Hi all,
Hey, I am considering an sr20 purchase in the next couple days and I have a question on which looks more desirable given the same price.
The two are the same in engine time and all other aspects except below:
2002 SR20
Avidyne ex5000c
emax engine monitoring
Garmin 327 xpndr
Leather
2000 SR20
ARNAV ICDS-2000
WX500 Stormscope
BF Goodrich Skywatch
Leather with cloth inserts
Garmin 320 xpndr (old twist knobs)
Both have century HSI, dual 430’s, stec 55x AP.
the skywatch and stormscope are a 30k bundle of options but the other has the upgraded avidyne rather than the arnav.
Thanks for your input,
Rick
The 2002 – emax and Avidyne…you can buy a 330 for some traffic id if interested.
Hi all,
Hey, I am considering an sr20 purchase in the next couple days and I have a question on which looks more desirable given the same price.
The two are the same in engine time and all other aspects except below:
2002 SR20
Avidyne ex5000c
emax engine monitoring
Garmin 327 xpndr
Leather
2000 SR20
ARNAV ICDS-2000
WX500 Stormscope
BF Goodrich Skywatch
Leather with cloth inserts
Garmin 320 xpndr (old twist knobs)
Both have century HSI, dual 430’s, stec 55x AP.
the skywatch and stormscope are a 30k bundle of options but the other has the upgraded avidyne rather than the arnav.
Thanks for your input,
Rick
Mission, Mission, Mission.
The answer to your question grasshopper, is already in your possession.
I live in Miami. Home of thunderstorms, and heavy traffic.
To me, a storm scope is a must. Living in a Class B, traffic density and proximity is critical.
On the other hand, the Avidyne is more graphical and you can upgrade an Avidyne to display WxWorx (uh oh, better not go there)
Do you need a stormscope?
Do you fly around lots of traffic?
Do you like prettier colors?
Could you upgrade your 320 transponder to a 330 (I did)
Are you happy with the ARNAV system (I am)
You have the answer my son. You need only look to your mission.
Rick,
We have a 2001 SR22 with the Arnav and are happy with it. One thing worth asking about, does the Skywatch display on the Arnav or only on the Garmin 430? We passed on the Skywatch option because it did not display on the Arnav and $21,500 seemed like a lot to pay to have it on the small Garmin screen. However, I am satisfied with the Arnav even though the quality of the graphics are a bit better on the Avidyne. The situational awareness is fantastic on the Arnav and it has been dead reliable. In 400 hours, I have had to pull the breakers for a reboot once and my partner had to do it once. It doesn’t display curved courses like DME arcs, but you can get weather and engine monitoring.
FWIW
Hi all,
Hey, I am considering an sr20 purchase in the next couple days and I have a question on which looks more desirable given the same price.
The two are the same in engine time and all other aspects except below:
2002 SR20
Avidyne ex5000c
emax engine monitoring
Garmin 327 xpndr
Leather
2000 SR20
ARNAV ICDS-2000
WX500 Stormscope
BF Goodrich Skywatch
Leather with cloth inserts
Garmin 320 xpndr (old twist knobs)
Both have century HSI, dual 430’s, stec 55x AP.
the skywatch and stormscope are a 30k bundle of options but the other has the upgraded avidyne rather than the arnav.
Thanks for your input,
Rick
Rick,
Mission, personal taste, and all that… but in my case, I’d definitely choose the 2002 SR20.
I flew a 2001 SR20 for almost 1000 hours - with these specs…
I’d go for the 2002 because it has the Avidyne MFD (at the end of the day, the far better choice IMHO), with Engine Monitoring (a MUST); and it’s two years younger.
The other things can be done if you want them; that’s mission dependant, so if you really need the Stormscope that could sway it. Even if TIS isn’t as desirable to you as SkyWatch, the difference isn’t enough to throw the equation IMO.
I upgraded a 320 xpndr in my archer to a 330 and it’s nice but I get the “traffic unavailable” a lot so the skywatch has a certain alure to it that draws me to it.
I have my IR but I have never had a stormscope and don’t particularly have a mission to be flying in and around storms so I don’t know how much utility I would get out of that.
I definitely need the traffic so it was 4500 to upgrade my previous 320 to a 330, which would bump the price of the 2002 $4500 above the 2000 and I would be getting much more limited traffic info.
Is the difference in years relevant as per say to the build quality? I am sure they have streamlined their production to have a nicer fit and quality the more planes they built.
What atvantages does the avidyne give over the arnav?
One other good thing is that the 2002 is still in warranty for another month or 2 so I can be relatively certain that all is perfect working order which is a boon considering that some cirri have infamous maintainence issues.
Is the difference in years relevant as per say to the build quality? I am sure they have streamlined their production to have a nicer fit and quality the more planes they built.
I believe that both are built on the same body and wing and are thus, escentially the same.
Once the bugs are worked out, all mechanical things have problems. Make sure all AD’s and SB’s are in compliance.
I am assuming that you have done, or will do, a “pre-buy” inspection. If so, the 2 months remaining on the warranty will have little consequence although things seem to break on me, as soon as I buy something.
In reply to:
What advantages does the avidyne give over the arnav?
As I mentioned, the Avidyne is more graphical, but the Arnav has built in TAWS {or a reasonable variation)
Here are the websites for both systems.
Since this is a personal choice, you really need to judge for yourself. http://www.arnav.com/ http://www.avidyne.com/EX5000/default.shtm
My SR20 is #1036, one of the oldest and I haven’t had any substantial problems other than the need to change the oil about 200 hours ago… In fact it usually cruises at 155-160 and I have never canceled a mission because of a problem.
I purchased a 2000 SR20 similar to the one you are considering. I actually prefer the fabric seats over leather for actual comfort although I like leather better for looks. The ARNAV is a good unit that displays terrain and obstacles very nicely. I too thought I would prefer the Avidyne, but am very satisfied with the ARNAV unit. I will probably upgrade to engine monitoring in a few months. Looking at your options, I personally would choose the 2000 model and then consider upgrading the engine monitoring. I think you will get more value for your money.
The one other thing you may want to consider is the parachute needs inspected every five years (I think). That means you could get another three years out of the 2002 model over the 2000 which will probably need the inspection done next year. I donÂ’t know how much that will cost.
The Arnav is superior in several key ways: 2000 hours of engine data storage instead of 35, and terrain awareness/warning. There are ways in which the Avidyne is better, no doubt. But getting the stormscope and skywatch would be a big big plus for me at least.
Get the older one, and add engine monitoring.
The Arnav is superior in several key ways: 2000 hours of engine data storage instead of 35, and terrain awareness/warning. There are ways in which the Avidyne is better, no doubt. But getting the stormscope and skywatch would be a big big plus for me at least.
Robert,
Respectfully disagree…
Yes, the Arnav stores 2000 hours of engine data. It also includes altitude, a feature I miss on the Emax. On the other hand, it’s much easier to dump the data out of the Emax (IMHO), and there are many more tools for looking at that data in clever ways; one of them is feature-rich and free to COPA members, having been written and generously provided by Mike Glazer. I actually look at and use the data I get from the Emax, something I rarely did with Arnav.
The Avidyne doesn’t offer terrain warning, that’s true; but the terrain AWARENESS that is provided is much, much nicer, more intuitive and much more ACCURATE than Arnav’s. Also, a new buyer should be aware that Arnav’s terrain warning needs to be switched on, and takes the form of a visual cue - no audio. It’s not TAWS. Not a slam of Arnav, especially cf. Avidyne which offers no warnings at all; just a clarification.
My most compelling argument is that I have 950 hours behind the Arnav, and about 200 behind the Avidyne. Each has its foibles and advantages relative to the other, but there is simply no way I’d go back.
Agree with your comment on Stormscope and Skywatch, inasmuch as that one depends on the pilot and the mission.
