cirrus sr22
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luckily we have forums like this where people who look beyond the Cirrus marketing machine are looking and spitting their opinion. Something that isn't really allowed by the Cirrus owners so it seems.
Firstly, I've never seen anything from "Cirrus marketing" that looks particularly different or that could be any more misleading or mesmerising than all the other light airplane maketing out there. Secondly, I've never come across a Cirrus owner who was a moron who found $600k in the street. They tend to be professional people and entreprenuers who've worked hard to be able to buy the airplane they want.
All aircraft have a specific set of attributes and every owner has a different weighting of priorities amongst attributes. I think it's just immature not to recognise that any individual's preferences are as legitimate as anyone elses.
The preference the market has for the Cirrus it totally unsurprising. It's just a very attractive product. You line up a Cirrus next to a Mooney and it's a no-brainer which the majority of pilots will pick. The extra speed and range in the Mooney just don't make up for the cramped cabin, dated looks (and, perhaps, the fragile and endlessly insolvent maker). If I really wanted the max speed and range from a single for 1000nm legs, I'd buy a used Malibu with pressurisation and a cabin-class interior. I'd just rather not go than use oxygen in a cramped single for 5hrs. Which leaves the Mooney as the obvioulsy niche product it is. One can respect it as such, but it's pretty nutty to rant on about why the 20x or 50x? more people who buy Cirruses aren't in your little niche. The Beech has some sort of 'traditional' look to it which is nice, but that's about the end of it. Why do I spend the best part of $1m and then have to go after-market for turbos and deice? And the narrow cabin is horrible. Forget the numbers and technical attributes - what's the point of buying an uncomfortable aircraft?
Cirrus make some unconventional decisions which may be annoying (eg. I'd prefer a prop control for the reasons discussed, and a normal stall certification without the BRS) but the decisions they've made, on balance, appeal to more pilots than any other fast single.
brgds
421C
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 - Interesting thoughts on the interior. It makes sense. Especially older Cirrus aircraft don't like sitting in the sun day after day. Then again, a lot of cars don't like it either. A G1 to G2 interior change was to make the interior trim panels easier to remove from the plane during annual. A lot got broken going in and out of the plane. This was particularly true of fractional operators who have a 100 hour annual requirement. That meant 6 times per year for removal. My wife and I flew through a fractional for 5 years. She finally said she wanted her own plane and to maintain it her way. While I have seen Cirrus aircraft with that worn out look they have all been 1200 hour plus planes in fractionals that sat in Georgia or Florida sun all day.Usually closer to 1800 hours.
Fuji Abound - What I have seen indicates the molds are fine. Some of the finishing work could be improved. As for the doors, I think more recent ones are carbon fiber for weight. Mine fit fine but if passengers shut during run-up it doesn't work due to the propwash bending the door slightly. It is key to get the two latches sync'd and have that checked each year. The adjustment is simple. The Diamonds I have seen seemed a little better on paint shop work but no major difference. As for interior leather, Cirrus now offers a premium leather if you are willing to pay extra.
I bought my plane used because I couldn't afford a new one. Both my wife and I drive 1996 vehicles. I looked at the new Hyundai and it was nice. I offered my wife a new vehicle but she wanted the avionics upgrade instead.
Fuji Abound - What I have seen indicates the molds are fine. Some of the finishing work could be improved. As for the doors, I think more recent ones are carbon fiber for weight. Mine fit fine but if passengers shut during run-up it doesn't work due to the propwash bending the door slightly. It is key to get the two latches sync'd and have that checked each year. The adjustment is simple. The Diamonds I have seen seemed a little better on paint shop work but no major difference. As for interior leather, Cirrus now offers a premium leather if you are willing to pay extra.
I bought my plane used because I couldn't afford a new one. Both my wife and I drive 1996 vehicles. I looked at the new Hyundai and it was nice. I offered my wife a new vehicle but she wanted the avionics upgrade instead.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still don't get it if you make such a 'wanted' product like a Cirrus why there are so many cirrus' on the second hand market and no one picks them up. They're a bargain!
Oh wait, maybe it's because like said before that cirrus don't get any money from second hand sales so their marketing machine isn't working on it. Can't blame them. But if they where really a product that the market would need, they would have been sold directly since it's the best plane you can find out there ? APPARENTLY NOT !!! It's a proof for me, that people who don't know a lot about aviation buy a Cirrus because they just don't know better. On the second hand market things are different, there you have people who compare, calculate and think.
$1600+ depreciation per flying hour, how do you live with that ? No honestly ?
Do you try not to think about it ?
Do you lie to yourself ?
Do you think it's normal ? IT's NOT.
Oh wait, maybe it's because like said before that cirrus don't get any money from second hand sales so their marketing machine isn't working on it. Can't blame them. But if they where really a product that the market would need, they would have been sold directly since it's the best plane you can find out there ? APPARENTLY NOT !!! It's a proof for me, that people who don't know a lot about aviation buy a Cirrus because they just don't know better. On the second hand market things are different, there you have people who compare, calculate and think.
$1600+ depreciation per flying hour, how do you live with that ? No honestly ?
Do you try not to think about it ?
Do you lie to yourself ?
Do you think it's normal ? IT's NOT.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sternone
Now you know the reason why there are a good many Cirrus for sale at the moment. It is equally true of Diamonds and I suspect true of just about every other aircraft in curent production with the number for sale being approximately proportionate to the number produced.
As I was attempting to explain earlier there is still a niche market in aviation. Really good Mooneys or Bonanazas are hard to find. Moreover I think we would agree, they are built in a different way, although I am still not sure the build quality is enormously better. However just like my analogy with yachts there are some people who will pay the going rate for quality or simply to be different. Mind you even that market is temperamental at the moment - you could get lucky and sell a good Ovation quickly and you might not be so lucky.
When I thought of buying a 42 everyone wanted one - the market was really strong and prices reflected the strengh - how that has changed, you cant give them away now.
I dont know why you are so fixated on depreciation. Have you looked at the price of some cars when new and compared this price with their second hand value a year after?
Finally I dont know why you apply logic to an illogical situation. Look on eBay at some of the consumer items purchased weeks before and being sold for a fraction of their new price. You have only got to discuss with a woman the logic of spending £4,000 on a bag and I know of some men who are worse; well come to that any man that buys a new light aircraft! I can think of at least one chap I know who has sold three cars in the last 14 months each pruchased new and each involving a very signficant loss; one of the cars he had for three weeks and it cost him £8K - I make that nearly £16 for every single hour he owned it.
In short you are wasting your time trying to make a rational financial argument for ever buying a new aircraft.
If you want value for money buy something a few years old - it has always been that way. Most of the depreciation works itself off in that period but with any luck you will not have to spend too much on the item for a few more years. I was always fond of telling people that I actually sold the first aircraft I owned for more than I paid for it - I really did. However, in reality the maintenance costs were high, much higher than on an aircraft a few years old and of course I didnt add the "capital" running costs onto the purchase price.
Now you know the reason why there are a good many Cirrus for sale at the moment. It is equally true of Diamonds and I suspect true of just about every other aircraft in curent production with the number for sale being approximately proportionate to the number produced.
As I was attempting to explain earlier there is still a niche market in aviation. Really good Mooneys or Bonanazas are hard to find. Moreover I think we would agree, they are built in a different way, although I am still not sure the build quality is enormously better. However just like my analogy with yachts there are some people who will pay the going rate for quality or simply to be different. Mind you even that market is temperamental at the moment - you could get lucky and sell a good Ovation quickly and you might not be so lucky.
When I thought of buying a 42 everyone wanted one - the market was really strong and prices reflected the strengh - how that has changed, you cant give them away now.
I dont know why you are so fixated on depreciation. Have you looked at the price of some cars when new and compared this price with their second hand value a year after?
Finally I dont know why you apply logic to an illogical situation. Look on eBay at some of the consumer items purchased weeks before and being sold for a fraction of their new price. You have only got to discuss with a woman the logic of spending £4,000 on a bag and I know of some men who are worse; well come to that any man that buys a new light aircraft! I can think of at least one chap I know who has sold three cars in the last 14 months each pruchased new and each involving a very signficant loss; one of the cars he had for three weeks and it cost him £8K - I make that nearly £16 for every single hour he owned it.
In short you are wasting your time trying to make a rational financial argument for ever buying a new aircraft.
If you want value for money buy something a few years old - it has always been that way. Most of the depreciation works itself off in that period but with any luck you will not have to spend too much on the item for a few more years. I was always fond of telling people that I actually sold the first aircraft I owned for more than I paid for it - I really did. However, in reality the maintenance costs were high, much higher than on an aircraft a few years old and of course I didnt add the "capital" running costs onto the purchase price.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji, I'm just comparing the huge depreciation on a Cirrus with any other plane around on the market.
The cirrus is the worse in every case. That's the whole issue.
The cirrus is the worse in every case. That's the whole issue.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect the huge Cirrus depreciation of the last year or two is a combination of
- the collapse in the GA market (only nichey products, with demand supported by no longer being made, have held up well - recent-model Mooneys and TB20GTs come to mind)
- a constant flow of new models with flashy new kit
- a LOT of sales in recent years, probably satisfying years of pent up demand for something modern and Made in America (just like Cessna sales rocketed after the USA passed that GA revitalisation Act)
- modern marketing, successful at digging out completely new customers who think of them as cars so depreciation is not much of a concern
- assorted teething troubles with the older Cirruses, perhaps? (One hears many stories of major avionics failures of the Avidyne kit, and I can't help wondering why, on my long trips, I so rarely see Cirruses having done long trips; could be that their European customer profile is not into going anywhere far, or it could be regular issues)
- similar to above, I might suspect significant downtime/hassle, caused not by the product being generally unreliable but by the need to fly it back to the dealer for most work (I know if I had a Cirrus then local maintenance would be hard and avionics work impossible with any glass cockpit model; it's a flight back to the Garmin/Avidyne dealer for anything at all). I would not expect this factor to translate to more Cirrus sales but the customers have nowhere else to go if they want something modern, and once you have had a glass cockpit you won't be going back from that.
I don't think there is anything "wrong" with a Cirrus as a plane (well apart from the lack of rpm control, and fixed landing gear ) but - along with a lot of other stuff out there - I sure would not want to own one unless I was based at an airport with a Cirrus dealer and the appropriate glass cockpit avionics dealer. That's why I am sticking with my TB20GT (sellable for about 140k which is a drop from 197k over 7.5 years) and if somebody offered to install a G600 for free I would not go for it.
Unless you read the Aviation Consumer article reporting 10% of owners had in-flight engine failures. I know that article has been partly discredited but the real story behind the numerous engine failures is awfully hard to establish. I know one bloke who used to fly them for business, daily and he saw many failures in the fleet (though mostly "just" cylinder cracks rather than stoppages).
There is no good solution to this mission profile, below the turboprop level which is much more costly.
- the collapse in the GA market (only nichey products, with demand supported by no longer being made, have held up well - recent-model Mooneys and TB20GTs come to mind)
- a constant flow of new models with flashy new kit
- a LOT of sales in recent years, probably satisfying years of pent up demand for something modern and Made in America (just like Cessna sales rocketed after the USA passed that GA revitalisation Act)
- modern marketing, successful at digging out completely new customers who think of them as cars so depreciation is not much of a concern
- assorted teething troubles with the older Cirruses, perhaps? (One hears many stories of major avionics failures of the Avidyne kit, and I can't help wondering why, on my long trips, I so rarely see Cirruses having done long trips; could be that their European customer profile is not into going anywhere far, or it could be regular issues)
- similar to above, I might suspect significant downtime/hassle, caused not by the product being generally unreliable but by the need to fly it back to the dealer for most work (I know if I had a Cirrus then local maintenance would be hard and avionics work impossible with any glass cockpit model; it's a flight back to the Garmin/Avidyne dealer for anything at all). I would not expect this factor to translate to more Cirrus sales but the customers have nowhere else to go if they want something modern, and once you have had a glass cockpit you won't be going back from that.
I don't think there is anything "wrong" with a Cirrus as a plane (well apart from the lack of rpm control, and fixed landing gear
) but - along with a lot of other stuff out there - I sure would not want to own one unless I was based at an airport with a Cirrus dealer and the appropriate glass cockpit avionics dealer. That's why I am sticking with my TB20GT (sellable for about 140k which is a drop from 197k over 7.5 years) and if somebody offered to install a G600 for free I would not go for it.
If I really wanted the max speed and range from a single for 1000nm legs, I'd buy a used Malibu with pressurisation and a cabin-class interior
There is no good solution to this mission profile, below the turboprop level which is much more costly.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji, I'm just comparing the huge depreciation on a Cirrus with any other plane around on the market.
Lets see the comparison with say Diamond or any other volume manufacturer.
I have a pretty good idea what you can actually buy a 42 for at the moment. I also know what some of the Cessnas are actually changing hands for.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a very entertaining thread! Particularly amusing is one person's negative obsession with Cirrus.
It seems to me that you cannot divorce these issues from what goes on in the wide world and from the hugh social and economic changes which have occured in the post war years but particularly in the last ten to fifteen years.
In the immediate post war period there was the start of a new golden age in aviation, mainly in the US. As factories switched from war to peace time production we say the genesis of whole new ranges of aircraft manufactured to then modern standards with modern materials. Piper, Cessna, Mooney and Beechcraft all developed their iconic products in the immediate post war years. America was not bankrupt like the UK. People had money, these manufacturers were producing aircraft which were faster, easier to fly and safer. People had money to burn and personal transport was something that many aspired to, in an age when commercial air travel was still expensive.
Things have now changed in a way which makes it very difficult for any company to be a volume producer of touring aircraft. Air travel is dirt cheap, destinations have proliferated and at the same time aviation (GA) has become more regulated, fuel much more expensive and air space more congested and restricted, at least in Europe. People have more and varied things to spend their money on so aircraft come down the list. It is no coincidence that the average age of pilots is going up (as is the average age of attenders at things like Oskosh).
Against this background, it is hardly surprising that to make a profit a company like Cirrus has to market like a car maker or washing machine seller! They see their mission as to turn a personal light aircraft from being a specialised product to something akin to a main stream consumer product, all be it an expensive one. Compare the present to the former PC market. It was not long ago that to buy a computer you went to a specialist; now any store sells them!
There will still be a hard core of avaitors who dislike the modern image and marketing of Cirrus and prefer the older design of a Mooney or a TB20. However, they will be in a minority and as time goes on they will be an ever diminishing minority. No manufacturer will ever again I suspect build to suit such a small market. Recent events at Mooney show that it is virtually impossible to weather an economic storm of the sort we have just been through.
My prediction (not much of one really as it is already happening) is that the future of light aviation is in small LSA/VLA aircraft which are cheap to operate, can fly from small strips (useful with the cost of landing at many licensed airfields) and which run on mogas or diesel (the future is limited for Avgas thanks to new environmental lobbying in the US and elsewhere). They will be day VFR, which is all the majority of pilots aspire to. No, these aircraft are not as robust as a Piper or a Cessna, nor do thay have the payload, but they are hugely cheaper to build and to operate.
Arguments about depreciation of Cirrus versus Piper or Mooney are irrelevent. Any new product of this sort will depreciate hugely - even a new certified LSA will depreciate significantly, as does almost any consumer item these days. Mass produced anything will tend to wear and look tatty quicker than something made 50 years ago (comparison with cars is very relevant). That is "progress". That same object will at the same time be far cheaper to manufacture and to manufacturer to a high standard and be a more technically competent product than something 50 years old.
It seems to me that you cannot divorce these issues from what goes on in the wide world and from the hugh social and economic changes which have occured in the post war years but particularly in the last ten to fifteen years.
In the immediate post war period there was the start of a new golden age in aviation, mainly in the US. As factories switched from war to peace time production we say the genesis of whole new ranges of aircraft manufactured to then modern standards with modern materials. Piper, Cessna, Mooney and Beechcraft all developed their iconic products in the immediate post war years. America was not bankrupt like the UK. People had money, these manufacturers were producing aircraft which were faster, easier to fly and safer. People had money to burn and personal transport was something that many aspired to, in an age when commercial air travel was still expensive.
Things have now changed in a way which makes it very difficult for any company to be a volume producer of touring aircraft. Air travel is dirt cheap, destinations have proliferated and at the same time aviation (GA) has become more regulated, fuel much more expensive and air space more congested and restricted, at least in Europe. People have more and varied things to spend their money on so aircraft come down the list. It is no coincidence that the average age of pilots is going up (as is the average age of attenders at things like Oskosh).
Against this background, it is hardly surprising that to make a profit a company like Cirrus has to market like a car maker or washing machine seller! They see their mission as to turn a personal light aircraft from being a specialised product to something akin to a main stream consumer product, all be it an expensive one. Compare the present to the former PC market. It was not long ago that to buy a computer you went to a specialist; now any store sells them!
There will still be a hard core of avaitors who dislike the modern image and marketing of Cirrus and prefer the older design of a Mooney or a TB20. However, they will be in a minority and as time goes on they will be an ever diminishing minority. No manufacturer will ever again I suspect build to suit such a small market. Recent events at Mooney show that it is virtually impossible to weather an economic storm of the sort we have just been through.
My prediction (not much of one really as it is already happening) is that the future of light aviation is in small LSA/VLA aircraft which are cheap to operate, can fly from small strips (useful with the cost of landing at many licensed airfields) and which run on mogas or diesel (the future is limited for Avgas thanks to new environmental lobbying in the US and elsewhere). They will be day VFR, which is all the majority of pilots aspire to. No, these aircraft are not as robust as a Piper or a Cessna, nor do thay have the payload, but they are hugely cheaper to build and to operate.
Arguments about depreciation of Cirrus versus Piper or Mooney are irrelevent. Any new product of this sort will depreciate hugely - even a new certified LSA will depreciate significantly, as does almost any consumer item these days. Mass produced anything will tend to wear and look tatty quicker than something made 50 years ago (comparison with cars is very relevant). That is "progress". That same object will at the same time be far cheaper to manufacture and to manufacturer to a high standard and be a more technically competent product than something 50 years old.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
Lets see the comparison with say Diamond or any other volume manufacturer.
I have a pretty good idea what you can actually buy a 42 for at the moment.
I have a pretty good idea what you can actually buy a 42 for at the moment.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depreciation of DA42s and DA40Ds is high for a different reason
However you can buy a 42 with a fixed price guarantee from Diamond for replacing the engines with the new diesels for a remarkable price.
Moreover Thielert seem to have resolved most of their issues, the prices of parts has fallen dramatically and perhaps a 40 or 42 with Thielerts is not such a bad buy.
However many of the 42s were sold to flying schools to replace ancient twins. Many have already upgraded their fleet and in the same way as Cirrus the ones keeping their bank managers happy with profits will be selling of their early 42s and replacing them and the ones not keeping the bank manager happy will be selling them because they need to.
It all adds up to a market with similarities across the fleet and elements unique to certain types - I suspect the uptake of Diamonds by schools has been far higher than the up take of Cirrus.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the depreciation situation on the Thielert-engined Diamonds is quite suprisingly "not bad", now that Thielert are again shipping parts.
However, one should not completely disregard the possibility of Diamond itself getting into financial trouble. The whole GA business is in dire straits, Diamond are extending themselves financially on a number of fronts (they seem to have resumed development of the D-Jet, after reportedly shelving it 6-12 months ago, and they spent a load of $$$ getting the paperwork for the Austro engine signed off) and they have now bet the whole shop on the Austro engine being reliable.
Their only hedge against this utter disaster is their old business which must still be generating some cash, and the very rapid move they did to get an avgas DA42 certified for the US market.
If the Austro engine causes problems, Diamond will be in severe difficulties and the Austro engined owners will be in an even deeper water. With Thielert, there were able to rely (with any non-private buyers) on separate contracts for airframe and engine but with Austro they won't be able to do that. I don't know whether there will be a certified downgrade from Austro to Thielert (for a from-new Austro engined airframe) but can you imagine facing such an option? A bankrupt airframe maker, and you have to chuck away a worthless engine and install an engine with a known poor reliability record made by a firm operated by an Administrator
However, one should not completely disregard the possibility of Diamond itself getting into financial trouble. The whole GA business is in dire straits, Diamond are extending themselves financially on a number of fronts (they seem to have resumed development of the D-Jet, after reportedly shelving it 6-12 months ago, and they spent a load of $$$ getting the paperwork for the Austro engine signed off) and they have now bet the whole shop on the Austro engine being reliable.
Their only hedge against this utter disaster is their old business which must still be generating some cash, and the very rapid move they did to get an avgas DA42 certified for the US market.
If the Austro engine causes problems, Diamond will be in severe difficulties and the Austro engined owners will be in an even deeper water. With Thielert, there were able to rely (with any non-private buyers) on separate contracts for airframe and engine but with Austro they won't be able to do that. I don't know whether there will be a certified downgrade from Austro to Thielert (for a from-new Austro engined airframe) but can you imagine facing such an option? A bankrupt airframe maker, and you have to chuck away a worthless engine and install an engine with a known poor reliability record made by a firm operated by an Administrator
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
421C
Excellent post. A bit of sense at last.
This is really a marketing discussion. This aircraft is largely aimed at the US market and many owners will have bought/leased through their businesses and use them accordingly. They will take any loss just like they would for their company car or machinery necessary for their business.
Last time I was in Florida I was stunned by the number that I saw. As for the comment that they are not used for long journeys, I would say that is far from the truth.
Any business will tell you that large numbers sold equals large numbers second hand. The on-going program that Cirrus have of updates and new models is consistent with building the business for the long term. I don't suppose that they sat in planning meetings saying 'Hey, let's build a new airplane to old specifications'. They designed it for their core market i.e. IR, GA friendly.
Excellent post. A bit of sense at last.
This is really a marketing discussion. This aircraft is largely aimed at the US market and many owners will have bought/leased through their businesses and use them accordingly. They will take any loss just like they would for their company car or machinery necessary for their business.
Last time I was in Florida I was stunned by the number that I saw. As for the comment that they are not used for long journeys, I would say that is far from the truth.
Any business will tell you that large numbers sold equals large numbers second hand. The on-going program that Cirrus have of updates and new models is consistent with building the business for the long term. I don't suppose that they sat in planning meetings saying 'Hey, let's build a new airplane to old specifications'. They designed it for their core market i.e. IR, GA friendly.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just received notice of an emergency AD for various TCM engines that immediately grounds SR20s, until their lifters are inspected. Over on COPA, they're saying it applies to the SR22 as well. That should leave the skies quiet for a while.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just received notice of an emergency AD for various TCM engines that immediately grounds SR20s, until their lifters are inspected. Over on COPA, they're saying it applies to the SR22 as well. That should leave the skies quiet for a while.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh well, Lycoming crankshafts, Continental tappets... no end to this "$15,000 a job" saga. I wonder if Conti will be paying for their crap QA. Lyco paid for the early crank batches, but didn't pay for the remaining 5500
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread started with a question of the safety of Cirrus. I notice in many posts the unchallenged statement that glass cockpit is the way forward and that it is very difficult to manufacture and sell an aircraft with conventional instruments. Why so?
Understandably, glass has made its way in to the airlines, where the whole process of aviation is very different. However, does glass make for a safer cockpit? There may well be a false assumption amongst buyers that it does and this may be where the problem lies. Essentially the same information is presented in a more compact format. It is questionable whether the format is any safer and personally I have found these instruments more difficult to read as part of a scan than conventional dials. Interpreting a speed or altitude from a ribbon and figures is not as effective under pressure as reading the position of a needle. Furthermore, does this expensive instrumentation contribute to the depreciation, by having a high(er) initial cost along with greater difficulty of maintenance (as IO has alluded to)? Modern glass instruments also seem to suffer from far more frequent upgrades leading to buyers perhaps chasing the latest version and flooding the second hand market.
Discuss
Understandably, glass has made its way in to the airlines, where the whole process of aviation is very different. However, does glass make for a safer cockpit? There may well be a false assumption amongst buyers that it does and this may be where the problem lies. Essentially the same information is presented in a more compact format. It is questionable whether the format is any safer and personally I have found these instruments more difficult to read as part of a scan than conventional dials. Interpreting a speed or altitude from a ribbon and figures is not as effective under pressure as reading the position of a needle. Furthermore, does this expensive instrumentation contribute to the depreciation, by having a high(er) initial cost along with greater difficulty of maintenance (as IO has alluded to)? Modern glass instruments also seem to suffer from far more frequent upgrades leading to buyers perhaps chasing the latest version and flooding the second hand market.
Discuss
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO "glass" is a must, for simple fashion reasons.
There is little doubt that glass does present information more clearly.
I think most purchasers are unaware of the drawbacks, or they don't care.
There is little doubt that glass does present information more clearly.
I think most purchasers are unaware of the drawbacks, or they don't care.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards glass there is no doubt it will take a pilot accustom to a six pack time to adjust. You cant tell which you prefer until you have been behind glass for at least ten hours and perhaps more.
I can imagine the amount of information availlable from typical glass systems maybe daunting to some, and more daunting is the need to be comfortable with the controls which are many orders of magnitude more complex that traditional instruments. If you are comfortable with computers it probably will not bother you, if you are not, I can imagine some being terrified.
Be it IFR or VFR one of the keys to safe flying is situational awareness. Nothing comes close to the situational awareness provided by a 12" TFT colour MDF or whatever spec it is because at a glance you can see exactly where you are on the chart and if needs must exactly where you are in the IAP. I find it difficult to see how some of the CFIT would have occurred had the aircraft been fitted with a MDF.
To be fair the PDF is simply replicating the six pack and adding a little more information so in itself it probably doesnt advance matters a great deal, but you can paint the map or the approach on most PDFs in a pop up box or beneath the rose which I think advances situational awareness enormously. Also the PDF is more adaptable to pilot grabbing attention by flashing up urgent warnings in a way that is hard to miss.
For those comfortable with glass I think it is a substantial step forward in providing pilots with the information they need in an easy to assimilate form.
On other issues I have no idea whether glass will prove cost effective. I would guess it is much cheaper for a mnaufacturer to install glass in terms of the labour required. Clearly at the moment the systems are more expensive whilst the manufacturers are profitering and paying off their R and D costs but my guess is glass is much cheaper to manufacture. In the marine world you only have to consider how cheap chart plotters are now and I dont suppose the technology is all that different.
Inevitably there is an issue with repairs. It will take time before avionics shops have the skills to repair glass in the field and indeed are authorised to do so. However it should not be forgotten that many of the underlying systems are simply the boxes we are accustom to having on our panels but driven by the keys on the PDF / MDF. For example the GPS nav component of the G1000 is really nothing more than two 430 s. Since the systems are modular swapping certain of the modular components in the field should not be an issue.
IO540 will know better than me but I have a feeling solid state electronics are in the end more reliable and cheaper to repair than something with a whirring mechanical gyro. If that is so in the long run glass should serve us better.
I can imagine the amount of information availlable from typical glass systems maybe daunting to some, and more daunting is the need to be comfortable with the controls which are many orders of magnitude more complex that traditional instruments. If you are comfortable with computers it probably will not bother you, if you are not, I can imagine some being terrified.
Be it IFR or VFR one of the keys to safe flying is situational awareness. Nothing comes close to the situational awareness provided by a 12" TFT colour MDF or whatever spec it is because at a glance you can see exactly where you are on the chart and if needs must exactly where you are in the IAP. I find it difficult to see how some of the CFIT would have occurred had the aircraft been fitted with a MDF.
To be fair the PDF is simply replicating the six pack and adding a little more information so in itself it probably doesnt advance matters a great deal, but you can paint the map or the approach on most PDFs in a pop up box or beneath the rose which I think advances situational awareness enormously. Also the PDF is more adaptable to pilot grabbing attention by flashing up urgent warnings in a way that is hard to miss.
For those comfortable with glass I think it is a substantial step forward in providing pilots with the information they need in an easy to assimilate form.
On other issues I have no idea whether glass will prove cost effective. I would guess it is much cheaper for a mnaufacturer to install glass in terms of the labour required. Clearly at the moment the systems are more expensive whilst the manufacturers are profitering and paying off their R and D costs but my guess is glass is much cheaper to manufacture. In the marine world you only have to consider how cheap chart plotters are now and I dont suppose the technology is all that different.
Inevitably there is an issue with repairs. It will take time before avionics shops have the skills to repair glass in the field and indeed are authorised to do so. However it should not be forgotten that many of the underlying systems are simply the boxes we are accustom to having on our panels but driven by the keys on the PDF / MDF. For example the GPS nav component of the G1000 is really nothing more than two 430 s. Since the systems are modular swapping certain of the modular components in the field should not be an issue.
IO540 will know better than me but I have a feeling solid state electronics are in the end more reliable and cheaper to repair than something with a whirring mechanical gyro. If that is so in the long run glass should serve us better.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it? What is the failure rate of glass panels and what basic instruments are you left with in case of a panel failure? What are the risks of an inflight "reset" and what time does it take?
I'm old fashioned... I still prefer the old dials combined with a good moving map display, so if one thing goes, I still have the rest...
Everyone to their opinions! :-)
I'm old fashioned... I still prefer the old dials combined with a good moving map display, so if one thing goes, I still have the rest...
Everyone to their opinions! :-)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh I left out one thing: the cirrus parachute has a speed limit, and 90% of the time you are probably going too fast to deploy it.
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.
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.