S

Spindrift

Well Known Member
I'm in the midst of planning my night VFR panel (with future upgrages to IFR once flying) and am fairly convinced the the Vertical Power VP-50 might be a good option. A bit more expensive perhaps, but for someone a bit intimidated by the whole electrical system, it seems like a good option. I've searched the forums including the debates on CB vs fuses, read Aerolectric Connection, but am looking for some opinions from those with either direct experience, or a whole lot more education in the realm of electronics.

Here's a summary of what I'm planning:
AFS 3500EE or Advanced Deck
TruTrak ADI Pilot II
Garmin 396 in Airgizmos deck
SL40
GTX 327
Duckworks Taxi & landing lights
Vans Lighting system 6
Panel lights
Heated seats (if feasible)
Aux Power

Thanks,
 
I have the VP-50 mounted in my RV-4 and it is working great. I am putting the VP-100 in my RV-6a with just about the same equipment list as you showed except I am using Trio AP and Garmin 496. The VP-50 should work fine for it too.
Heres a blog with some of my installation steps.
 
I can't speak for the VP-50, but I do have the EXP Bus in my -4 with the following setup:

GRT Sport EFIS
GRT EIS 4000
Electric Flaps
Electric Fuel Pump & Primer Solenoid
Landing Light
Taxi Light
Position Lights
Wingtip Strobes
Pitot Heat
Trio AP (Roll and Altitude)
Garmin 430W
Icom A210I COMM
KMA24 Audio Panel
GTX 327 TXPND
Intercom
Electric T&B
Chrono/G Meter/Volt meter
Panel Light Strip (LED)
and a couple of AUX 12V plugs.

I'm also running the backup battery option on what I consider critical instruments. It has done everything I expect from it.

110 hours and 20 months with no issues.

I respect the heck out of Bob Nuckols, but the ease of wiring and flexibility of this type of system is worth a bunch more than Bob gives credit for.

The VP-50 offers a number of additional functions than the EXP Bus, many of which I can duplicate with EFIS, etc. I won't comment on whether it's worth the extra $1200, but there is a definite value to the concept.
 
Spindrift said:
I'm in the midst of planning my night VFR panel (with future upgrages to IFR once flying) and am fairly convinced the the Vertical Power VP-50 might be a good option. A bit more expensive perhaps, but for someone a bit intimidated by the whole electrical system, it seems like a good option. I've searched the forums including the debates on CB vs fuses, read Aerolectric Connection, but am looking for some opinions from those with either direct experience, or a whole lot more education in the realm of electronics.

Here's a summary of what I'm planning:
AFS 3500EE or Advanced Deck
TruTrak ADI Pilot II
Garmin 396 in Airgizmos deck
SL40
GTX 327
Duckworks Taxi & landing lights
Vans Lighting system 6
Panel lights
Heated seats (if feasible)
Aux Power

Thanks,
Click to expand...

With the exception of the SL40, and the heated seats, we have about the same setup. I'm still in the planning stages but I'd have to say the VP-50 is saving time by not having a bunch of real estate taken up with CBs and busses.

I do think it's a tight squeeze for "pins', even with my relatively spartan setup. I kind of wish I had the money for a VP-100, but I don't.

My load planning worksheet is on the blog if you'd like to look. Of course, i keep stumbling on stuff I forgot to add (like the lighting for the 327, I'll probably put it on an aux bus).
 
Thanks for the thoughts. Is anyone flying behind the VP-50? Any reliability issues? I've assured my wife that I'm not particularly interested in 'experimenting' despite the fact that the RV is classified as experimental, so I want to be sure what I'm planning is proven.

Thanks,
 
Installed VP-100

I've just finished installing a VP-100 in my RV-9A. I would highly recommend the VP products. Everything works great and it is very easy to program and customize. There serveral new features coming including wig-wag of landing lights, adustable flap settings and built-in dimming features as a software upgrade. The VP eliminates the need for a lot of other relays and devices that you would normally install from the stick or trim motors. I think the folks at VP have some of the best customer service in this industry. They've always got back to me right way to answer any technical questions. I've got back-up circuits for an IFR ship but for VFR you could easily handle a full electrical failure as long as you have at least one standard mag. There are plenty of other mechanical things on an airplane that can fail that I would be more worried about. It's about time that the electrial systems on GA airplanes are being moderized.
 
I was intrigued with the VP-50 and -100. The -200 is overkill for me in both features and budget

However, the one thing I couldn't get over, was the placement of the Switch/Display unit. Because the switches and the display unit are all integrated, it seemed kind of awkward to me as to where i would place it.

For example, the switches are normally located near the bottom of a panel. However, warning lights and such are normally located near the top of a panel. Unlike with Goldilocks, putting it in the middle of the panel doesn't seem right, either!?!?

Curious, how did other -50 or -100 users resolved this placement dilemma?
 
I just posted some photos of my recently finished panel with a VP-100. I put it below the radio stack and it seemed to work out well and easy to reach. Because of the mounting bracket arrangement and to have adequate support around the flange I left a gap between the bottom of the transponder and top of VP control head. I think this works out better and looks better since it's not the same thickness as the radios. Check this link to see the photos.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=1743&page=27
 
I have a feeling that someday the momentary up/down switches on the control unit can be used for flaps (and I think they now can be used for trim, tho I have manual trim). So I'm locating it in a spot where I can reach it while still keeping my hand on the throttle.
 
Overkill?

I appreciate that some people are intimidated by electrics, and that products like the VP series appear to offer a way out, I cannot justify the expense over one or two fuse panels and some switches.

I realize that the VP series does a huge amount of smart stuff that you will have to do with a fuse and switch set-up, but at what cost? In a VFR airplane it should be possible to fly without any electricity, should it all go wrong. The VP-series is run by software so will not be foolproof, so should not be relied up to provide IFR safety.

I'm not knocking Vertical Power's products, from what I have seen they are well engineered and well made. Sure, if I had a huge budget I might install a VP-something - but I haven't, and I have figured out why I just can't live without one. Electrics are not that difficult, my vote is for fuses and switches.

Pete
 
jchang10 said:
Mark... wow, very nice work going into your panel. I see your VP-100. I'll have to think about it some more.

I notice a lot more people using the same type of layout where left to right you have the EFIS, GPS MAP, then radio stack.

Here's my current mock-up, just to see if 2 EFIS screens would fit.

http://www.jline.com/log/aviation/build/avionics/panel/photos/IMG_1598.html
Click to expand...


I think the VP control head would work nice under your radio stack. I'm assuming that you'll be using your left hand on the stick so you'd be able to access the switches with your right hand. Keep in mind that you may have to modify ribs if you keep the EFIS up high. And of course the radio stack has to be located in just the right spot to miss the ribs. I spent a lot of time designing panel to avoid such modifications.

Per the other comment, yes the VP does add a lot to the cost but eliminates a lot of other wiring and hardware that may be required. No relays required for stick connection, no runaway trim circuit boards, no flap position circuit boards, no external wig-wag light circuits and so on. As far as IFR I have a few back-up circuits wired in for that. Not to mention that the EFIS, ADI and GPS have battery back-up. One other advantange for me is that the panel is easily removed. This will be a big benefit when I get ready to rivet the top skin on. In my case it's so busy behind the panel I don't know how the rivets could be possibly installed otherwise. Since all the power wiring doesn't go to the back of the panel it made it easy to design the panel to be removed. I think there's a lot of other things to worry about failing that make for a more serious in-flight emergency besides the VP unit.

Good luck with your panel design.
 
penguin said:
I appreciate that some people are intimidated by electrics, and that products like the VP series appear to offer a way out, I cannot justify the expense over one or two fuse panels and some switches.

I realize that the VP series does a huge amount of smart stuff that you will have to do with a fuse and switch set-up, but at what cost?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the counterpoint, Pete. My hope is to one day upgrade my panel to IFR once the budget allows, so I'm already planning for backups. That said, the reason for the nervousness is I've got this one set of low voltage lights in my house that randomly cuts out every few months. Since I did the wiring, each time it happens, my wife says, "that's why the airplane makes me nervous." :confused:

Obviously the VP system isn't a panacea for all things electrical, and the fact that only a few are flying judging from the responses, I'm still skeptical. But 1500 bucks isn't that bad if it helps ensure proper wiring.
 
Spindrift said:
Obviously the VP system isn't a panacea for all things electrical, and the fact that only a few are flying judging from the responses, I'm still skeptical. But 1500 bucks isn't that bad if it helps ensure proper wiring.
Click to expand...

I think there are a couple of reasons why folks choose the VP systems. One is the desire for automation, the other is (frankly put) fear of wiring. I am hardly one to throw stones at people who don't keep their airplanes simple (I have FOUR GPS's in the Val for instance, all of which talk to each other), but I do think that you have to understand the puts and takes of everything that you install. Automation can come at the cost of understanding - if you fully understand what it is doing, how it can fail, and how to work around it, then you're doing well. But if you are used to making an old Ford truck work with a screwdriver and bailing wire, and can't stand the fact that when you open the hood on a new one, you can't even find the coil, then you need to ask yourself if you want a complex (but automated system).

As to "fear of wiring" - you still have to run all your wires to the VP unit. they all have to be hooked up correctly. If you can run wires, and hook them up correctly according to a drawing, then you can wire a simple system as well as a complex system. if you can't then you have a good learning experience ahead, no matter which way you go.

Capable, redundant systems do not have to be "complex". I believe in the engineering doctrine that the fewest number of parts necessary to do the job is best - the less things there are to fail, the more robust the system.

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.