Arnav options and production info (long)

Guest Discussion
1

I spoke with several Cirrus people and one Arnav person today.

  1. SR22 position holders up through #32 have gotten letters telling them delivery dats. #32’s is for May 23rd (I’m #34, so haven’t heard yet).

  2. The next set of letters won’t go out for another month, as the contract folks won’t have gotten required info from production until then.

  3. The Arnav guy said that the engine monitoring is in Cirrus’s hands and it is up to Cirrus to pass judgement on the package. Once Cirrus gives the OK, it is on to the STC process with the FAA, which takes months. Best guess is engine monitor will be here this fall. Check http://www.arnav.com/icds2000.htm the Arnav picture of what it looks like.

  4. Next thing is the Ryan TCAD. Arnav is waiting for Ryan to get the 9900BX STC’d. This is the model with active interrogation. I.e., in non-radar environments, the BX will send its own radar-like pulse out to trigger transponders in other aircraft. The engineering work at Arnav has been done for some time. Once the BX is STC’d, Arnav will then review whether the specs that Ryan gave them years ago, and which they wrote the software for years ago, still hold. Once that’s done, it is on the STC process.

  5. Wx-uplink is available now, with the new FAA-directed system. However, coverage is only on the east coast and a little of the midwest. The west coast won’t be covered until late next year. Note that Arnav also operates an old “test” wx-uplink system that is more complete, but won’t be compatible with the new system.

I know that Cirrus has given great support to folks before and after the sale. However, I am a bit frustrated by several things:

  1. I have to call Arnav to find out the status of something as important as engine monitoring. When I spoke with the sales guy for my area of the US, he said “Ask Arnav”. Not a good answer.

  2. My sales guy and Ian Bently also said “fly it for a year before you add anything”. I find this insulting. I’ve been flying for long enough and had enough experience to know that it is worth it to me to have several things that Cirrus doesn’t offer. Instead, they should give less BS and say “sorry we don’t offer that, yet, but we’ll give limited support to the avionics shop to do it for you”.

  3. I spoke with an avionics guy who is trying to install a gaget in a Cirrus plane. He said that in his 23 years in the business, he’s never run into an aircraft manufacturer who has been so uncooperative.

I think Cirrus is doing a wonderful job overall. And I don’t fault them for not having various options ready yet. A lot of it is out of their control and they do have to focus on their core business. But to (1) claim they don’t know things which they either should or do, and (2) to not help avionics people do what Cirrus is unwilling or unable to do, is not good for us customers, or, in the long run, Cirrus.

I, for one, am going to wait for the engine monitoring from Arnav/Cirrus. It looks so much better than jamming a JPI 800 into the bolster or something.

I would like to add a
http://www.avionix.com/ralt.html Trimble Radar Altimeter (TRA 3000 with TRI-30 display (28 VDC)) as soon as possible after I take delivery. Does anyone know where such a display could be added or have any experience with this unit?

I would also like to add an air/data computer, which will also a head which is 1.4" by 3.5", but this is less urgent. Lastly is TCAD/TCAS, which I will add as soon as possible. But I don’t want my plane to go down for six months, as has happened to one SR20 waiting for various entities to cooperate.

Robert Bedichek
2

With respect to lack of cooperation, blame our legal system.

From what I’ve read throughout this forum Cirrus is very supportive/cooperative up to the point where someone wants to customize the plane. At this point factory control is almost nil but legal responsibility continues.

And rest assured, the manufacturer is going to be the main target in any accident, regardless of the cause.

3

Robert:

  1. SR22 position holders up through #32 have gotten letters telling them delivery dats. #32’s is for May 23rd (I’m #34, so haven’t heard yet).
  1. The next set of letters won’t go out for another month, as the contract folks won’t have gotten required info from production until then.

Thanks for the information. I have SR22 #144. I don’t think it will be delivered in November as promosed based in this. I haven’t yet seen any specific estimate of when they will get to #144.

  1. The Arnav guy said that the engine monitoring is in Cirrus’s hands and it is up to Cirrus to pass judgement on the package. Once Cirrus gives the OK, it is on to the STC process with the FAA, which takes months. Best guess is engine monitor will be here this fall. Check http://www.arnav.com/icds2000.htm the Arnav picture of what it looks like.

It’s great to get some information as to progress. This is the same picture that ARNAV has been showing for years. Hopefully they will have the STC soon.

  1. Next thing is the Ryan TCAD.

I agree the TCAD is a good idea. I would install a backup AH first, see below.

  1. Wx-uplink is available now, with the new FAA-directed system. However, coverage is only on the east coast and a little of the midwest. The west coast won’t be covered until late next year. Note that Arnav also operates an old “test” wx-uplink system that is more complete, but won’t be compatible with the new system.

Any informtiion on the cost of the receiver and the cost of the subscription?

  1. My sales guy and Ian Bently also said “fly it for a year before you add anything”. I find this insulting. I’ve been flying for long enough and had enough experience to know that it is worth it to me to have several things that Cirrus doesn’t offer. Instead, they should give less BS and say “sorry we don’t offer that, yet, but we’ll give limited support to the avionics shop to do it for you”.

Ahmen!

I, for one, am going to wait for the engine monitoring from Arnav/Cirrus. It looks so much better than jamming a JPI 800 into the bolster or something.

Agree. I have seen the picture of that install and I think the ARNAV is much preferable.

I would like to add a
http://www.avionix.com/ralt.html Trimble Radar Altimeter (TRA 3000 with TRI-30 display (28 VDC)) as soon as possible after I take delivery. Does anyone know where such a display could be added or have any experience with this unit?

I don’t have any experience with the unit. I have given thought as to where to put it. Both the SR20 and the SR22 have a 6 lamp warning light unit for electrical failure, low oil presssure, etc. This is mounted above the AH and airspeed indicator. I don’t know the name of the manufacturer of this unit. I would suspect that a housing similar to the panel mount version is available intended for mounting below the glareshield. In fact, this is a common location in other aircraft.

If the unit were moved to the bottom side of the glareshield on top of the left side of the ARNAV display, this would free up a space above the AH and above the airspeed indicator. I believe this size space is a 1/2 3" ATI form factor. In this space I would mount the radar altimeter above the AH and the air/data computer above the airspeed indicator.

I would also like to add an air/data computer, which will also a head which is 1.4" by 3.5", but this is less urgent.

Here I would disagree slightly. I would remove the Davtron clock/oat/voltmeter. Two of the functions of this unit would be replaced in the air/data computer, outside air temperature and voltage. I hope that the clock within the Garmin 430 would suffice for the FAA requirement of a clock.

In the space freed up by the removal of the Davtron I would mount a BFGoodrich AIM 520 series backup AH. See www.avweb “Vacuum Pump Substitutes from $500 to $300,000” for information on the AIM 520 series backup AH from BFGoodrich. The 2" AH, rebuilt is $5,700. This unit is related to the air/data computer in that two of the functions of the removed Davtron unit are in the air/data computer. The only 1/2 3" ATI unit is the Insight, so far as I know.

Lastly is TCAD/TCAS, which I will add as soon as possible. But I don’t want my plane to go down for six months, as has happened to one SR20 waiting for various entities to cooperate.

From what I have read about this install in another aircraft, it is a real can of worms. I would wait on this until someone has a straightforward no-hassle install complete.

4

Regarding the Trimble Radar Altimiter I have never used that particular unit but in my Duke I had a Bonzer Unit (they are no longer in business). While it worked it worked just fine, but I must admit that of all the avionics I had it was the one I thought had the least value (by far). I really think they’re of very limited use unless you plan on doing lots of Catagory II ILS approaches. If you do you also need to add a flight director. Eventually it gave up and I replaced it with a GEM that was very useful (I too plan to wait for engine monitoring on the ARNAV).

I really think that you should carefully consider why you need a radar altimeter before you spend lots of money making big changes in a brand new panel. The other issue is the antenna. From other articles on this forum it seems that drilling the composite airframe for new antennas is a big deal. The radar altimiter will need an antenna on the belly. Putting one there might be a problem.

Jerrold Seckler SR22#69

I spoke with several Cirrus people and one Arnav person today.

  1. SR22 position holders up through #32 have gotten letters telling them delivery dats. #32’s is for May 23rd (I’m #34, so haven’t heard yet).
  1. The next set of letters won’t go out for another month, as the contract folks won’t have gotten required info from production until then.
  1. The Arnav guy said that the engine monitoring is in Cirrus’s hands and it is up to Cirrus to pass judgement on the package. Once Cirrus gives the OK, it is on to the STC process with the FAA, which takes months. Best guess is engine monitor will be here this fall. Check http://www.arnav.com/icds2000.htm the Arnav picture of what it looks like.
  1. Next thing is the Ryan TCAD. Arnav is waiting for Ryan to get the 9900BX STC’d. This is the model with active interrogation. I.e., in non-radar environments, the BX will send its own radar-like pulse out to trigger transponders in other aircraft. The engineering work at Arnav has been done for some time. Once the BX is STC’d, Arnav will then review whether the specs that Ryan gave them years ago, and which they wrote the software for years ago, still hold. Once that’s done, it is on the STC process.
  1. Wx-uplink is available now, with the new FAA-directed system. However, coverage is only on the east coast and a little of the midwest. The west coast won’t be covered until late next year. Note that Arnav also operates an old “test” wx-uplink system that is more complete, but won’t be compatible with the new system.

I know that Cirrus has given great support to folks before and after the sale. However, I am a bit frustrated by several things:

  1. I have to call Arnav to find out the status of something as important as engine monitoring. When I spoke with the sales guy for my area of the US, he said “Ask Arnav”. Not a good answer.
  1. My sales guy and Ian Bently also said “fly it for a year before you add anything”. I find this insulting. I’ve been flying for long enough and had enough experience to know that it is worth it to me to have several things that Cirrus doesn’t offer. Instead, they should give less BS and say “sorry we don’t offer that, yet, but we’ll give limited support to the avionics shop to do it for you”.
  1. I spoke with an avionics guy who is trying to install a gaget in a Cirrus plane. He said that in his 23 years in the business, he’s never run into an aircraft manufacturer who has been so uncooperative.

I think Cirrus is doing a wonderful job overall. And I don’t fault them for not having various options ready yet. A lot of it is out of their control and they do have to focus on their core business. But to (1) claim they don’t know things which they either should or do, and (2) to not help avionics people do what Cirrus is unwilling or unable to do, is not good for us customers, or, in the long run, Cirrus.

I, for one, am going to wait for the engine monitoring from Arnav/Cirrus. It looks so much better than jamming a JPI 800 into the bolster or something.

I would like to add a
http://www.avionix.com/ralt.html Trimble Radar Altimeter (TRA 3000 with TRI-30 display (28 VDC)) as soon as possible after I take delivery. Does anyone know where such a display could be added or have any experience with this unit?

I would also like to add an air/data computer, which will also a head which is 1.4" by 3.5", but this is less urgent. Lastly is TCAD/TCAS, which I will add as soon as possible. But I don’t want my plane to go down for six months, as has happened to one SR20 waiting for various entities to cooperate.

Robert Bedichek

5

When I installed my JPI 800 I did not lconsider it to lbe “jammed in.” As a matter of fact, it worked out very well.

Furthermore, I foud Cirrus most lcooperative when I had to get a 337 to go through the firewall. Without their help it would have lbeebn much more difficult… Hats off to lthe engineers and service people at Cirrus.

I spoke with several Cirrus people and one Arnav person today.

  1. SR22 position holders up through #32 have gotten letters telling them delivery dats. #32’s is for May 23rd (I’m #34, so haven’t heard yet).
  1. The next set of letters won’t go out for another month, as the contract folks won’t have gotten required info from production until then.
  1. The Arnav guy said that the engine monitoring is in Cirrus’s hands and it is up to Cirrus to pass judgement on the package. Once Cirrus gives the OK, it is on to the STC process with the FAA, which takes months. Best guess is engine monitor will be here this fall. Check http://www.arnav.com/icds2000.htm the Arnav picture of what it looks like.
  1. Next thing is the Ryan TCAD. Arnav is waiting for Ryan to get the 9900BX STC’d. This is the model with active interrogation. I.e., in non-radar environments, the BX will send its own radar-like pulse out to trigger transponders in other aircraft. The engineering work at Arnav has been done for some time. Once the BX is STC’d, Arnav will then review whether the specs that Ryan gave them years ago, and which they wrote the software for years ago, still hold. Once that’s done, it is on the STC process.
  1. Wx-uplink is available now, with the new FAA-directed system. However, coverage is only on the east coast and a little of the midwest. The west coast won’t be covered until late next year. Note that Arnav also operates an old “test” wx-uplink system that is more complete, but won’t be compatible with the new system.

I know that Cirrus has given great support to folks before and after the sale. However, I am a bit frustrated by several things:

  1. I have to call Arnav to find out the status of something as important as engine monitoring. When I spoke with the sales guy for my area of the US, he said “Ask Arnav”. Not a good answer.
  1. My sales guy and Ian Bently also said “fly it for a year before you add anything”. I find this insulting. I’ve been flying for long enough and had enough experience to know that it is worth it to me to have several things that Cirrus doesn’t offer. Instead, they should give less BS and say “sorry we don’t offer that, yet, but we’ll give limited support to the avionics shop to do it for you”.
  1. I spoke with an avionics guy who is trying to install a gaget in a Cirrus plane. He said that in his 23 years in the business, he’s never run into an aircraft manufacturer who has been so uncooperative.

I think Cirrus is doing a wonderful job overall. And I don’t fault them for not having various options ready yet. A lot of it is out of their control and they do have to focus on their core business. But to (1) claim they don’t know things which they either should or do, and (2) to not help avionics people do what Cirrus is unwilling or unable to do, is not good for us customers, or, in the long run, Cirrus.

I, for one, am going to wait for the engine monitoring from Arnav/Cirrus. It looks so much better than jamming a JPI 800 into the bolster or something.

I would like to add a
http://www.avionix.com/ralt.html Trimble Radar Altimeter (TRA 3000 with TRI-30 display (28 VDC)) as soon as possible after I take delivery. Does anyone know where such a display could be added or have any experience with this unit?

I would also like to add an air/data computer, which will also a head which is 1.4" by 3.5", but this is less urgent. Lastly is TCAD/TCAS, which I will add as soon as possible. But I don’t want my plane to go down for six months, as has happened to one SR20 waiting for various entities to cooperate.

Robert Bedichek

6

Bob, I’m not sure that you can blame the legal system here. I’ve been trying to get [with no success] rather basic info from Cirrus with no luck [NOT CUSTOMIZATION]. to wit: Each SR22[or SR20] has to be weighed on 3 scales, at the same time, before delivery [each main and the nose]. I am trying to arrive at a reasonable powered “tow” system to move my to-be-delivered SR22 into a tight hangar situation. One manufacturer [Gettelman Texas]is willing to modify their tow rig [a “shovel” arrangement]to accomodate the SR22 and its tightly faired nose wheel. To do this they need (1) weight on the nose wheel, (2) an answer to the question: “will the nose wheel assembly take the stress of lifting the nose via the installed ground handling lugs?”

In other words this manufacturer is willing to modify its product to lift the SR22 via the lugs rather than lift via “shoveling” the nose wheel because their experience has not been positive with other aircraft that have a low-to-the-ground fairing on the nose wheel.

Simple enough but I’m unable, to date, to get this info from Cirrus. The 38.5 foot wing span of the SR22 will be a problem for some of us. No info is forthcoming - so can you read legal impediment into this? Gary Phillips

With respect to lack of cooperation, blame our legal system.

From what I’ve read throughout this forum Cirrus is very supportive/cooperative up to the point where someone wants to customize the plane. At this point factory control is almost nil but legal responsibility continues.

And rest assured, the manufacturer is going to be the main target in any accident, regardless of the cause.

7

Hello Gary,

If I can drop in my nickels worth. What ever Cirrus tell you could turn to bite them. Example, this nice guy will custom build a device to attach to your SR22 for towing or relocating within a space. I don’t know if you have noticed much aircraft movements “towing”. The people that are normally doing those jobs are nice people but they may not realize what a little stress can cause. I have been around aviation (maintenance/ops) for 25+ yrs. The nose gear is place in the lower front side of the airplane to protect the lower cowling from being damaged on the ground. To keep this short I will just suggest that a rigged attachment to the nose gear should be a no no. Here is why Cirrus may not want to say anything… just my guess. Picture yourself coming in for a nice landing and you greese it in (nice & smooth) on the mains and then gentle touch on the nose but gear folds under. It has happen, stress from ground handling equipment, watch 10 aircraft movements done by FBO personnel using powered devices, do it from a distance and look at the nose gear move back and fourth. The interesting part is that the further away you are the more it moves specially if the driver does not realize that someone is watching him or her. I have a powertow, I am going to build a flap plate with wheels and that’s what is going to be attached to the powertow, the flat plate will be very close to the ground. The plate will have a roller on the end and I will just slide it under the nose gear (as the roller touches the nose tire it will slide under the tire, once the tire is in the center of the flat plate I will place my specially build chocks just enought to clear the pants. Now I will move the airplane. If I were to go from fwd to rev the nose gear wont be getting 100% of the jerk, the tire will give and take and the nose gear attaching points will be saying thank you. Yes, I will have a safety strap to back up the chocks. Sorry I got carried away… just my OHO. Best of luck and have a great Cirrus day.

Woor

PS Anyone interested in getting their SR22 3 or 4 months ahead of the schedule?

Bob, I’m not sure that you can blame the legal system here. I’ve been trying to get [with no success] rather basic info from Cirrus with no luck [NOT CUSTOMIZATION]. to wit: Each SR22[or SR20] has to be weighed on 3 scales, at the same time, before delivery [each main and the nose]. I am trying to arrive at a reasonable powered “tow” system to move my to-be-delivered SR22 into a tight hangar situation. One manufacturer [Gettelman Texas]is willing to modify their tow rig [a “shovel” arrangement]to accomodate the SR22 and its tightly faired nose wheel. To do this they need (1) weight on the nose wheel, (2) an answer to the question: “will the nose wheel assembly take the stress of lifting the nose via the installed ground handling lugs?”

In other words this manufacturer is willing to modify its product to lift the SR22 via the lugs rather than lift via “shoveling” the nose wheel because their experience has not been positive with other aircraft that have a low-to-the-ground fairing on the nose wheel.

Simple enough but I’m unable, to date, to get this info from Cirrus. The 38.5 foot wing span of the SR22 will be a problem for some of us. No info is forthcoming - so can you read legal impediment into this? Gary Phillips

With respect to lack of cooperation, blame our legal system.

From what I’ve read throughout this forum Cirrus is very supportive/cooperative up to the point where someone wants to customize the plane. At this point factory control is almost nil but legal responsibility continues.

And rest assured, the manufacturer is going to be the main target in any accident, regardless of the cause.

8

I’ve been trying to get [with no success] rather basic info from Cirrus with no luck

The problem is not a legal one as such, I also tried to get from Cirrus information about mounting display units (e.g. ADF or JPI) in the bolster area. The problem is that the bolster has a structural member behind it. So the question to Cirrus was “can we cut a hole in the bolster”. The answer was “we don’t know, and to answer this will require a structural analysis by an engineer which you will have to get done yourself”.

So I expect the problem with the nosewheel question is the same - Cirrus don’t have the answer, and are not willing to devote resources to finding out.

I can understand their approach - I don’t entirely agree with it. I believe that Cirrus should address those issues that are likely to be of interest to more than one customer and both the questions discussed above fall into that category. I know some people have gone ahead and mounted instruments into the bolster anyway, but without the engineering data, they run the risk of problems in the event of an accident - legal if nothing else.

Hopefully once Cirrus have overcome the production problems they are presently dealing with, other matters like these will become a higher priority.

9

I’ve been trying to get [with no success] rather basic info from Cirrus with no luck

The problem is not a legal one as such, I also tried to get from Cirrus information about mounting display units (e.g. ADF or JPI) in the bolster area. The problem is that the bolster has a structural member behind it. So the question to Cirrus was “can we cut a hole in the bolster”. The answer was “we don’t know, and to answer this will require a structural analysis by an engineer which you will have to get done yourself”.

So I expect the problem with the nosewheel question is the same - Cirrus don’t have the answer, and are not willing to devote resources to finding out.

I can understand their approach - I don’t entirely agree with it. I believe that Cirrus should address those issues that are likely to be of interest to more than one customer and both the questions discussed above fall into that category. I know some people have gone ahead and mounted instruments into the bolster anyway, but without the engineering data, they run the risk of problems in the event of an accident - legal if nothing else.

Hopefully once Cirrus have overcome the production problems they are presently dealing with, other matters like these will become a higher priority.

Sir,

I think, based on your comments, you are aware of what’s involved to do what you are asking, but, I’d have to go with Cirrus on this decision. They are designing for production. They hire resources to design a standard product. If they are like every other company I have ever been involved with, I’m sure there is more work to do to develop just the standard product than they are staffed for. There just is no room to take an engineer and have them look at customer requested changes on top of the regular work that there is to do.

The costs to support the staff needed to answer questions like that above would be quite exorbitant, especially for a startup like Cirrus. I imagine it would be at least 20% of their staffing for developing their production product. While it would certainly be an excellent public relations tool, it just does not make business sense. If I were them, if I could justify 20% more staff, I’d certainly rather spend it on getting the product out the door more efficiently and making sure the standard product works than on having them work on customer requested changes, especially changes that could have far reaching effects.

Now, there could be two ways to get done what you are requesting. 1. You could make a case to them that they should include the option you are requesting above in a large percentage of the planes they will sell, and that this change will increase their profit, or at least pay for itself as far as the costs involved in making the change.

Before the product was put in production, I’m sure they spent a very long time looking at all the possible things they could include, did a cost/benefit analysis, and came up with the standard config we have today. Now they want to sell a bunch of those. Once they are making a profit, THEN they will go back and see what they can improve. They are not there yet. (I have to agree, though, they certainly should have left the panel more open than they did to adding optional equipment. That was a HUGE design gaffe as far as I’m concerned. Of course, perhaps they felt if they left it open, then people would ask to fill it, and they would have to support that, etc., etc. I still think it was a mistake.)

Or, 2. they could develop a support staff that charges the customer directly for all work done to determine if a specific option is feasible, which is essentially what they told you to do, to hire an engineer to get the work done. Instead, they asked you to go out and find somebody to do the work. I’m sure they’d rather not spend the management resources needed to support such a staff. There is more to developing the data to determine if a change can be made than just the engineer’s time. All that work has to be managed and documented as well so that the information developed can be used. Then it has to be implemented in production, etc. etc…

I happen to work for a group in my company where our job is specifically to develop interfaces from our product to customer’s equipment. Our staff is 50% of the size of the engineering staff that developed and supports the product! And…, we have our own support staff for documentation, etc… Normally, we just interface our product to the customer equipment. The plan is that our product is never changed, we develop equipment to make what we have fit. We did, however, just go through a whole process where a customer came to us and asked us to make a change to our product that was specific to them. It is costing us a ton of money and resources. Their machines have to basically be hand carried through the production line. And there is no plan in place yet on how we will handle future orders for this change. We are big enough and established enough and the customer is going to purchase enough equipment that we can hide these costs. Cirrus is not big enough to do this.

Tom Perry

10

The costs to support the staff needed to answer questions like that above would be quite exorbitant, especially for a startup like Cirrus. I imagine it would be at least 20% of their staffing for developing their production product. While it would certainly be an excellent public relations tool, it just does not make business sense. If I were them, if I could justify 20% more staff, I’d certainly rather spend it on getting the product out the door more efficiently and making sure the standard product works than on having them work on customer requested changes, especially changes that could have far reaching effects.

I should add that, I bet if you got to know the engineering staff (instead of going through management/sales), that one of them would take the time to the analysis for you and tell you whether or not the change would work. But this would not help you get the change certified. There is no way he could take the time to develop all the documentation needed to get the certification done.

Tom Perry

11

I should add that, I bet if you got to know the engineering staff (instead of going through management/sales), that one of them would take the time to the analysis for you and tell you whether or not the change would work.

Yes and no - the engineering staff are quite helpful, but will not put anything in writing that is not company policy. So if you want to know, for example, if you can route an oil line through the firewall for oil replenishment during a ferry flight and you go to the factory and talk to the engineers, you will get an answer, but if you want to be able to tell your local A&P that it is ok to cut a hole in the bolster to mount an indicator, he is going to want more than just your say-so before it is signed off.

I do understand where they are coming from (this was discussed here some time ago) but as a business person who likes to look at the long term, I believe that some resources should be devoted to this kind of thing, not because it will make any difference to the bottom line right now, but it will pay dividends further down the track, in terms of customer satisfaction.

Right now Cirrus can sell more planes than they can make, but that situation will not last forever.

Having said that, right now customer satisfaction is high, and Cirrus’ customer service (on matters they will deal with) is excellent. So I’m hopeful that in the future Cirrus will become more flexible, as priorities change.

12

When I installed my JPI 800 I did not lconsider it to lbe “jammed in.” As a matter of fact, it worked out very well.

Furthermore, I foud Cirrus most lcooperative when I had to get a 337 to go through the firewall. Without their help it would have lbeebn much more difficult… Hats off to lthe engineers and service people at Cirrus.

Gordy,

Was the gauge placed next to the flap switch? Where did you have it installed?

Thanks, Stuart

I spoke with several Cirrus people and one Arnav person today.

  1. SR22 position holders up through #32 have gotten letters telling them delivery dats. #32’s is for May 23rd (I’m #34, so haven’t heard yet).
  1. The next set of letters won’t go out for another month, as the contract folks won’t have gotten required info from production until then.
  1. The Arnav guy said that the engine monitoring is in Cirrus’s hands and it is up to Cirrus to pass judgement on the package. Once Cirrus gives the OK, it is on to the STC process with the FAA, which takes months. Best guess is engine monitor will be here this fall. Check http://www.arnav.com/icds2000.htm the Arnav picture of what it looks like.
  1. Next thing is the Ryan TCAD. Arnav is waiting for Ryan to get the 9900BX STC’d. This is the model with active interrogation. I.e., in non-radar environments, the BX will send its own radar-like pulse out to trigger transponders in other aircraft. The engineering work at Arnav has been done for some time. Once the BX is STC’d, Arnav will then review whether the specs that Ryan gave them years ago, and which they wrote the software for years ago, still hold. Once that’s done, it is on the STC process.
  1. Wx-uplink is available now, with the new FAA-directed system. However, coverage is only on the east coast and a little of the midwest. The west coast won’t be covered until late next year. Note that Arnav also operates an old “test” wx-uplink system that is more complete, but won’t be compatible with the new system.

I know that Cirrus has given great support to folks before and after the sale. However, I am a bit frustrated by several things:

  1. I have to call Arnav to find out the status of something as important as engine monitoring. When I spoke with the sales guy for my area of the US, he said “Ask Arnav”. Not a good answer.
  1. My sales guy and Ian Bently also said “fly it for a year before you add anything”. I find this insulting. I’ve been flying for long enough and had enough experience to know that it is worth it to me to have several things that Cirrus doesn’t offer. Instead, they should give less BS and say “sorry we don’t offer that, yet, but we’ll give limited support to the avionics shop to do it for you”.
  1. I spoke with an avionics guy who is trying to install a gaget in a Cirrus plane. He said that in his 23 years in the business, he’s never run into an aircraft manufacturer who has been so uncooperative.

I think Cirrus is doing a wonderful job overall. And I don’t fault them for not having various options ready yet. A lot of it is out of their control and they do have to focus on their core business. But to (1) claim they don’t know things which they either should or do, and (2) to not help avionics people do what Cirrus is unwilling or unable to do, is not good for us customers, or, in the long run, Cirrus.

I, for one, am going to wait for the engine monitoring from Arnav/Cirrus. It looks so much better than jamming a JPI 800 into the bolster or something.

I would like to add a
http://www.avionix.com/ralt.html Trimble Radar Altimeter (TRA 3000 with TRI-30 display (28 VDC)) as soon as possible after I take delivery. Does anyone know where such a display could be added or have any experience with this unit?

I would also like to add an air/data computer, which will also a head which is 1.4" by 3.5", but this is less urgent. Lastly is TCAD/TCAS, which I will add as soon as possible. But I don’t want my plane to go down for six months, as has happened to one SR20 waiting for various entities to cooperate.

Robert Bedichek