Electical System Intergation

[RTI]

I would like to see who else wants Vectical power XP in Skyview!  
It is a buy/No buy consideration for me!

 

[PhantomPholly]

I think this has been discussed before.

If you have the backup battery, you will not lose your EFIS if you lose the electrical bus.  Thus, Vertical Power is somewhat moot for an EFIS.

In most home-built aircraft, there aren't enough distinct electrical items to make Vertical Power an "essential item."  But don't mind me, it's your plane - do what makes you happiest!

 

[swaneymj]

I don't think that was RTI's question.  The problem is that Vertical Power's VP-X (I think that's what was meant by Vectical power XP) requires an EFIS to integrate with.  GRT, AFS and MGL have, or are working on, software releases to support the VP-X.  The response from Dynon appears to be that  they'll get to it when they have the other functions working.  I don't find fault with that, but it's driving me to use the VP-50 or VP-100 as a stand-alone unit rather than integrated with Skyview.  Timing is everything!

 

[jakej]

"Timing is everything!"

The same could be said for redundancy

Jake J

 

[mmarien]

I like the idea of programable circuits with smarts but the VP system was overkill for my project when I first looked at it and I didn't have the panel space to add another display. I also looked at a number of polyfuse systems but they on the other hand were too limited in both number of circuits and flexibility. I ended up with a standard breaker panel and rocker switches as I had full control over the design. I may look at the VP-X if Dynon comes up with some intergration.

It's still a hard choice. The Skyview already has the ability to detect and display if a circuit is drawing power when a switch is on and display the flap and trim position, etc. And it's easy enough to disable the starter when the engine is running and mimic a number of the other features offered with the VP-X with simple wiring. But it would be nice to press the "airborne" button on the Skyview display and have the VP-X switch the transponder to ALT, turn the landing lights off and the flaps up. Or better yet, do it automatically when it detects that you are airborne and have enough speed. Maybe that is pushing it, but selecting a flap position with the Skyview joystick might be handly. Integrated features like that would convince me to replace the breaker panel and toggle switches with a VP-X system.

 

[vlittle]

I like the idea of programable circuits with smarts but the VP system was overkill for my project when I first looked at it and I didn't have the panel space to add another display. I also looked at a number of polyfuse systems but they on the other hand were too limited in both number of circuits and flexibility. I ended up with a standard breaker panel and rocker switches as I had full control over the design. I may look at the VP-X if Dynon comes up with some intergration.

It's still a hard choice. The Skyview already has the ability to detect and display if a circuit is drawing power when a switch is on and display the flap and trim position, etc. And it's easy enough to disable the starter when the engine is running and mimic a number of the other features offered with the VP-X with simple wiring. But it would be nice to press the "airborne" button on the Skyview display and have the VP-X switch the transponder to ALT, turn the landing lights off and the flaps up. Or better yet, do it automatically when it detects that you are airborne and have enough speed. Maybe that is pushing it, but selecting a flap position with the Skyview joystick might be handly. Integrated features like that would convince me to replace the breaker panel and toggle switches with a VP-X system.

In my opinion, an aircraft should inform the pilot who then makes all of the configuration decisions. Automatic decisions by a piece of hardware/software often have unintended consequences.

For example, an "Airborne" function that configures the transponder sounds fine until you are flying formation, where wingmen need to have their transponders OFF or STBY. Or, if the button is accidentally pushed and the flaps or gear automatically actuate.

Emergency situations rarely are predictible and I don't like the wrong brain making the decision for me. It's switches and relays for me, along with a bit of wiring for interlocks and such. For example, my starter pushbutton will be on my stick grip. To prevent accidental operation, it is only active when my Master switch is in the BATT position and not the ALT position. This provides a simple interlock that is 100% pilot controlled.

I have a flap overspeed warning system of my own design that provides a polite audio reminder when Vfe is exceed and the flaps are not retracted. I can choose to ignore it or take action, but it's my choice.

And so on. I don't want to fly an Airbus!

Vern

 

[jakej]

Well said - for 95 % of pilots ;D

Jake J

 

[mmarien]

I agree. Since 95% of accidents are pilot error there is not a lot of reason to allow the system add it's 5% to make that a 100% error rate.

I'm having a difficult time understanding why a switch and relay guy would be perusing the Skyview system as it's all about automation. There isn't a thing on the Skyview display that hasn't been manipulated by the computer before the results are presented to the user. If I didn't trust it to turn the transponder to ALT I think I'd be looking out the window to verify the altitude and air speed - or at least duplicate everything with analog gauges. Check my panel and see if you can spot the analog gauges:

On a more serious note, there is nothing wrong with manually configuring the controls on queue if you prefer it that way. To be sure, when I become airborne, I would verify that the transponder was in ALT mode, the flaps were retracted and the landing lights were off. I'd be overiding the transponder if it switched to ALT and I didn't want it in that mode. It would be no different then verifying that the AP had indeed reached the altitude I asked for and that it was on the correct course. Trust but verify. I just wouldn't have to do everything manually and have more time to watch for traffic and enjoy the flight. Are my expectations out of line?

 

[jeffa]

The key to this thread and many others that I have started or been involved with, is what the customer (us) wants.  Many of us like the Skyview system AND the VP-X, but unless our friends at Dynon enable them to communicate, we may be forced to go elsewhere.  We could weigh the pros and cons of the electronic (automated) nature of the VP-X all day, but the fact is that many of us want to use both systems, if Dynon allows.

 

[vlittle]

...I'm having a difficult time understanding why a switch and relay guy would be perusing the Skyview system as it's all about automation. There isn't a thing on the Skyview display that hasn't been manipulated by the computer before the results are presented to the user. If I didn't trust it to turn the transponder to ALT I think I'd be looking out the window to verify the altitude and air speed - or at least duplicate everything with analog gauges...

Two answers to this:
1) In formation flight, many operations are done by feel because switch positions are memorized.  The ability to use switches with their tactile feedback is superior to a menu-driven controller.

2)The probability of failure depends on the architecture.  With discrete hardware, the probability of failure, per circuit, is the probability that a breaker, switch, relay, load or the wire fails.  There is no overlap between circuits.  In a VP type systems, the probability of failure is determined by the failure rate of the internal components, plus the wire and load ...and... software!  In addition, unless carefully engineered there are many single-point failure modes that propagate to *all* circuits.  External backups can be put in place to prevent this, but then you might as well have a switch & relay architecture to begin with.

The VP stuff is very well executed and I've hear good reports from users, it just seems like overkill for a small airplane, in my opinion.  I can't see how it makes flying significantly more enjoyable or safe. It does add a touch of class, is certainly easier to wire and probably similar in cost to a discrete design when everything is factored in.

Vern

 

[mmarien]

Good points, but consider this:

When I toggle the switch for the landing light, the light turns on or off - discrete component or integrated components (alternator/battery/breaker/switch/light) with a single function. It works well for what it was designed for.

I wired my GPS495 to my iCOM 210 radio and to the SkyView. When I execute a GOTO (or route) on the 495, the COM frequencies for the destination show up in the iCOM standby channels ready for recall and the course is displayed on SV HSI - an example of highly integrated components with automation. It also works well. I could still use them as separate components, but I guess I just like the automation that technology gives us. Maybe I'm power hungry or just a geek.

In either case, I look forward to being able to integrate the VP-X system (or something similar) into my panel and see what it can do.

 

[Grayhawk]

Add me to the list of those who would like to use SkyView AND VP-X, but cannot right now.