achimha wrote:
Aren’t 99% of our assets underutlized? Isn’t this what all the “share economy” is about? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if people only acquired what they have a “full” use for?
achima, you mixing up philosophy with business rational. However, I enjoy your philosophy, and even agree with the wisdom, which, at its core is not to think about cost. :-)
@ Michael
To start, the CAPS sets you back @ 1500€/ year and that’s not optional.
It’s not a set back but the best investment in safety, I will gladly make. € 10/ hour @ 150 hours
Then, despite the Cirrus having fixed gear, the NG was so poorly designed ( revised 4 times to date ?) that is requires as much €€€ to maintain properly as a retract
It was revised 1 time AFAIK and there are never big problems with it. Check COPA. The wheel sometimes has a shimmy, but that can easily befixed. I don’t know about any other problems,
Next comes the Avidyne EFIS/Avionics fit …
There’s nothing wrong with the Avidyne Avionics. It’s a very reliable and good system, proven not only in Cirrus Aircraft but also in many other types.
IMHO, if you took a perfectly maintained, “like new” 210 then compared ongoing maintenance over a 10 year period to an early SR22, the 210 would be significantly less overall.
Guessing
@ Michael
The re-design of the LG from G2 to G3 does not count as such, because the reasons are not in the LG: They just wanted to have it higher to protect the prop better. Other than that, the plastic parts were changed from G2-G3 and the damper was changed from the rubber donuts to a real damper, which essentially does the same.
THe ONLY maintenance that has to be done is to inspect the rubber dampers every now and then. On my airplane 3 of six were replaced after 8 years. And, as i said, somtimes the tension of the nosewheel bearing has to be adjusted. Otherwise the LG is completely maintence free.
Flyer59 wrote:
There’s nothing wrong with the Avidyne Avionics. It’s a very reliable and good system, proven not only in Cirrus Aircraft but also in many other types.
Which must be why all of them switched to Garmin and no manufacturer chose the R9, AFAIK. 
(I’m just joking around.)
When Cirrus started offering the G1000 (some years ago) I spoke to a Cirrus sales guy who said 99% (his figure) of customers were choosing the G1000 option over the R9.
At that time a customer buying new could choose.
Maybe Cirrus followed the trend?
Or maybe there were other reasons. Cirrus – like any OEM – would have been privy to information not in the public domain. For example Avidyne’s financial situation at the time? In the same way I am certain Diamond knew about Thielert a long time before it became public.
Peter wrote:
When Cirrus started offering the G1000 (some years ago) I spoke to a Cirrus sales guy who said 99% (his figure) of customers were choosing the G1000 option over the R9.
I had no idea Cirrus actually offered R9 from factory.
Avidyne R9 was never offered by the factory.
For some time Garmin Perspective and Garmin Entegra were both offered. Since Perspective, based on G1000, was one generation newer it was ordered by many more customers.
R9 is at least as good as G1000/Perspective and has many advantages like a better interface. It also had the DFC100 autopilot.
The older Entegra Cockpit can now be upgraded with the IFD440 and DFC90 – which makes it similar to R9 in many respect – and the IFD’s introduce some features R9 doesn’t have.
The biggest advantage of R9 vs Entegra is that it has 2 AHARS modules which brings higher redundancy.
OK so which was the “glass” cockpit that was factory fitted? R7?
I spoke to Avidyne at EDNY 2-3 years ago about the DFC90 and they said they were not interested in doing an STC for it except for the pre-G1000 Cirrus fleet. They said there were 2000-3000 of them so a big easy market for them. The G1000 had the GFC700 so was a lost market to Avidyne.
Flyer59 wrote:
THe ONLY maintenance that has to be done is to inspect the rubber dampers every now and then. On my airplane 3 of six were replaced after 8 years. And, as i said, somtimes the tension of the nosewheel bearing has to be adjusted. Otherwise the LG is completely maintence free.
The early model NGs have a piss poor design that requires replaveing the pivot bushings and bolts about every 200 hours. Then there’s pivot that has multiple SBs and needs regular servicing.
Cirrus SR-22 aircraft suffer from dismal engine life which is generally attributed to the “single lever” set-up.
Low cylinder life and crankcase cracking are both much higher on Cirrus than on other IO-550 installations.
This is a documented fact that Continental is very aware of.
Bottom line: Cirrus maintenance costs are significantly higher than aircraft with IO-550
