IO540 -
Good general analysis of Cirrus depreciation forces. However, I can add detail on some of your coments. As for traveling to get to a service center, this is really a warranty issue. Cirrus will only back the warranty when a service center does the work. Avidyne reliability improved over the years but was never some big huge problem. What does contribute to issues on the Cirrus is that there is a lot of stuff. This is true of all of the newer aircraft loaded with lots of goodies.
Failing LCD's hasn't been a big deal AFIK on either Perspective or Entegra. Entegra has had issues with the SSD getting corrupted on the ground during data updates resulting in MFD (not PFD) loss until the SSD could be replaced. R9 now has a much more robust structure with different pieces of data compartmentalized better. R9 screens use 3 rows of LED's and drivers for tripple redundancy per screen. Each display (PFD & MFD) are actually identical so the MFD can be turned into a PFD. Garmin G1000 resets in flight better than Entegra although both will reset. This has to do with the AI only with a conventional AI as backup in the plane. Newer units reset better in flight including Entegra units upgraded to R7. As far as reliability I will put a newer all electric cockpit up against a vacuum pump based system any day. G1000 and Avidyne R9 have moved to line replacable units (LRU's) to aid in an AOG situation. Similarly, R9 and I think G1000 store configuration data separate from the box itself in a module on the cable assembly. That means when a box is swapped it is already configured just by doing a read of the settings. In my plane I have dual air data computers, dual AHRS, an additional bolster mounted backup airspeed, altimeter and electric AI all on dual electrical busses with dual batteries and dual alternators. Oh yeah, I have dual GPS units and 2 dual channel radios. I suspect the pilot will break the plane before the avionics do.
The drawbacks I see with glass involve tapes vs. round gauges. That takes getting used to and I don't think it draws your attention as quickly as the position of a hand on a dial not being correct.
Something due to Cirrus that I do think is a big advance is the wide AI instead of the little imitation of a standard mechanical AI done prior to Entegra. Cirrus (specifically Alan Klapmeier) pushed for it. It allows peripheral vision to better pick up an attitude change.
As far as relaibility there are certainly gauge wiring issues on the 2002 era planes although most are fixed now.
I so rarely see Cirruses having done long trips;
Not true in the US. A major part of the use profile in the US is the long cross country and a lot of the European owners I know fly long trips. I like looking at
FlightAware > Aircraft Type This shows aircraft in the US ATC system. That is a good indicator of poor weather and long cross country use by type. When you consider the number of each type registered in the US, this gives a good indicator of the extent to which the plane is used for long cross country and bad waether flying. This relates to the average risk profile each type is exposed to. For example there are way more C182's registered than SR22's. More Mooneys have been made than SR22's.
If you look
here you can get an idea of trip length. Do this for different times of day remembering the time difference and different days of the week and it is interesting.
sternone
The BRS is a false safety argument, the fatal numbers of the Cirrus fleet proves that. With all their safety items they should be the safest, and they are the worse.
Now there you go again saying things that aren't true. Cirrus is far from the worst and is similar to Mooney and Bonanza. I agree the record should be better. I have thought long and hard about that and all I can figure out is that it is the pilot and the mission rather than the plane itself that dominates. The airspeed limit is 133 kts IAS and it has worked far above that. It did fail on a deployment at close to 300 kts.
Justiciar -
You pose an interesting safety question regarding glass cockpits. The problem is that as capability increases people increase their missions till they hit their risk level. Their are studies on this subject. In some ways the safest plane might be one with no GPS (encourages off airway trips), no VOR (concept of airways like highways encourages long trips and use like a car for travel), AI (encourages flight into clouds) ... If you fly only in the pattern at a little used airport and only do it on sunny days you can make flying safer. Glass cockpits tend to come with a lot of stuff that encourages an expansion of the missions flown in the plane.
I agree that dirt cheap air travel has removed some of the romance of GA. As for marketing to non-GA people, Cessna used to sell the Land-O-Matic gear on the 182 and talk about it being almost as easy as driving a car.