I’d always choose a more open system vs one which is closed up like the G1000. The G1000 hype was at the time a similar fashion statement as some folks buying other brands just because they are the allegedly best at the time.
Just as an example: to upgrade a G1000 from non WAAS to WAAS is viciously expensive, to upgrade a Cirrrus with the Avidyne setup like Alexis flies requires new or upgraded GNS/GTN’s at a fraction of that price. The other huge advantage in my book is that you can actually profit of newer and imho better avionic much easier, such as getting the GTN’s or Avidyne boxes integrated in the existing EFIS set up, not to mention the probably best GA Autopilot available.
Doesn’t only go for Cirrus and the G1000, I would personally always prefer a more open avionic system which can be adjusted to the customers needs and wishes than a closed up thing where they have you over the barrel every time they come up with an upgrade. We did mention the other day what the upgrade of the G1000 in the Ovation/Acclaims cost, those who have an open system will laugh, as they can get more advanced avionic at a much better price.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I would personally always prefer a more open avionic system which can be adjusted to the customers needs and wishes than a closed up thing where they have you over the barrel every time they come up with an upgrade.
There are two sides to every coin but I’m with you on the too often overlooked value of flexibility and maintaining future options. The same applies to a lot of other things in aviation; engines, airframe construction and repair, etc.
This thread is making me feel even more nostalgic for the Lycoming -540 – steady service with no cylinder work well past TBO. While normally aspirated it (actually they, as there were two of them) regularly had to tramp up to FL150-160.
There’s actually many IO-550s that make TBO and more without cylinder work. If you try to find statistics about engine longevity you can hardly find evidence for the Lycoming beeing better. WHAT is true, is that the Turbo versions of the 550 don’t make it over 1000 h many times.
achimha wrote:
You can’t even pull the throttle during descent,
IMHO shock cooling is largely over-hyped and no where near a problem as some seem to think.
Flyer59 wrote:
If you try to find statistics about engine longevity you can hardly find evidence for the Lycoming beeing better.
You’re not looking hard enough …
@Mooney_Driver The danger I see is that these systems tend to be OEM only. However, I’m not sure it works when it comes to upgrading existing installations. So you probably need the manufacturer around and what is possible and how much it costs is to a large degree up to them. That WAAS upgrade you mention, IIRC Cessna asked about 15 thousand USD at the time it became available. Not cheap, not that bad considering what is replaced. If the manufacturer ever goes belly up, things could get interesting.
@achimha I would be interested in the leaning technique and temperatures (especially CHTs).
You’re not looking hard enough …
I don’t have to, you will point me to the facts. Where are they?
Talk to a big shop that services Cirrus and Brands X, Y & Z for a start.
Ah, I knew you’d have some very concrete data :-) (The plural of anecodetes is not “data”)
Actually I am researching these topics for years. There is no statistic that shows a significant difference. But IF there is, please show me, it interests me a lot!
