Well, I’m just about fed up with the ARNAV. Luckily(?), I now have another 3 months to wait for my SR22. Here is my plan.
-
Wait and see what ARNAV/CD come up with.
-
If the answer is nothing, which I think it will be, look at the UPSAT MX20 and Avidyne Flightmax as replacements.
-
If all works with those displays for compatibility, swap out the ARNAV for one of them. (Without much knowledge, I am leaning towards the UPSAT.) Use the additional real estate to place a JPI on the top left of the new display (they are considerably smaller so I should have the room) and I should still have some space on the top right and to the right of the new display for future enhancements.
I am less concerned about getting the stormscope interphase as that should work with the Sandel HSI.
I think this will solve two problems. First it gets a more useful display and, secondly, it frees up space for the JPI. My concerns are:
-
Is this a case of more money than Brains?
-
What about the checklists? I’m sure I can go to paper with no loss of functionallity.
I will be happy to work with CD on any conversions.
Marty SR22 # 20 and waiting.
Marty,
I’m a year behind you on the list, April '02, but wouldbe willing to approach CD or anyone else to talk about an alternative “configuration” My guess is a lot of other buyers would too.
It seems to me a natrual way for CD to go , actually. A lot of time has been spent here writing about what the next plane should be. I, for one, believe that the next “idea” to work its way into CD should be more customizable avionics. I realize that at present there maybe costs involved that make this prohibitive. But in the future, my gut is that “choose your own cockpits” will be a very marketable feature. Afterall, we all have our preferences. I know guys who swear by Bendix/King…etc.
Dean
I’m waiting for SR22 #69 and couldn’t agree more. As someone moving up to a Cirrus from a large twin (a Duke) I’m very interested in carefully monitoring my single and therefore very valuable engine. I had expected the ARNAV unit to have engine monitoring available but ARNAV simply doesn’t seem interested in supporting the system.
With the originally planned Trimble units the ARNAV made sense, but with two 430s and a Sandel it seems like we have all the graphic navigational support we need. Add to that the fact that stormscope and TCAS data can also be displayed on the HSI and the ARNAV unit is really redundant. What would be useful is engine monitoring and, possibly terrain avoidance.
ARNAV really dropped the ball. Perhaps Cirrus could pressure them to shape up by certifying a different MFD.
Well, I’m just about fed up with the ARNAV. Luckily(?), I now have another 3 months to wait for my SR22. Here is my plan.
- Wait and see what ARNAV/CD come up with.
- If the answer is nothing, which I think it will be, look at the UPSAT MX20 and Avidyne Flightmax as replacements.
- If all works with those displays for compatibility, swap out the ARNAV for one of them. (Without much knowledge, I am leaning towards the UPSAT.) Use the additional real estate to place a JPI on the top left of the new display (they are considerably smaller so I should have the room) and I should still have some space on the top right and to the right of the new display for future enhancements.
I am less concerned about getting the stormscope interphase as that should work with the Sandel HSI.
I think this will solve two problems. First it gets a more useful display and, secondly, it frees up space for the JPI. My concerns are:
- Is this a case of more money than Brains?
- What about the checklists? I’m sure I can go to paper with no loss of functionallity.
I will be happy to work with CD on any conversions.
Marty SR22 # 20 and waiting.
- Is this a case of more money than Brains?
- What about the checklists? I’m sure I can go to paper with no loss of functionallity.
- This probably is a lot of money, but something like the MX20 makes clear what the Arnav lacks. This is one of the areas where Cirrus is left with “early adopter” legacy problems – Arnav was there when they began production, and Arnav was probably expected to get better a lot faster than they’ve done. But think how much further Cirrus would be behind in deliveries if they’d waited for MX20.
2)As someone else has mentioned, the Wings Aloft plastic-coated checklist is great. I never use the ones on the Arnav.
Count in my vote (SR22 #44 for May of '02) as I am very underwhelmed with the ARNAV after 200+ hours in my SR20. See my comments in a couple of threads below. (Actually, I was underwhelmed after about 5 hours.
Re checklists: It doesn’t make sense to change from the (excellent) Wings Aloft laminated checklists to the screen once the avionics is switched on and I am certainly not going to fiddle around with the ARNAV to bring up emergency checklists, as I have 'm turned to the right paper page already…
Performance stuff and all that I can easily find in the POH (also when the lights are out…).
Perhaps we should count the noses and make one voice to CD about dumping the ARNAV’s on the '22, replacing it with XXX plus bonus real estate. I hear good vibes on the glassy stuff in the Lancair. That runs some flavor of Windows.
Anyone from Cirrus on the frequency??
HK (N144CD)
Marty,
I’m a year behind you on the list, April '02, but wouldbe willing to approach CD or anyone else to talk about an alternative “configuration” My guess is a lot of other buyers would too.
It seems to me a natrual way for CD to go , actually. A lot of time has been spent here writing about what the next plane should be. I, for one, believe that the next “idea” to work its way into CD should be more customizable avionics. I realize that at present there maybe costs involved that make this prohibitive. But in the future, my gut is that “choose your own cockpits” will be a very marketable feature. Afterall, we all have our preferences. I know guys who swear by Bendix/King…etc.
Dean
Jerrold:
Great ideas! My vote would be to make space in the avionics stack for a Garmin 530 as the top unit and use a smaller MFD in the center panel space. I am not sure re. the dimensions, but if a couple of inches could be picked up in the avionics stack that would be all that would be needed to substitute the Garmen 530 for the top 430.
I would also like to see the 6 light annunciator unit moved out of the area on top of the artificial horizion and airspeed indicator. Cirrus has mounted the STec selector/alerter above the altimeter in a 1/2 3" ATI standard mounting. There would be room for two additional 1/2 3" ATI instruments, a Trimble radar altimeter and the Insight air data computer. These could then go over the artificial horizion and the airspeed indicators, respectively.
What are the dimensions of the competing MFD’s and would there be enough room left for the Garmin 530?
One point of correction: according to email which I have received from Sandel, they have no intention of interfacting with either the Ryan TCAS or the BFGoodrich Skywatch units. There is a hardare connection on the Sandel for radar altitude but Sandel has abandoned putting radar altitude on its display or, apparantly, DA (DH) annunciation. The Stormscope interface is in place now. Actually, the absence of the collision avoidance display on the Sandel indicates that a Garmin 530 with it’s bigger display and the ability to display collision avoidance data is even a better option.
As to engine monitoring, Arnav says they are working on the software. I haven’t had any recent communication from them. I think it is a Mr. Glazier (sp?) up there that is the contact person.
It seems to me that with an appropriate MFD that the engine monitoring should be able to be accomplished with the MFD without going to another separate unit for which no mounting space would be available anyway.
I have SR22 #144. Hope you guys get this all worked out before I take delivery!
I’m waiting for SR22 #69 and couldn’t agree more. As someone moving up to a Cirrus from a large twin (a Duke) I’m very interested in carefully monitoring my single and therefore very valuable engine. I had expected the ARNAV unit to have engine monitoring available but ARNAV simply doesn’t seem interested in supporting the system.
With the originally planned Trimble units the ARNAV made sense, but with two 430s and a Sandel it seems like we have all the graphic navigational support we need. Add to that the fact that stormscope and TCAS data can also be displayed on the HSI and the ARNAV unit is really redundant. What would be useful is engine monitoring and, possibly terrain avoidance.
ARNAV really dropped the ball. Perhaps Cirrus could pressure them to shape up by certifying a different MFD.
Well, I’m just about fed up with the ARNAV. Luckily(?), I now have another 3 months to wait for my SR22. Here is my plan.
- Wait and see what ARNAV/CD come up with.
- If the answer is nothing, which I think it will be, look at the UPSAT MX20 and Avidyne Flightmax as replacements.
- If all works with those displays for compatibility, swap out the ARNAV for one of them. (Without much knowledge, I am leaning towards the UPSAT.) Use the additional real estate to place a JPI on the top left of the new display (they are considerably smaller so I should have the room) and I should still have some space on the top right and to the right of the new display for future enhancements.
I am less concerned about getting the stormscope interphase as that should work with the Sandel HSI.
I think this will solve two problems. First it gets a more useful display and, secondly, it frees up space for the JPI. My concerns are:
- Is this a case of more money than Brains?
- What about the checklists? I’m sure I can go to paper with no loss of functionallity.
I will be happy to work with CD on any conversions.
Marty SR22 # 20 and waiting.
I’m waiting for SR22 #69 and couldn’t agree more. As someone moving up to a Cirrus from a large twin (a Duke) I’m very interested in carefully monitoring my single and therefore very valuable engine. I had expected the ARNAV unit to have engine monitoring available but ARNAV simply doesn’t seem interested in supporting the system.
With the originally planned Trimble units the ARNAV made sense, but with two 430s and a Sandel it seems like we have all the graphic navigational support we need. Add to that the fact that stormscope and TCAS data can also be displayed on the HSI and the ARNAV unit is really redundant. What would be useful is engine monitoring and, possibly terrain avoidance.
ARNAV really dropped the ball. Perhaps Cirrus could pressure them to shape up by certifying a different MFD.
Well, I’m just about fed up with the ARNAV. Luckily(?), I now have another 3 months to wait for my SR22. Here is my plan.
- Wait and see what ARNAV/CD come up with.
- If the answer is nothing, which I think it will be, look at the UPSAT MX20 and Avidyne Flightmax as replacements.
- If all works with those displays for compatibility, swap out the ARNAV for one of them. (Without much knowledge, I am leaning towards the UPSAT.) Use the additional real estate to place a JPI on the top left of the new display (they are considerably smaller so I should have the room) and I should still have some space on the top right and to the right of the new display for future enhancements.
I am less concerned about getting the stormscope interphase as that should work with the Sandel HSI.
I think this will solve two problems. First it gets a more useful display and, secondly, it frees up space for the JPI. My concerns are:
- Is this a case of more money than Brains?
- What about the checklists? I’m sure I can go to paper with no loss of functionallity.
I will be happy to work with CD on any conversions.
Marty SR22 # 20 and waiting.
I sent email to arnav they replyed asap.said taht engine moniter is now availble in certified aircraft now i dont know if that means cirus plane already deliverd.Also they said it will be availble in second qurter it seems it is handed off to cirus.I want to call if i am due in what was may now whenever i would like this itim i will call alison tomorrow.I think maybe all there eferts are prodution and hard to incopewrate new itims In would like to have it if it does not slow down our deliverys.From Don
Jerrold,
I agree with your assessment regarding Arnav. They need to step up to the plate and deliver on the product.
Regarding TCAS and stormscope on the Sandel/430. I have a friend with a new Bonanza with a 530, 430, and a Sandel complete with a Stormscope and TCAS. The stormscope displays fine on the 530, but the 430 screen is a bit small. I would much prefer this on the Arnav.
The Sandel is too small, IMHO, to properly display the TCAS info. The Bonanza has a seperate head (but also displays on the 530). When the system calls an audible alert, you can IMMEDIATELY glance at the TCAS head without needing to filter out other data. So you are down and then out looking (btw, things pop in and out on TCAS all the time. So even if you are 5 miles ‘ahead of the game’ - good luck in the real world.) The size of the Arnav makes this much more viable.
Chris
I’m waiting for SR22 #69 and couldn’t agree more. As someone moving up to a Cirrus from a large twin (a Duke) I’m very interested in carefully monitoring my single and therefore very valuable engine. I had expected the ARNAV unit to have engine monitoring available but ARNAV simply doesn’t seem interested in supporting the system.
With the originally planned Trimble units the ARNAV made sense, but with two 430s and a Sandel it seems like we have all the graphic navigational support we need. Add to that the fact that stormscope and TCAS data can also be displayed on the HSI and the ARNAV unit is really redundant. What would be useful is engine monitoring and, possibly terrain avoidance.
ARNAV really dropped the ball. Perhaps Cirrus could pressure them to shape up by certifying a different MFD.
Well, I’m just about fed up with the ARNAV. Luckily(?), I now have another 3 months to wait for my SR22. Here is my plan.
- Wait and see what ARNAV/CD come up with.
- If the answer is nothing, which I think it will be, look at the UPSAT MX20 and Avidyne Flightmax as replacements.
- If all works with those displays for compatibility, swap out the ARNAV for one of them. (Without much knowledge, I am leaning towards the UPSAT.) Use the additional real estate to place a JPI on the top left of the new display (they are considerably smaller so I should have the room) and I should still have some space on the top right and to the right of the new display for future enhancements.
I am less concerned about getting the stormscope interphase as that should work with the Sandel HSI.
I think this will solve two problems. First it gets a more useful display and, secondly, it frees up space for the JPI. My concerns are:
- Is this a case of more money than Brains?
- What about the checklists? I’m sure I can go to paper with no loss of functionallity.
I will be happy to work with CD on any conversions.
Marty SR22 # 20 and waiting.
I was hoping that you could put a MX20 and a Garmin 530 where the ARNAV is – but I think the space available would not allow that. – But what you could do is to move the audio panel and the transponder (and possibly the autopilot) to above the MX20 in place of the ARNAV and put a 530 in the center column stack above the 430.