Jim, good to run across you in Niagra Falls! (two sr22s landing within a minute in NW NY!!).
(before I left on Friday, as I held short, SR20 landed in front of me in Ocean City, NJ; and upon arrival Jim F.'s SR22 landed in front of me in Niagra).
As I read the forum, and work with the airplane alot (everyday since I picked it up 2.5 weeks ago.); I think the arnav engine monitoring is not the way to go, but rather ‘replacing’ several of the instruments on the right. Over the next week, I am going to look at the JPIs, Insights etc.; but would ask the forum, what is their thinking of this versus Arnav. (a few of have used both for a while).
I think the request for added terrain awareness would be complemented by adding full approach plates.
Cheers to all, I love my new SR22.
Robert, very useful report, thanks. Here are some thoughts about it – and about the 22 itself. While my 20 was in Duluth getting half a dozen little glitches fixed, and a GPSS upgrade for the autopilot, I had the chance to do extensive demo flying in the 22. Various observations:
- On the Arnav, I completely agree that the more you’ve used it, the more valuable you’re likely to find it. The large screen, and the convenient placement, make it tremendously valuable for orientation. Of course the Garmin 430s are great, but I rely most of the time on the Arnav for the big-picture of what’s going on.
Going around some thunderstorm areas, I found the stormscope display a big plus. Dream would be real-time radar overlays too.
- Met some Arnav people at Oshkosh, and agree that they had a friendly, open, what-can-we-do-to-improve attitude. I HOPE this continues to be reflected in product – “continues” reflecting the existence of engine monitoring.
- The MAIN Arnav improvement I’d like to see, as I told the guys at Oshkosh, was a pretty obvious one: an ability to display something like a sectional chart, with relative elevations. The Garmins don’t do this at all. The point-elevations on the Arnav are a help (except for the strange cases where they’re inaccurate). But sectional display would be tremendous. Eg: I was flying out of Casper, Wyoming, toward Duluth, and had to thread my way through a lot of valleys. I had a sectional on my lap (as I usually do) to see where the valleys were, but it would have been nice to see them, not just the highest peaks, on Arnav.
- Engine monitoring sounds great, and I’ll probably sign up too. BUT I think it’s of more compelling practical importance with the 22 than the 20, simply because (segue to SR22 section) fuel consumption is so much greater in the 22. With the 20, I almost never run short of fuel before I have to land for some other reason (passsengers need relief). I found fuel management more of an issue with the 22.
- 22 impressions: Fast!! But even more dramatic, IT CAN CLIMB!!! If I were going to continue to be based in the West, I’d look for some way to afford it. Not a HINT of overheating problems on fast cimbs with heavy loads on hot days.
- Operations on the 22: slightly more complex, for obvious reasons (rudder trim; manual leaning). It seems to me that it requires about 5kts higher speed in the approach to feel comfortable – 85kts slowing to 80, rather than 80kts slowing to 75 with the SR20. Otherwise, no different or harder to operate, I thought. To my surprise, slowing down from 175-kt cruise seemed a non-issue. With a power cut and holding altitude, it slowed right down.
Thanks for the report, jim f.
I’ve been flying with the EMM-35 for about 45 hours now, and visited Arnav a few days ago, and thought I’d share some things I learned and give some opinions.
- Despite the installation hassles, I’m really glad I have the EMM-35. I normally run LOP and figure the EMM-35 will pay for itself (about $6k installed) in three years. It also gives me much better range. One can run LOP without it, but at perhaps a higher risk.
- The fuel-to-destination is based on a direct route, not your flight-plan route. Normally, this is maybe not too different. I would like to pursuade Arnav to change this to the flight-planned route.
- The latest software is a modest, but important, improvement over the initial version. Some bugs are fixed and a few features added. The current version is I think an “engineering” release and they are working on something more like a “production” release.
- The EMM-35’s OAT indication was six or seven degrees F high. Turns out that it needs to be calibrated and this can be done easily through the diagnostic/setup menu (talk to Arnav). In the meantime, naturally, use the other OAT indicator in the plane.
- The Arnav folks read this forum, but for obvioius reasons they can’t respond at all.
- The Arnav folks would like to please us owners. And they also have to please Cirrus, the FAA, and the NTSB, on the ICDS-2000 alone.
- My experience with the Arnav folks was that they were open, direct, friendly, intelligent, and generous with their time. They listened to my suggestions, explained why they built the unit the way they did, and the regulatory constraints they were under. I don’t mean to excuse their mistakes, especially the installation instruction errors on the EMM-35.
- The ICDS-2000 has a heater behind the screen in case the temperature is too low for the LCD screen.
- If you add the engine recording PC Card and it is not formatted correctly, it can cause the ICDS-2000 to lock up and do weird things in flight. Normally, the card is shipped formated, but mine apparently wasn’t. There is a diagnostic/setup feature to format the card.
I figure I might have my SR22 for another ten or twenty years. There is only one Cirrus customer service department, very few service centers, and few avionics suppliers. This means that I have a strong interest in nuturing the relationships I have with all these folks and not irritating them. We all have faults. Cirrus isn’t perfect, Top Gun isn’t perfect, and neither is Arnav. But over the years, I want to help them, perhaps only in a small ways, do better, not tear them down.
As more a/c are delivered and there are more pilots with direct experience with the ICDS-2000, it appears that more people value its large screen. The number and fervor of the complaints with the unit seem to be descreasing, especially among pilots who have more than a few hours with it. It has its faults, to be sure, but it is improving and it is pretty darn good right now. Unlike the Garmin’s, it gives me valuable terrain and obstruction information. Also, it helps me navigate through complex airspaces without having to look at a paper map or twiddle knobs to find the airpspace vertical limits. (I always have the paper charts as well and when I approach airspaces, I make a cursory check to see that they agree).