Arnav

Guest Discussion
1

This appeared in today’s ANN. Most of you are probably aware of the work Avrotec, and others, has done on HITS. But I think it’s one more example of Arnav being just a little behind many of its competitors in technical development; this in addition to the obviously lower resolution graphics of the screen. And… for this, Arnav is priced higher than almost all the choices I’d rather see in the aircraft.

So much about Cirrus’ design choices make great good sense, such that I think no other aircraft on the market compares in value at the price point. That just makes it harder to understand, (and I really don’t understand), continuuing to go with Arnav, at high initial expense, and overpriced options (some of which should not have been options at all).

Uh oh… I’m ranting now. Forgive me, but I think either Arnav should catch up to it’s competition and bring its prices in line with its competition, OR Cirrus should bite the bullet and make a change.

Just one man’s very humble opinion.

Bob

NASA HITS Shown on AvroTec Equipment

AvroTec’s displays perform flawlessly in Lancair Columbia 400 during a

rigorous year of flight demonstrations and air shows.

AvroTec, Inc., maker of large-scale multi-function aviation displays and a

founding member of NASA’s Advanced General Aviation Transport Experiments

government/industry consortium (AGATE) will again provide the cockpit

displays to showcase exhibit the NASA Highway in the Sky (HITS) system

during July’s EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2001.

"We have flown with the AvroTec FMP500 HITS displays all year without a

single hardware failure. The units are rock solid, and we are glad that they

will be with us at AirVenture again this year," stated Sam Houston, Chief

Pilot for Lancair Certified Aircraft. TLC is the maker of the certified

Columbia 300 and soon to be certified Columbia 400. For the WHOLE story,

http://www.aero-news.net

2

AvroTec’s displays perform flawlessly in Lancair Columbia 400 during a

rigorous year of flight demonstrations and air shows.

After spending $250,000 on an SR20 (C with Stormscope and Skywatch), the additional cost of throwing out the Arnav and replacing it with AvroTec does not seem prohibitive (I am assuming $15,000 with no research behind that number). Considering AvroTec also has enroute charts and IAPs available on their display it seems like a much better system than Arnav. It would be nice if Cirrus gave the option of not getting the Arnav, especially since it is a VFR only system.

3

After spending $250,000 on an SR20 (C with Stormscope and Skywatch), the additional cost of throwing out the Arnav and replacing it with AvroTec does not seem prohibitive (I am assuming $15,000 with no research behind that number). Considering AvroTec also has enroute charts and IAPs available on their display it seems like a much better system than Arnav. It would be nice if Cirrus gave the option of not getting the Arnav, especially since it is a VFR only system.

Hi Art, Bob,

Just FYI, it appears (according to http://www.upsat.com/mx20stclist.shtmlUPSAT’s web site) that the MX20 is already STC’ed for the SR20. IMHO, if I were going to shell out the $$$ for a new display – which I’m not, at least not now – this would be one I would seriously consider. It’s smaller than the Arnav or AvroTec, but I have more confidence in the long-term stability/support of the UPSAT/Apollo line.

Steve

4

Steve,

I agree… The MX 20 really is very nice… now with IFR approach plates. The terrain feature alone is invaluable. The cost of the unit is also quite attractive.

Bob

After spending $250,000 on an SR20 (C with Stormscope and Skywatch), the additional cost of throwing out the Arnav and replacing it with AvroTec does not seem prohibitive (I am assuming $15,000 with no research behind that number). Considering AvroTec also has enroute charts and IAPs available on their display it seems like a much better system than Arnav. It would be nice if Cirrus gave the option of not getting the Arnav, especially since it is a VFR only system.

Hi Art, Bob,

Just FYI, it appears (according to http://www.upsat.com/mx20stclist.shtmlUPSAT’s web site) that the MX20 is already STC’ed for the SR20. IMHO, if I were going to shell out the $$$ for a new display – which I’m not, at least not now – this would be one I would seriously consider. It’s smaller than the Arnav or AvroTec, but I have more confidence in the long-term stability/support of the UPSAT/Apollo line.

Steve

5

It’s smaller than the Arnav or AvroTec, but I have more confidence in the long-term stability/support of the UPSAT/Apollo line.

Steve

To me, the long-term stability/support issue is the crucial one. I’m more of a fan of the current Arnav than most people seem to be. Its size really is a plus. But it is 100 per cent clear that the rest of the avionics/display industry is hurtling along faster than Arnav is, and Arnav’s track record is not of lightning-fast response. So far, Arnav reminds me of one of the early PC companies, like Eagle or Victor – a good initial idea, but (so far) not showing that it can keep up with others’ continuing flow of new ideas.

I can well understand why Cirrus went with Arnav when they did, in getting the plane ready for market. At some point – and I don’t think it’s happened yet – the Arnav alliance could become a liability for Cirrus. So we can hope and assume that Cirrus is calculating day by day whether they can expect fast enough progress from Arnav or prepare for other options. I say this based on outside supposition, not any special knowledge. jf

6

the MX20 is already STC’ed for the SR20.

Steve: The SR20 is definately on the STC list. Presumably, at least one install has been done to get the STC. Does Cirrus know something about the MX20 they are not telling? Not only is the MX20 substantially more capable, but putting it in place of the Arnav would free up panel space. This would permit some additions like: engine monitor, back up AH, air data computer, radar altimeter.

7

Personally I think resolution is just as important as size. The MX20 is smaller but, from what IÂ’ve seen, can display more info than the larger Arnav because of its high resolution. Those of us getting on in years might not be able to read the fine print, but itÂ’s there. The best of both worlds would be an Arnav-sized unit with MX20 resolution! (Sorta like Avidyne, I guess.)
In all the times itÂ’s been asked in these Arnav discussions, the question about the ArnavÂ’s ultimate display resolution has not been answered, as far as I can tell.
Is it capable of MX20 resolutions, but currently being dumbed-down by immature software? Or is it physically incapable of higher resolutions than it displays now?

Joe Mazza

8

I forgot to mention that when I questioned the Arnav’s capabilities during my demo flight a year and a half ago, Bruce Gunter told me they were considering, even then, whether to switch to another display. Therefore, I put at least some of the blame for the current state of affairs on Cirrus. This is no surprise to them.

Joe

9

Personally I think resolution is just as important as size. The MX20 is smaller but, from what IÂ’ve seen, can display more info than the larger Arnav because of its high resolution.

Joe, FWIW, having now used the Arnav for 130 hours, I respectfully disagree. Size DOES matter, in this regard. For instant reference in difficult circumstances, the big display screen simply is a plus. As I say, this is based on having used it extensively.

The best of both worlds would be an Arnav-sized unit with MX20 resolution!
Agreed!

In all the times itÂ’s been asked in these Arnav discussions, the question about the ArnavÂ’s ultimate display resolution has not been answered, as far as I can tell.
Not in detail, but it seems obvious that its ultimate display resolution is nowhere near as fine as the Avidyne’s. It’s basically like old RGB-style computer monitors versus ones of the SVGA-and-onward generation.

In short:

  • At least to me, the size matters more than I expected

  • I wish Arnav would show more signs of competing on features OTHER than size.

Bye jf

10

Really good question, Joe. If the display is upgradeable later on when Arnav ‘catches up’, I am willing to wait it out, as long as it happens before #111 gets built! Right now, comparing the Arnav and the MX20 is like comparing a cartoon to the cinematography of ‘Out of Africa’. Also, the price difference just can’t be an issue to CD since the MX20 is only around $6,000 over the counter, retail. I would pay close to that much to have it instead of the Arnav.
My suspicions are that the display itself may be capable of the desired resolution, but the size of the display puts too much demand on the video processor.
Sure would love to know exactly what the problem is. Like Jim said, they are falling far behind. It is beginning to look like something you would see in a Cessna.
IMHO,
Greg

Personally I think resolution is just as important as size. The MX20 is smaller but, from what IÂ’ve seen, can display more info than the larger Arnav because of its high resolution. Those of us getting on in years might not be able to read the fine print, but itÂ’s there. The best of both worlds would be an Arnav-sized unit with MX20 resolution! (Sorta like Avidyne, I guess.)

In all the times itÂ’s been asked in these Arnav discussions, the question about the ArnavÂ’s ultimate display resolution has not been answered, as far as I can tell.

Is it capable of MX20 resolutions, but currently being dumbed-down by immature software? Or is it physically incapable of higher resolutions than it displays now?

Joe Mazza

11

the MX20 is already STC’ed for the SR20.

Steve: The SR20 is definately on the STC list. Presumably, at least one install has been done to get the STC. Does Cirrus know something about the MX20 they are not telling? Not only is the MX20 substantially more capable, but putting it in place of the Arnav would free up panel space. This would permit some additions like: engine monitor, back up AH, air data computer, radar altimeter.

Stephen,

I went to the http://162.58.35.15/STC/FAA page listing STCs for the SR20, 'cuz your question made me wonder whether Cirrus or UPS owns the MX20 STC. Turns out UPS does – that’s what I had assumed anyway.

But it also turned up a couple new STCs since the last time I checked the page. For anyone who’s interested, the current STCs for the SR20 include:

  • JPI EGT701 “fuel flow instrument”

  • JPI “fuel flow indicating system” (different STC than the above but sounds the same!)

  • UPSAT MX20 MFD

  • Unison/Slick Magneto booster system

Steve

(If anyone wants to search the site themselves, probably easiest to search by TC number, of which A00009CH is the right number for SR20/22.)

12

the MX20 is already STC’ed for the SR20.

Steve: The SR20 is definately on the STC list. Presumably, at least one install has been done to get the STC. Does Cirrus know something about the MX20 they are not telling? Not only is the MX20 substantially more capable, but putting it in place of the Arnav would free up panel space. This would permit some additions like: engine monitor, back up AH, air data computer, radar altimeter.

… yes, bail it out and fill the hole with the usefull stuff!!!

13

Steve: Can you get a STC without ever actually installing the item in the a/c? Is there actually a Cirrus SR20/SR22 out there flying with a MX20?

the MX20 is already STC’ed for the SR20.

Steve: The SR20 is definately on the STC list. Presumably, at least one install has been done to get the STC. Does Cirrus know something about the MX20 they are not telling? Not only is the MX20 substantially more capable, but putting it in place of the Arnav would free up panel space. This would permit some additions like: engine monitor, back up AH, air data computer, radar altimeter.

Stephen,

I went to the http://162.58.35.15/STC/FAA page listing STCs for the SR20, 'cuz your question made me wonder whether Cirrus or UPS owns the MX20 STC. Turns out UPS does – that’s what I had assumed anyway.

But it also turned up a couple new STCs since the last time I checked the page. For anyone who’s interested, the current STCs for the SR20 include:

  • JPI EGT701 “fuel flow instrument”
  • JPI “fuel flow indicating system” (different STC than the above but sounds the same!)
  • UPSAT MX20 MFD
  • Unison/Slick Magneto booster system

Steve

(If anyone wants to search the site themselves, probably easiest to search by TC number, of which A00009CH is the right number for SR20/22.)

14

(If anyone wants to search the site themselves, probably easiest to search by TC number, of which A00009CH is the right number for SR20/22.)

…does that mean that STC for the 20 is also fine for the 22 ?

Wilfried

15

Steve: Can you get a STC without ever actually installing the item in the a/c? Is there actually a Cirrus SR20/SR22 out there flying with a MX20?

Stephen,

I wish I knew the answer to that. I would have thought, logically, that it would imply there is (or at least was for long enough to certify) a Cirrus with an MX20. But since when has logic had much to do with aircraft certification?

Maybe someone with more knowledge than I can answer this question.

Steve