Probably depends on the person. I have hundreds of hours in perspective and still fumble with it if I haven’t been flying it recently. Not so with Avidnye.
Plus 1. Tom is the first person I have heard call Perspective intuitive. Good for him, but I do not. Everytime I fly one I have a moment or two of adjustment.
I find the G1000 easy to use, and Avidyne very confusing. GPSS, VLOC, now which GPS or radio is driving the HSI/AP? Probably what you are used to.
I am beginning to suspect that my experience is unique…
Perspective is about as intuitive as this if you don’t come in with any of the basic experience on how the equipment is supposed to operate.
This is as clear as it ever could be on the Avidnye Entegra. To the left of the HSI there is a box next to a button that says GPS1/GPS2/VLOC ect… Not sure how to be more clear than that
With that said, it drives me nuts that Avidyne and Garmin have opposite colors for the HSI. On Avidyne GPS is green, and VOR is pink. Opposite on Perspective. As someone who changes planes all the time and flies other peoples planes this is extremely irritating. Not saying one is right.
the two of us must be. 
FWIW, I do fly no more than two hours per months on Perspective, mostly less. Not a problem. I also don’t believe in “intuitive UIs” generally. Including Apple.
I think anyone who seriously criticizes either the Avidyne or Garmin system is looking a gift horse in the mouth. These panels are remarkable in their utility and what they do for single pilot GA. Those who never flew vacuum gauges and rudimentary radios probably don’t appreciate how easy these panels make our flying, especially in IMC. Bang on Garmin if you like, but Garmin made the VLJ category possible, and I suspect the Eclipse panel is similar. They are relatively cheap, we trust our lives to them, and they simply aren’t that hard to use.
Yesterday my G1000 took me through awful WX, a complex departure (“climb via the SID”; loading the procedure set ALT bugs, etc.), icing, radar displays dodging storms in the soup, an arrival, weight and Vref calculations, etc. For a single pilot of a relatively fast airplane, the UI was just fine. Yes, I had to learn it, but that investment pays off every time I fly. A G1000 is basically a big 430, but easier to use. This thread began with criticism from a pilot flying the panel for the first time, and that’s simply unfair.
In a Cirrus we hear constantly about pilots who don’t take the time to learn engine management and other techniques and it’s easy to see them end up mad at the airplane. Those who train adequately forget the time it takes to learn and remember the utility they gain. The funny thing is that the real “gotchas” with these panels have little to do with the UI and much to do with truly understanding what they will do when, and why. I love Apple products, but the battery died in my IPad yesterday. My Garmin panel just works! And for the relatively modest price I paid, I got two of them!
Thanks guys again for your feedback. I surely have been critical of the SR mostly because I have seen a lot of new developments coming in the EU and very few from here (except perhaps the Icon A5 which, interestingly, no one can buy since they claim to have 5-years worth of orders).
So my take is mostly that Cirrus -or someone else in the US- should have been the one inventing the Pipistrel Panthera, or making one alike, instead of resting on their laurels for 10 years. Though the engine situation is not yet totally clear in the Panthera vs which one will get certified (either a 210HP IO390 or 260HP IO540) this plane looks so perfect, at least on paper. Though I recommend you guys to check the 10-spin test video with 4 people on board (or all other videos actually), if that’s not a testament of this amazing design, push rods, larger cabin, economical…
We will see.
Jeff, if you do a search here you will find some threads on the Panthera.
Though there have not been spin tests on the Cirrus in the US, the EU spun it over 60 times.
I know a gentleman with two positions on the Icon A5. It is true, they are backlogged. Honestly, it might be my retirement plane (I can’t afford to own more than one plane at a time).
You may be right about sitting on their laurels but I think you presume too much. The certification process is very expensive.
The Cirrus is the best “New” plane out there. Sales numbers are multiple times higher than similar competitors. Cost of ownership is high compared to some other planes but buyers are lining up to buy them. Comfortable, fast, easy to fly, spacious, spouses love them, FIKI and, of course, the chute. Please don’t discount the value of the Chute. After reading this thread, it makes the repack cost a bit easier to swallow.
Good luck! I hope you can find a plane that fits your mission. How long until the Panthera (Great Plane) will be certified?
You may be in retirement before any are produced.[:O]
I do see that they mention “early 2015” as the first customer delivered aircraft, but you never know. They do look like a ton of fun.
I can only hope![:P]
Yep, I often hear that because “the certification process is expensive” it has crippled innovation. But yet the cost is transferred to the customers anyway and that’s why small piston engine planes cost so much. The cheap C4 and the less cheap Panthera will be certified. People make the same arguments about RG, that it is expensive to engineer, maintain or insure. The Icon A5, Panthera and some new “LSAs” in Europe have RG. I suppose Cirrus would even tell you it’s expensive to have a directional front wheel, even LSAs have directional front wheels! And Cirrus insurance is expensive not because of RG (which it does not have) but because there were so many accidents (sure you can always blame the pilots but in my test flight of Cirrus I am blaming the Cirrus, not myself).
Let me tell you something that’s expensive: the GTS options amount for like $130K+ for what? Some hardware/software updates and nicer paint? I would rather spend an additional $100K any day to cover “certification costs” for any new design worth of that. Manufacturers should not be scared of certification costs if they have a great design.
The Cirrus is a good new plane (for those who are not scared of it) but it’s a 20th century plane. The Panthera is a 21th century plane. They just made everything right at all levels. It does not seem it can compete with the FIKI SR22T yet but it’s probably just a matter of time. Pipistrel says end of 2017 for the certified version so yes it seems one would have to be patient…
The safety record is old news. It is among the safest available, now - much safer than average.
It was definitively the pilots.
If new’s too expensive, buy used. If that’s too expensive, buy something else. You don’t have enough time in one to be a credible source of judgement.
I’m excited about the Panthera… POSSIBILITY. But that’s all it is. Have you ever tracked planes on the way to certification? Estimates of speed, efficiency, UL, etc., are rarely, if ever, met. You’ve got no idea what they will end up with, if they even make it.
To be clear, I hope they do. I love the CONCEPT.
Cirrus continues to innovate. While the design has changed little, the innards (avionics) have. There is nothing else that competes with it, for now.
You will be right in the future if Cirrus doesn’t continue to innovate, however. That time hasn’t come yet. A V tail jet! That impresses this old V tail Bonanza guy.
The side of the aviation highway is littered with designs that were great and going to be inexpensive. Heck, the Cirrus SR20 in the late 90’s list price was $159,000 (I had a position on one). They never panned out that way. Yeah, I know inflation… Doesn’t come close to explaining today’s price. Optimism is high on new designs capabilities and hopelessly optimistic on man hours in production to build. The G2 fuselage was Cirrus’s response to retool the fuselage to significantly reduce parts count and man hours because they were losing money on them back then (sure, we got features too, but unknown to us it was really a cost reduction project).
Let’s see the Panthera 1) finish certification and then 2) see where the price ends up several years after production begins. Where it ends I don’t know, but I bet a heap of dollars that the price will be substantially higher, good chance the specs will fall a bit short - if history teaches anything. I hope the Panthera succeeds, but until it does it is a dream not a product. They still have to certify it and then ramp it into production. Until then it is not real. Many cool designs fail for lack of capital to ramp production. That is not trivial. Attracting patient capital for projects with low rates of return and high risk is painfully difficult.
RG is a completely different subject. What advantage (speed, looks) comes at what cost (build, maintain and hit to useful load)? History tells us a lot here, go look at the Arrow vs Cherokee or the RG versions of Cessna’s. My 180 HP AA5B Grumman Tiger was faster than a 200 HP RG (constant speed prop) Arrow, with its fixed gear AND fixed pitch prop. Generally the speed improvement is less than is imagined and the weight hit is substantial. We already fly a plane that is useful load challenged (except very early light ones or newer G5’s). I have no issues with RG, looks great. But go get real numbers and then decide, rationally. It is a nice stroke on your ego, but in real practice not without trade offs. I would not switch from a FG Cirrus to a RG Cirrus if it were available. Not worth it, IMO. And that doesn’t take into account the FG of the Cirrus is part of the energy absorption design of the chute.
Perhaps more than any other place, aviation is a series of trade offs.
I agree (obviously) with all of your post except the above. And my disagreement involves a lot of emotion and a little practical.
I miss the RG in my Bonanza! In Bravo, I was often told to keep my speed up. No problem! Time to slow down, just pull back to 154 KIAS and drop the gear - that slowed you to full flap speed of 123 KIAS quicky, so drop those too. You could do that from very short final. I loved that flexibility.
And then there’s the whole Top Gun feeling when you pull the gear up and feel the surge of increased speed.
And in some RG, you get a much beefier gear - no wheel pants, so grass is MUCH easier.
As much as I loved the RG, though, I can’t afford to give up any UL.
Can you imagine how cool that would look? It would be kinda like this, except without the bent prop and it would be a higher AGL… 
For background, I am from Europe. my job is to write about innovative new airplanes in Europe.
The C4 hasn’t even flown yet. The Panthera is years from certification - and already far away from the numbers originally promised. Lets compare apples with apples. Either let’s talk about cool ideas - I hear there is a neat flying carpet coming out of Bulgaria.
Or let’s talk about products. Tecnam just got the P Twenty-ten certified. years late, but still way earlier than all those others. There’s a very strong connection to the fact that neither it’s numbers nor it’s looks are as exciting as those of the other guys. But it’s a product.
You seem to dislike things like the GTS package. Well, if you look at how the airplanes Cirrus sells are equipped, you seem to be in a very small minority. but you can still choose not to buy the GTS package. So I’m not quite sure why it is a problem.
Finally, no offense, but you really need to get up to date on accident statistics and insurance cost.
Interesting!
I actually thought it was a de facto standard: magenta for GPS and green for ground based NAV (VOR, ILS).
In the jet we do say “switching to green needles” when, say, switching from flying a GPS course to intercepting the localizer.
Even found this on an FAA Course on faasaftey.gov entitled “positive aircraft control” (emphasis is mine:)
Cultivate Basic Navigation Skills
Validate your position using visual cues, land based navigation aids, and dead reckoning. Practice flying with the GPS as the backup or secondary form of navigation instead of the primary navigation aid. If you are using GPS as the primary form of en route navigation, use ground based navigation aids when available to provide a backup to GPS or other RNAV information.
“DAD” & Green Data
Always know your heading, altitude, and distance to the desired fix. Think “DAD”: distance, altitude, and direction. If the GPS fails or you have trouble entering information, you can quickly revert to primary methods of navigation and maintain your course through flying your known heading. Airline pilots often refer to this as “flying green data”.
One practical aspect of RG at my airport, and probably a lot of cold weather airport, is that after a snow storm, you have the snow which is too high for the farings. Then the plows leave snow berms and snow balls. Initially they are soft, and you can mow through them. But then a couple of freeze thaw cycles and they becomes ice berms and ice balls. I had a guy that would fix my fairings on my field. I think I did heavy repairs to a total of 6 fairings in 2 years, that were busted by ground FOD. Let’s not talk about how much money that was [:(] With the RG P46, pot holes, ice berms, rope/chain holes, ice balls all are no problem. Plus when you get towed, no worries about scratches on the farings.