX-Pro is my only real option, without the bonuses. Panel space is an issue and I just don't need another screen.

In closing, I want to let you know that all of the people who have responded here are doing so for two reasons.

  1. They want a certain sort of product that is now not available
  2. They respect you and your products and feel that they want to help.
We all know you have obviously invested a lot of thought and energy into this product, just make sure your direction from here isn't clouded by pride and "woods for the trees" thinking.

Please take this all as constructive criticism as I feel it would be too easy to take offense and defiantly hold your ground, where the better business decision may be to look to a different option. At the very least hear the customers and provide and augmentation to your offerings.

The VP-300 & 400 may well be the products you learn from rather than the ones you make profits from.

Best regards,
 
Well said Andrew. I have to say I watched the videos of the vp 400, the runway seeker is very impressive especially with the a/p engaged.

Although, my first thought when this started yesterday was, why couldn't every other EFIS company write the same code for the runway seeker...or why not just sell the code to the other EFIS companys. Is this code copyrighted or patented? I am no business expert consultant by any means or software programer, but this thread certainly is turning into a great FOCUS group for VPs new products.
 
It looks like our corner of the market is speaking pretty loudly. I loved the simplicity of the early VP offerings, and have long planned to incorporate them when I build or replace my current panel.

This new stuff certainly looks nifty, but to this programmer it seems a lot like 'feature creep' and loss of focus from what made the company interesting to begin with.

I read of Austin Meyer's experiments with auto-landing a while back, and figured it would make the most sense for him to partner with a hardware company to bring something to market. I'm a little bewildered that it was VP. Any of the EFIS or Autopilot companies would seem so much more appropriate.

All of that said I certainly applaud the innovation, and hope VP can do great things with this tech. Apparently we'll just need to adjust our concept of what VP is all about. Perhaps there is room for a startup in the 'just does ECB' business...

-jon
 
This has me thinking long and hard. I had been leaving my options open for a design around the VP-X for my -8 project, and really working in that direction. However, I'm now thinking about stepping away from that idea. Building an EFIS business isn't trivial but IS very sexy. As a programmer, some of the functionality recently demonstrated really gets my juices flowing, but they aren't for my airplane. This should really make the existing EFIS manufacturers perk up. One of the side effects of that surely has to effect their relationship with VP, which makes me wonder how long the VP-X integration relationship will last.
 
That's a good point Scott

I just bit the bullet on incorporating a VP-X Sport buss into my plane even though I had my Z-11 electrical system completed. I kept thinking of what the VP-X offered and the fact that I had a GRT Sport onboard to display the electrical system. I hope this latest development doesn't orphan us with both products. I'm going the VFR only route myself.
 
Steve Ashby said:
I can hardly believe the tone of what I am reading on this thread...If you do not think these new features are worth the money, then don't buy them.
Click to expand...
Steve, speaking just for myself, let me clarify my concerns. True, I don't think the new features are worth the money and I won't buy them. The problem is, by removing the VP-200 from the market, Vertical Power has not left me the options that I wanted that would have made both the build and every flight easier. Thus, I'm voicing those concerns here and simply asking that the VP-200 be left on the market for sale to builders like me. I don't think that's a negative tone, pillorying Marc or others, or anti-progress. On the contrary, I want Marc and Vertical Power to be a great success...I just think that leaving the VP-200 for sale which give VP more of a chance for that.
 
Last edited:
roads beneath your wings...

MCA said:
It is optimized for getting you on the ground safely

The Runway Seeker is a really good technology that I hope will save some people in the future. Take some time and watch the videos, it is pretty amazing to watch it in action!
Click to expand...

Getting on the ground safely almost certainly involves evaluating roads under wing... depending on a solution to 'take me to an airport' could very well discount much more attractive and obvious solutions. I think that the runway seeker is interesting but could be readily incorporated into any other existing system and appears to be more curiosity than beneficial in a serious reaction environment.
 
This thread sounds a lot like what we were hearing when the VP-200 first came out in 2007. :)

Some people value the VP-200 features and some don't. Some think it is too expensive and some don't. That's why we have the VP-X products, which have the "core" features that most people are asking for at a lower price.

So today we have products from $1,200 to $11,000 to fit different needs and budgets. And I don't think it is reasonable to ask us to sell VP-200 feature set (which by the way has about 50,000 lines of code more than the VP-X) for a VP-X price or a tad more.

The VP-200 features will continue on in the VP-400 but there is a gap in time. We debated whether to continue with the VP-200 as well. The bottom line is we don't have unlimited resources and are very busy so we have to make tough choices. It's really that simple.

BTW, we are not in the primary EFIS business. Laminar Research did the EFIS part and we did the hardware and power distribution part. Most aircraft that will install a VP-400 will need a backup EFIS, so it is a logical place to integrate our functionality. You'll see that the functionality of the VP-400 does not copy an existing EFIS, but has a new way to display information that is relevant to getting on the ground safely. We have no intention of entering the primary EFIS market which is full of good products. :D
 
Really, the $6400 for the VP-200 was a little more than the $1800 for the VPXpro, but something a few of us were willing to do for the features that it offered above and beyond the basic ECB concept.

We do wish you well with your new product line, just feel a little left out that we won't be able to partake of what you used to offer.

Phil
 
VP-200

Marc, you will do what you want, however,

"And I don't think it is reasonable to ask us to sell VP-200 feature set for a VP-X price."

You have a product already that costs you nothing but manufacturing costs....

Does not sound like good business sense to me....

You have an established market. Get someone else to do the work for you...... I am sure there are many out there in the US who have the skills and no job that would be happy to make up units. Scale up the production with outsourcing....

Just my 2 cents worth.....
 
MCA said:
And I don't think it is reasonable to ask us to sell VP-200 feature set (which by the way has about 50,000 lines of code more than the VP-X) for a VP-X price or a tad more.
Click to expand...
Wait, I don't think anyone is asking for that. What I'm asking is simply continue selling the VP-200 at its current price, $6000 (can't remember exactly). No improvements. Bug fixes only at most.

Or, sell the VP-200 hardware and make the source code open source, or available via non-disclosure and no-liability agreements, and let us debug it ourselves. There are programmers in the experimental world that could do it.

I'm searching for any way to continue the VP-200 and Vertical Power continue to make money from it. If there is a chance VP could change its mind, PM me.
 
Money on the table

I for one want to do business with Marc, have total faith in what he does and think he is pretty much a genius from the point of view of producing something so simple, so easy to use and so much in demand.

I believe that he is leaving money on the table by not providing the -200.

I would pay more for it. probably $2000 more for it. I just can't get anything to do what it does, and I have the money and I want what I want.

There is a long list of clients here that will not be spedning the $6.5k with VP and I feel that it could add up to possibly over $100k.

If you are one of those people please write to Marc and state your case and then he can add up what he would be seeing in revenue if he were to outsource its production. That way he can make a business.

I believe that simply Time, money and people limitations is why he can't offer the VP-200, if he produces the VP-400. (well that is what the man is saying anyway)

If you want the product, make it worth his while.

Marc, I have only one REAL complaint, the screen size. If it was shorter, the same size screeen and the VP-200 I would be OK with it all. It just doesn't fit on my panel now.
 
Last edited:
Very Impressed

I just watched the video for the VP400 and for someone that was going to get the VP 200 anyway the extra 1500 doesn't bother me at all . I think they made enough additions to the 200 that it makes sense to me, I was going to put a backup EFIS in the right side of my panel anyway so it actually saves me money putting the 400 instead of the 200 and a backup EFIS. This will definately be in my panel, just my opinion :D
 
The VP-200 going away issue aside. I think this new product is great and one of the things I love about exp. aviation. Companies are able to be cutting edge while avoiding a lot of the red tapes that cause the price point to be out of reach for most of us.

I addition to flying for my day job, I have been heavily involved with aviaiton human factors/automation benefits and pit falls over the past ten years. Air carriers use the "swiss cheese" model for safety, refering to the fact that because there are many layers no single hole goes straight to the core. Having layers of safety in aviation help us to greatly reduce our risks.

Someone mentioned that the VPX-400 might cause someone to over look a much more suitable landing site. I fully agree with this. Putting all your faith in one option, or one "layer" is not a good thing. One problem we see more and more is pilots becoming too dependant on automation. I find it amusing when flying with a new First Officer who is praying for bad weather so he can fly a coupled ILS vs shooting a visual approach where autopilots can be cumbersome.

I truly believe this feature can save lives and become a useful layer in our overall safety plan. Obviously taking all options in to consideration, this product has the potential to remove a huge workload from an already stressful time (which is the point of automation)

I applaud VPX for their work and look forward to all their future products and enhancements.
 
Last edited:
@Matt: as you can see in my previous posts here I was vocal in my lack of enthusiasm for the new products. If VP wants to get in the business of saving lives it's a noble cause. The problem for those of us who want some automation is the huge gap in their product line. The VP-X Pro is $1800 and provides electronic circuit breakers, wigwag, trim & flap motor control. The no-longer-sold -200 built on that with soft switches (so you didn't have a dozen toggle switches on your panel) and flight modes which was a great workload saver in flight.

The VP-300 doesn't build on that so I don't count it. Finally at $8000 you have the -400 which only promises it will do what the old -200 did, plus the "life-saver" Runway Seeker.

This is a huge jump in price to maybe get the genuinely useful work savings the -200 offered. It is this huge price gap that bothers many?not the new product's capabilities which are impressive. I retain my doubt about the marginal benefit/cost of Runway Seeker but that is quite separate from my concern about the price gap.

I am going to do some inquiries on my own about putting together my own gizmo as an addition to the VP-X. Consider that the wiring from the VP-X to the toggle switches is all the same low-power?it doesn't carry the devices' current, rather is used merely to tell the VP-X what device to turn on or off. That low-power switching could be done with a programmable controller so you could approach the functionality of the -200 with this separate gizmo.
 
Buggsy2 said:
@Matt: as you can see in my previous posts here I was vocal in my lack of enthusiasm for the new products. If VP wants to get in the business of saving lives it's a noble cause. The problem for those of us who want some automation is the huge gap in their product line. The VP-X Pro is $1800 and provides electronic circuit breakers, wigwag, trim & flap motor control. The no-longer-sold -200 built on that with soft switches (so you didn't have a dozen toggle switches on your panel) and flight modes which was a great workload saver in flight.

The VP-300 doesn't build on that so I don't count it. Finally at $8000 you have the -400 which only promises it will do what the old -200 did, plus the "life-saver" Runway Seeker.

This is a huge jump in price to maybe get the genuinely useful work savings the -200 offered. It is this huge price gap that bothers many?not the new product's capabilities which are impressive. I retain my doubt about the marginal benefit/cost of Runway Seeker but that is quite separate from my concern about the price gap.

I am going to do some inquiries on my own about putting together my own gizmo as an addition to the VP-X. Consider that the wiring from the VP-X to the toggle switches is all the same low-power?it doesn't carry the devices' current, rather is used merely to tell the VP-X what device to turn on or off. That low-power switching could be done with a programmable controller so you could approach the functionality of the -200 with this separate gizmo.
Click to expand...

No argument here... I too think keeping the -200 alive would be a smart move!
 
msturgis said:
Someone mentioned that the VPX-400 might cause someone to over look a much more suitable landing site. I fully agree with this. Putting all your faith in one option, or one "layer" is not a good thing.
Click to expand...

Matt -

We see the Runway Seeker as giving you another option in case of an emergency. Engage the Runway Seeker to get the plane stabilized and set up at best glide. If you want to go to a different airport than the one selected, you simply touch on the airport and select the runway. It will calculate a new glide path to the new runway instantly (or tell you there is no solution to that runway). If you want to land on a road or field down below, simply disconnect the autopilot or runway seeker and then fly it yourself (if the weather and type of emergency allows that).
 
MCA said:
Matt -

We see the Runway Seeker as giving you another option in case of an emergency. Engage the Runway Seeker to get the plane stabilized and set up at best glide. If you want to go to a different airport than the one selected, you simply touch on the airport and select the runway. It will calculate a new glide path to the new runway instantly (or tell you there is no solution to that runway). If you want to land on a road or field down below, simply disconnect the autopilot or runway seeker and then fly it yourself (if the weather and type of emergency allows that).
Click to expand...

Thanks Marc. That's a great feature. I agree that this technology would be very useful being another layer of safety.

One question I had, if a pilot were to be solo an some how becomes incapacitated (I saw stars from hitting my head on my friends canopy awhile back) is there any foreseeable technology that would allow the system to take control and guide the plane in? Obviously I have not seen any RVs with auto throttles, but it's an interesting concept.
 
I really like the idea of the VP200 it is a shame to discontinue it. The idea of separate control panel for soft keys/circuit breaks and EMS make important information and switches readily available with out having to go into EFIS menus as with the VPX.

The VP400 has some awesome tech in it. I can't even imagine the work that went into it. It is just the 400 is too much another EFIS and a very costly "back up EFIS" at that. The VP200 in my opinion is in another market and the 400 is no replacement. You should consider keeping both alive.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Marc

Marc, I don't know enough about either the VP-200 or the VP-400 to have an opinion on how either works and if the 200 should be kept of not. I am a low time pilot who hasn't flown PIC in many years - way before glass anything. Im still a year out from needing to decide on what I am going to put in my panel.

What I do know is that I appreciate the fact that you are looking for new technology for our planes and ways to make flying safer. All you have to do is look at the numbers -general aviation and experimental aircraft in particular have a crappy safety record. Looking closer, it isn't always the low time pilots like me that are planting themselves into the ground. Many times the same type of pilot saying here they can fly the plane themselves in an emergency, don't always make it. To be fair - most do, both low time and the experts here do make the correct choices and are able to handle about anything that happens. Sometimes they don't and their names end up is the special thread we have on the forums.

I also appreciate the business risk you are taking - the aviation business is not the easiest place to make a buck. Your products need to make you a profit. Not seeing your books, I have no idea if the 200 is profitable or if your production capacities would allow you to still produce it. It appears to be very well received by RV'ers - but we are a small group. Maybe because there are so few of us, it would be possible to do limited runs for a few more years?

To me, your new 400 is a whole lot smarter than a BRS. After just mentioning the possibility of an autopilot system that could put the plane in its best glide-slope and find the nearest airport to my wife, she thought it was a great thing. Maybe some of the spouses, friends, and others, you may want to give a ride too would be a bit more relaxed knowing that if the pilot could not control the plane for whatever reason, at least they would have a chance.

Thanks, and if I still have any money left when I get to the panel, I will be looking hard at your system. I know there are those that don't want or think they would ever need the "extra" option - and you probably lost those customers. But I think you will get others if only to help them convince their wife or girlfriend to get in the plane. Good luck with the new model.

rockwood
 
Stein is building my panel in April and I hope to be one of the first in line for VP-400...I for one can't wait and believe it will be worth every penny...
 
ABS vs the Airbag

I see the -400 as an airbag, a device to take action after the disaster has taken place.

I see the -200 as the Antiskid braking system, a device that assists preventing the disaster.

Autocheck lists, modes of flights that set and calibrate flight configurations along with procedures mean your doing it right in the first place.

It means you can catch your engine quiting because you did the check proceedure and every thing else as it should be. Your promoted to be a professional pilot rather than get in and go, like a car.

If the -400 gets all the flight modes of the -200 then OK. I feel the display is a little big for a backup EFIS, try putting that into a -7 with a G900x There ain't a lot of room there.

Still, I am more glad that Marc is doing what he is doing instead of not doing it at all.

It was a bold move and you have to appreciate the guts and commitment it takes to do that.

As far as a BRS goes. I am all for pilots knowing that if you don't get this right your dead. It perks up your dilligence, it makes you do your job. Every pilot should be able to shut off their engine and know what to do to get her down on the wheels.

Always having something that will save you sometimes can make people complacant.

But that is just how I approach my life.
 
Article on flight testing the VP-400

Ran across these 2 web pages (first page, second page) describing more of the development and flight testing (on an RV-7) of the new VP-400. Gives a much better description of what the software behind the system is trying to do.

I've used the X-plane flight sim software on my Mac for years. I had no idea that their sim expertise is what is behind the runway seeker on the VP-400.

Very cool stuff!
 
Does the guy write pulp fiction paperbacks for a living? Check out this over-the-top stuff:
Soon enough, we were airborne, and the turbulence was unlike anything I have ever felt. While my Columbia-400 would punch through the turbulence quickly with short, precise jolts that were instantly damped as the airplane held it?s footing, the light, slow little RV-7 rocked, rolled, climbed, descended, and (most annoyingly) pitched over to low or zero G as the wind lifted up and down on the tail. And, since the lightweight, less-stable little bird was moving so much slower, each upset from the turbulence lasted a much longer time. What in the Columbia would be a short jolt, with no change in heading, speed, attitude, or altitude, was in the RV-7 a 3-second long, dizzying pitch-over, with low-G, pitch change, and altitude change. After it was over, some new upset would spin the little RV-7 into some new flight path direction. On and on this went. You could really tell that the air was moving in large vortices, or swirls, that the Columbia would punch through in an instant, but would swirl the RV-7 around like a pair of underwear in a washing machine on the wash cycle.
Click to expand...
 
Buggsy2 said:
Does the guy write pulp fiction paperbacks for a living? Check out this over-the-top stuff:
Click to expand...

What a hoot! Aunty Ann, Aunty Ann, and Toto too! I love how he used the phrase "punch through" twice in the same paragraph. Ack.

According to this Columbia-400 Specs the C-300 Maximum Structural Cruising Speed is 181 kts in the neighborhood of 15gph+ with a maxmimum climb rate of 1300fpm.

My "slow little" IO-390 powered RV-8 climbs 3000fpm solo and cruses 174 kts on 11gph. Oh, and its fully aerobatic.

There something swirling around in that guy's washing machine, but I think its a load of ****... :rolleyes:
 
Dream World

Buggsy2 said:
Does the guy write pulp fiction paperbacks for a living? Check out this over-the-top stuff:
Click to expand...

I'm one of those guys who, when on an airliner, thinks you need moderate turbulance - just to keep the pilots awake.

-8A with a TruTrak ADI II autopilot. I would like to invite the dreamworld author of this piece to punch through turbulance in an RV-8A so equipped. Amazing how the AP responds. As the Tru Trak manual sez: Our AP's love turbulance.

And if I don't like it , I can Imelman, barrel roll or split S outta dodge in my acro-capable magic carpet!
 
Functionality, Safety, and Simplicity...

I am, admittedly, delayed from starting my RV-10 because life got in the way with a job/home relocation and an upcoming house build. As upset as that made me for delaying my project, I'm pleased that it allowed technology to develop and mature while I watch, learn, and make decisions. In the additional time for me to be ready to buy, the VP-400 will be matured with the flight modes and everything else people were asking for anyway. The only down-side I see is having the room for it in RV's with smaller panels. Maybe a smaller form-factor EFIS can be made (VP-400 Sport) for those customers.

Back when I talked to my wife about the idea of building a home-built airplane, her biggest requirement was that I would make it as safe as possible. I recently started showing her the Vertical Power VP-400 features and explained, "If something ever happens to me in flight, you have the ability to get down safely by yourself with some training." I think of it as both a pilot hazard insurance and a survival advantage for my family and I in a crisis situation.

I was planning a G-900 panel in the RV-10 and would want a backup EFIS anyway. Why not get the VP-400 for the functionality, simplicity, and the additional safety available for my family and I in the event something bad happens. I pay for many insurance policies, already, for all sorts of peril. This is just one more to give me and my family peace of mind.
 
We have the VP-400 working with Garmin G-900 (and TruTrak Sorcerer) on the Lancair Evolution. See it here. You'll have to do the measuring to see if it'll all fit on a -10.
 
Last edited:
VP-400 and TruTrak AP

Yesterday Marc was here at our facility in AR to get the autopilot interface working better with the Runway Seeker in the VP-400. The interface was working ok, but not great. We did some tweaking to the AP and I must say...WOW!!!

These two systems working together are very impressive. I flew with Marc a few months ago and I thought it was cool, but now that the AP can hold it EXACTLY on the desired course it is even better. No overshoot, no oscillation. What the VP-400 is asking the autopilot to do is quite a bit more than your normal run of the mill GPSS or approach, so we had to up a few gains and get a few limiters out of the way. When we did, it was so much more aggressive than the normal AP mode...I was impressed. We will be using this high rates / gains mode exclusively for the VP-400. This is so that we can provide the smoothest ride in normal conditions, but in emergency conditions we can really get with it. Of course I may just be a little biased in the autopilot direction, but what can I say. :)

Marc's poor 7 must think that we have nothing better to do than climb to altitude, cool the engine, then throttle all the way back to nothing and circle to land. Because that is what we did over and over again. I grew more impressed each time we engaged the Runway Seeker.

Cool technology, no doubt about it.
 
Wow, what a difference! Truly amazing what your engineers can do! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top