ARNAV (Round IV)

Guest Discussion
1

I finally spoke with CD about the subject at hand. Let me start by saying that as always, they were very open and forthcoming. I will try to repeat their thoughts as accurately as possible.

CD clearly has a philosophy or vision about the avionics and MFD’s in particular. It seems as though they seem very committed to a display of at least 10 inches. Their secondary concerns seam to be the adaptability of the unit and the ability for future upgrades and integrations.

At this time they just feel ARNAV fits the bill better than any other MFD’s including the MX20 (too small), the Garmin 530 (too small & won’t do all that they want, ever) Avro Tec (too small a company & concerned about their ability to produce for 300 units a year - also it only interphases with older versions of other avionics).

They also seem very committed to keeping the engine monitoring on the MFD, but not necessarily as ARNAV envisions it in their adds. CD would have the moving map as the primary display and the engine monitoring and WX uplink, etc., as secondary screens - not sharing the real estate. I don’t think I agree here, but I’ve only seen print and Web adds as well as mock up displays at shows.

They either have no real idea of when ARNAV will deliver the software (& hardware?) for the engine monitoring upgrade, or are not telling. After the conversation, I would be surprised if it appears on an factory bird or as an aftermarket kit anytime before the third quarter. (Can someone tell me why this is such a tough item for CD and ARNAV?)

If you’re interested in the JPI or EI engine analysers they thought that you may be able to swap it for some of the current engine gauges with some creativity.

For now, I am waiting to hear back from UIPSAT, and Garmin. Unless I find either a factory willing to work with me or a great avionics shop, I will probably wait to get my SR22, go through the training and then see about the engine analyzer and MFD. I am not thrilled about litteraly throwing away the first display as I doubt there is much of an aftermarket at this time or spending upwards of $15K - $20K extra.

For now I am still looking & waiting.

As for the SR22 speed, they have strong evidence that the SR22 actually outperforms the prototype (& POH) by up to 5 knots.

Marty

2

Thanks Marty. Did they have any comments about the mysterious moving mountains?

I finally spoke with CD about the subject at hand. Let me start by saying that as always, they were very open and forthcoming. I will try to repeat their thoughts as accurately as possible.

CD clearly has a philosophy or vision about the avionics and MFD’s in particular. It seems as though they seem very committed to a display of at least 10 inches. Their secondary concerns seam to be the adaptability of the unit and the ability for future upgrades and integrations.

At this time they just feel ARNAV fits the bill better than any other MFD’s including the MX20 (too small), the Garmin 530 (too small & won’t do all that they want, ever) Avro Tec (too small a company & concerned about their ability to produce for 300 units a year - also it only interphases with older versions of other avionics).

They also seem very committed to keeping the engine monitoring on the MFD, but not necessarily as ARNAV envisions it in their adds. CD would have the moving map as the primary display and the engine monitoring and WX uplink, etc., as secondary screens - not sharing the real estate. I don’t think I agree here, but I’ve only seen print and Web adds as well as mock up displays at shows.

They either have no real idea of when ARNAV will deliver the software (& hardware?) for the engine monitoring upgrade, or are not telling. After the conversation, I would be surprised if it appears on an factory bird or as an aftermarket kit anytime before the third quarter. (Can someone tell me why this is such a tough item for CD and ARNAV?)

If you’re interested in the JPI or EI engine analysers they thought that you may be able to swap it for some of the current engine gauges with some creativity.

For now, I am waiting to hear back from UIPSAT, and Garmin. Unless I find either a factory willing to work with me or a great avionics shop, I will probably wait to get my SR22, go through the training and then see about the engine analyzer and MFD. I am not thrilled about litteraly throwing away the first display as I doubt there is much of an aftermarket at this time or spending upwards of $15K - $20K extra.

For now I am still looking & waiting.

As for the SR22 speed, they have strong evidence that the SR22 actually outperforms the prototype (& POH) by up to 5 knots.

Marty

3

Thanks Marty. Did they have any comments about the mysterious moving mountains?

Yes. They minimized the issues in the US databases, but said the Europeans have a real issue there. We didn’t spend much time dissscussing this issue as it isn’t one of my main criticism of the ARNAV unit. I’m much more concerned about running that big 310HP Cotinental motor with out good monitoring capability & leaning guidance.

As I said they confirmed that the Eurpoean databases have a lot of errors, if I may paraphrase, didn’t think the US database errors were that substantial. I suppose that the errors aren’t substantial until you fly into a mountain that isn’t there!

My biggest concern is still ARNAV’s support of the product. So far it seems nonexistent. I’m not sure if the database issue is ARNAV’s or Jeppeson’s repsonsibility, or a combination thereof, but it sure doesn’t seem like anyone is paying much atttention to the databases, or other functional issues of the ARNAV MFD.

Marty

4

CD’s point-of-view is understandable. The cockpit is designed around that big screen, and why not, it is very nice to have a display that big. And frankly, I agree with their concerns about the Garmin 530 (I considered a 530 for my 260SE, but then rejected it when I realized I could have a 430 and an mx20 for less $$)

The MX20 is great, but too small, and the other big MFD’s haven’t shown the production capability. Here’s your bird, Dean, don’t mind the big hole in the dash…

So it seems there are two things we can do that would be most productive. 1) Kindly encourage ARNAV that we really want the best product they can muster, and remind them that if they make us happy then they are in the cat-bird seat, with easily the best chance of becomming the MFD equivalent of what the 155’s were to NAV/COMS. After all, they are in the most popular new airplane in YEARS… How much free publicity do they get from the Walt’s of the world everytime they are on a ramp somewhere. Imagine all the non-cirrus pilots, looking on the demo and seeing a homerun version of the ARNAV… It would become a must have, I’m sure of it.

  1. Find a way to help CD with the process of certify/exchange of their EGT/CHT for a JPI or the like. Personally, if I could swing it, I’d like either the JPI 800 mounted over there with the engine cluster or the JPI 700 and the new fuel flow gauge…

In an engine as pricey to overhaul as the 550, or even the 360. This kind of engine monitoring is often the difference of hundreds of hours more life.

I’ve got about 14 months to go, but I’m going to start on that #2, if anyone else earlier wants to, I’d be happy to help anyway I can…

Dean

See also the post below “Engine Monitoring” by Gordy, who has a JPI 800 installed. And Gordy, perhaps you could post a brief discription of your experience with it…

5

I think one of the reasons that ARNAV gives the big display such low priority, Dean’s arguments notwithstanding, is because the display is just that: BIG!

There will be a lot of Cirri built (I hope), but that number will be small compared to the number of owners of other and older aircraft who are looking to upgrade their avionics. And for them, the big ARNAV display is probably not an option due to the vast panel space it requires. The MX20, GNS 530, etc., have the advantage of fitting into a standard stack.

So ARNAV is probably focusing on the larger market potential of smaller, standard-sized units.

Joe

CD’s point-of-view is understandable. The cockpit is designed around that big screen, and why not, it is very nice to have a display that big. And frankly, I agree with their concerns about the Garmin 530 (I considered a 530 for my 260SE, but then rejected it when I realized I could have a 430 and an mx20 for less $$)

The MX20 is great, but too small, and the other big MFD’s haven’t shown the production capability. Here’s your bird, Dean, don’t mind the big hole in the dash…

So it seems there are two things we can do that would be most productive. 1) Kindly encourage ARNAV that we really want the best product they can muster, and remind them that if they make us happy then they are in the cat-bird seat, with easily the best chance of becomming the MFD equivalent of what the 155’s were to NAV/COMS. After all, they are in the most popular new airplane in YEARS… How much free publicity do they get from the Walt’s of the world everytime they are on a ramp somewhere. Imagine all the non-cirrus pilots, looking on the demo and seeing a homerun version of the ARNAV… It would become a must have, I’m sure of it.

  1. Find a way to help CD with the process of certify/exchange of their EGT/CHT for a JPI or the like. Personally, if I could swing it, I’d like either the JPI 800 mounted over there with the engine cluster or the JPI 700 and the new fuel flow gauge…

In an engine as pricey to overhaul as the 550, or even the 360. This kind of engine monitoring is often the difference of hundreds of hours more life.

I’ve got about 14 months to go, but I’m going to start on that #2, if anyone else earlier wants to, I’d be happy to help anyway I can…

Dean

See also the post below “Engine Monitoring” by Gordy, who has a JPI 800 installed. And Gordy, perhaps you could post a brief discription of your experience with it…

6

I think one of the reasons that ARNAV gives the big display such low priority, Dean’s arguments notwithstanding, is because the display is just that: BIG!

There will be a lot of Cirri built (I hope), but that number will be small compared to the number of owners of other and older aircraft who are looking to upgrade their avionics. And for them, the big ARNAV display is probably not an option due to the vast panel space it requires. The MX20, GNS 530, etc., have the advantage of fitting into a standard stack.

So ARNAV is probably focusing on the larger market potential of smaller, standard-sized units.

Joe

Joe,

I agree and would even go one farther – I think ARNAV is concentrating more on their services than on their hardware. They are one of the frontrunners in the weather-uplink service, if I remember reading correctly. Additionally they are now teaming up with GlobalStar to provide telephony service (at least according to their web site). I believe the weather-uplink service is supposed to be able to work with any MFD.

I suspect that given whatever resource constraints they may have, that they might see better returns in services than in hardware (or at least, as you point out, in the huge ICDS hardware.)

Steve

7

I think one of the reasons that ARNAV gives the big display such low priority, Dean’s arguments notwithstanding, is because the display is just that: BIG!

There will be a lot of Cirri built (I hope), but that number will be small compared to the number of owners of other and older aircraft who are looking to upgrade their avionics. And for them, the big ARNAV display is probably not an option due to the vast panel space it requires. The MX20, GNS 530, etc., have the advantage of fitting into a standard stack.

So ARNAV is probably focusing on the larger market potential of smaller, standard-sized units.

Joe

CD’s point-of-view is understandable. The cockpit is designed around that big screen, and why not, it is very nice to have a display that big. And frankly, I agree with their concerns about the Garmin 530 (I considered a 530 for my 260SE, but then rejected it when I realized I could have a 430 and an mx20 for less $$)

The MX20 is great, but too small, and the other big MFD’s haven’t shown the production capability. Here’s your bird, Dean, don’t mind the big hole in the dash…

So it seems there are two things we can do that would be most productive. 1) Kindly encourage ARNAV that we really want the best product they can muster, and remind them that if they make us happy then they are in the cat-bird seat, with easily the best chance of becomming the MFD equivalent of what the 155’s were to NAV/COMS. After all, they are in the most popular new airplane in YEARS… How much free publicity do they get from the Walt’s of the world everytime they are on a ramp somewhere. Imagine all the non-cirrus pilots, looking on the demo and seeing a homerun version of the ARNAV… It would become a must have, I’m sure of it.

  1. Find a way to help CD with the process of certify/exchange of their EGT/CHT for a JPI or the like. Personally, if I could swing it, I’d like either the JPI 800 mounted over there with the engine cluster or the JPI 700 and the new fuel flow gauge…

In an engine as pricey to overhaul as the 550, or even the 360. This kind of engine monitoring is often the difference of hundreds of hours more life.

I’ve got about 14 months to go, but I’m going to start on that #2, if anyone else earlier wants to, I’d be happy to help anyway I can…

Dean

See also the post below “Engine Monitoring” by Gordy, who has a JPI 800 installed. And Gordy, perhaps you could post a brief discription of your experience with it…

The JPI EDM800 is all it’s cracked up to be and more. The fuel flow is absolutely precise and the CHT/EGT are very precise land easy to use. Especially good is the lean find function.

If anyone wishes a picture of the installation, send an email and I’ll respond with a picture I’m not smart enough to know how to attach to this note.

Gordy