VP-X Pro failed.. Arggg

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by RandyAB

Are conformal coatings easy to retro apply?

As mentioned, you should have experience with this and know where and more importantly, where not to apply it.

Unless it's machine applied after the board is loaded and baked (usually sprayed on), we prefer the brush-on stuff. Easier to get where you want it without masking and can be applied much thicker if desired.

Of course, proper soldering is much more important and I've seen some of that which isn't so good and was missed by QC as well (if there is any real QC process).

[Brantel]

Originally Posted by FasGlas

There are two different configuration programs. One online and the other in Windows. They do different functions. The one online sets up the pin out wiring and labeling, etc. The windows stand alone is for loading, testing and adjusting the VP-X.

You don?t have to use the Web based planner tool. It is optional. All config can be done from the standalone configuration program.

[cjensen]

Originally Posted by rv6ejguy

As mentioned, you should have experience with this and know where and more importantly, where not to apply it.

Unless it's machine applied after the board is loaded and baked (usually sprayed on), we prefer the brush-on stuff. Easier to get where you want it without masking and can be applied much thicker if desired.

Of course, proper soldering is much more important and I've seen some of that which isn't so good and was missed by QC as well (if there is any real QC process).

Hi Ross,

Conformal coating is high on my list of upgrades for the VP-X. The PPS has taken an EXTRAORDINARY amount of time and resources of the last 4 years (Ugh...I hate saying that out loud or typing it), but with that product going to production in February, I'm hoping that we can take a renewed look and focus on VP-X upgrades this year.

All soldering (all of VP-X construction) has been upgraded to meet ISO 9001 and ASI 9100 QC standards since it is built in the same facility as other certified products. Conformal coating, while not required, would be a fantastic addition to the current VP-X QC standards and I'm hopeful it will happen this year.

Before anyone asks...I have no idea how retrofitting CC would work, but I'd be happy to find out.

[cjensen]

Originally Posted by Brantel

You don’t have to use the Web based planner tool. It is optional. All config can be done from the standalone configuration program.

Absolutely true...web planner is not required (none of the OEM or panel builders use the web planner as far as I am aware of).

I am also hoping that we can move away from Ethernet and PC only configurator applications in the near future.

My list is long, but distinguished.

[keitht]

I thought back to the comments expressed in earlier posts regarding reliability of automotive power distribution and fuse systems and that led me off on a bit of a loop reflecting on the old technology, the current technology and potential availability and adaptability of electric vehicle (EV) technology to experimental aircraft.
Adapting automotive components to our needs has appeal - development costs are ammortized over a large production base, reliability, performance and product cost are primary considerations. Additionally there are requirements to meet a harsh environment. Production batch sizes are large so production variability is well controlled. Developmental and qualification testing is focussed and well funded and there is a strong motivation to get the right people, the right resources and the necessary experience and structure to the program to be succesful.
A developmental program that took 4 years to bring a relatively simple power management component to a production launch probably resulted in a lot of soul searching and a determination to do better in the future - a serious learning experience. That data point doesn?t bode well for the initial post launch success of the product and certainly raises a number of interesting questions that would be difficult to answer in the presence of the customer base.
In a past world that I escaped from there would have been a post mortem examination and not just the program would have been on the table.

For the time being,at least, I will stick with the simple clunky solenoid technology.

KT

[RandyAB]

Originally Posted by cjensen

...Conformal coating is high on my list of upgrades for the VP-X.......

Good to know Chad. I hope that it is sooner rather than later.

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by keitht

A developmental program that took 4 years to bring a relatively simple power management component to a production launch probably resulted in a lot of soul searching and a determination to do better in the future - a serious learning experience. That data point doesn’t bode well for the initial post launch success of the product and certainly raises a number of interesting questions that would be difficult to answer in the presence of the customer base.


KT

I don't think it's valid to assume all companies involved in Experimental electronics development and manufacturing have the resources of a large automotive OEM. In fact, none do, save maybe Garmin.

While development of a new product is underway, the company still has to manufacture, market, support and ship the existing design to keep money coming in the door. Manpower may be limited.

Testing often uncovers problems in a new design which will result in multiple re-designs and more testing to validate both hardware and software changes.

Taking a while to get a new product to market may mean that lots of testing was done to arrive at a more reliable device in the end rather than pointing to anything wrong. Long term testing and validation is the mark of a good development project in my view.

We learn from failure- hopefully not in the hands of customers though...

[C-GRVT]

I am sure there is a story behind why the development of the power distribution system has taken four years. Absent particular knowledge of the reasons it seems unfair speculation to suggest that this does not bode well for initial post-launch success and discussions that would not wish to be held in the presence of the customer base.
My dealings with both Marc Ausman and Chad Jensen - I have installed a VP-X in my RV-6A - left me with a great deal of confidence in the knowledge and integrity behind the VP-X product.
Research and development of alternatives to the existing technology and taking on the not inconsiderable financial risks that must be involved in doing so are to be applauded by our community.
Bill

[keitht]

I think you may be reading too much into my post. I really am a true believer in the technology especially when I see data. The data sets you free. No need for speculation or guessing - there is a solid basis for making a decision. Cost is a factor but not at the top of the list. If there was a compelling technical reason to go with an electronic power management system I would go for it. Engineering data is one thing we are sorely lacking in regard to the VP-X system. I am not expecting to see intellectual property data or anything close - just predicted reliability and probability of critical failures to compare to a conventional CB system. Of course the same expectation (may be more so) would apply to a power isolation and management system unit since the risk of total power loss may be greater. I have no experience with the VP-X or VP and you may indeed be right that they are great people and have a great product but in the absence of supporting data the jury is out and what little data there is doesn't give me confidence that I wouldn't be a part of their customer development team if I installed their equipment.
KT

[Brantel]

Keith,

What your asking for typically does not exist or is not shared with customers in the experimental aviation business. Would be nice if it was sometimes but it is what it is.