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.