Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Ryan,


hey can be summed up in three words: TCM, network, and MCU.



Could you explain a little more, please?

TCM: I think Continental's quality of materials and construction is poor
these days (see Deakin's comments on TCM at AVWeb) and I would have
vastly preferred a Lycoming powerplant in the Cirrus. The current
engine is a operating expense and safety liability in an otherwise
well-thought out airplane. The TBO talk of 1,700 vs. 2,000 is largely
moot because the engine is not likely to make it past 800-1000 hours
without being topped no matter how it's operated.

Network: Components by Emax, Avidyne, Garmin, S-TEC, and L-3 all
communicate together via ethernet. A piece of garbage occasionally
appears in the data stream and causes problems - for example, the
altitude preselect may stop functioning mid-flight, or the autopilot may
stop receiving course or heading signals from the PFD. These problems
are transitory and impossible to troubleshoot. The solution is to
integrate, which is what Garmin is promising with the G-1000. Garmin is
also building their own autopilot, which will obviously be designed to
seamlessly integrate with the G-1000. A/P integration was one of the
key goals of the Garmin design team, according the G-1000 product
manager when I spoke with him after a presentation on the G-1000.

MCU: The Master Control Unit provides electrical services such as
voltage regulation and overvoltage protection, etc. It's mounted on the
left side of the firewall in the engine compartment. Oddly, it is a
single point of failure across both alternators. A failure of the MCU
makes the all-electric SR-22 a battery-powered airplane in a heartbeat.
This is supposed to be a rare event, but we've replaced two MCUs in
one of our SR-22s already.

Another common misunderstanding is that the airplane "can't" recover
from spins with CAPS. According to Cirrus' test pilots, the airplane
recovers from spins via conventional recovery techniques. The latest
iteration of the SR-22 and SR-20 POH indicates the proper recovery
method is to first try the conventional PARE technique, and if not
effective, to activate CAPS. Spin certification compliance via CAPS was
simply a matter of saving money to certify the airplane. I don't
suggest that the airplane can or should be spun, but from what I've
heard directly from the horse's mouth, spin avoidance and recovery are
no more an issue in the Cirrus than any other single-engine airplane.

-Ryan

Ryan,

very interesting, thanks.

IMHO, it's a matter of time until Cirrus switches to the G1000, just
like they switched from Arnav to Avidyne. The integration really makes
sense. Maybe they're waiting for the autopilot...

As for TCM, here in Europe, many people, myself included, are really
waiting for a diesel to be integrated into the Cirrus. The way Cirrus
tells it, the SMA installation is full of problems which need solving
by SMA, not Cirrus. Not much movement there. OTOH, the small Thielert
doesn't have enough power. The big Thielert, scheduled for 2006, is too
big and heavy. So the only hope from my view is the 6-cylinder 200+ HP
Thielert, which will probably take until close to the end of the decade
to be fully certified and integrated. Oh well...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Ryan,

very interesting, thanks.

IMHO, it's a matter of time until Cirrus switches to the G1000, just
like they switched from Arnav to Avidyne.

Cirrus on their web site makes some silly comment that the G1000 does not
meet their standards for safety.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Ryan,

very interesting, thanks.

IMHO, it's a matter of time until Cirrus switches to the G1000, just
like they switched from Arnav to Avidyne. The integration really makes
sense. Maybe they're waiting for the autopilot...

Personally, I doubt it will happen anytime soon. The Klapmeiers view
themselves as a startup company, like Avidyne, and they like Avidyne's
scrappy spirit. Avidyne was also first to market with less dollars and
more technology than their competitors, and face a competitive landscape
similar to what Cirrus must now face: aggressive, angry competitors
(with a heck of a lot more money in the bank) who are having daily
meetings on how to put the newcomer out of business.

However, my bet is on Garmin for getting it right with the G-1000. The
market may force Cirrus to change their mind at some point.

-Ryan

As for TCM, here in Europe, many people, myself included, are really
waiting for a diesel to be integrated into the Cirrus. The way Cirrus
tells it, the SMA installation is full of problems which need solving
by SMA, not Cirrus. Not much movement there. OTOH, the small Thielert
doesn't have enough power. The big Thielert, scheduled for 2006, is too
big and heavy. So the only hope from my view is the 6-cylinder 200+ HP
Thielert, which will probably take until close to the end of the decade
to be fully certified and integrated. Oh well...

Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

We have a Diamond DA-42 with the Thielert engines on order, due in 2005.
I look forward to playing with that. It certainly can boast some
impressive numbers on paper.

-Ryan

We have a Diamond DA-42 with the Thielert engines on order, due in 2005.
I look forward to playing with that. It certainly can boast some
impressive numbers on paper.

I can't find any single-engine numbers on the Diamond website. Do you know
what the single-engine rate of climb and service ceiling are supposed to be?

I know, I found those before and they don't contain any single-engine
performance numbers.

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
"Mick Ruthven" wrote:

We have a Diamond DA-42 with the Thielert engines on order, due in
2005.
I look forward to playing with that. It certainly can boast some
impressive numbers on paper.

I can't find any single-engine numbers on the Diamond website. Do you
know
what the single-engine rate of climb and service ceiling are supposed to
be?

the only available facts are he
http://www.diamond-air.at/en/products/DA42/facts.htm
http://www.diamondair.com/contentc/TwinStar1.htm

Hi Thomas,

Well, I have. I was talking about the alleged "lack of interest" in
European certification you said Cirrus has. I was saying that Cirrus has
completed the European registration. That can hardly be called a lack of
interest.

After how many years?

Peter

Michael 182 wrote:
"C J Campbell" wrote in message

good review snipped

I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down.

I have a TR-182, and I'm looking at used Cirrus SR-22. What are the key
reasons for your statement?

Michael

From one thing to another, it is rather surprising to see a relative
newcomer on the market using "Cirrus" as a brand name, when there
have already been aircraft with that name in existance for quite
a number of years, and there are still large numbers of them
flying around in different parts of the world.

http://www.standardcirrus.org/

Did the manufacturer Schempp-Hirth not protect the "Cirrus" brand
name in the US ? A rather serious omission that, if it allows
others to clown around with their product name like this.

Would this possibly cause difficulties in some countries for the
makers of this power-"Cirrus" if they wanted to export it ?

Just wondering ...

CV