Peter, why does finding a cylinder that needs replacing at annual automatically infer you have been flying for the last 12 months with a higher risk of catastrophic failure?
Cylinder replacement could be required either due to:
A) Cylinder or piston ring wear due to poor lubrication due to higher cylinder temps, leading to lower compression
B) Cracking, due to thermal stresses
C) Something else I have missed
I don’t know if there is any data to show proportionally how many cylinder replacements are caused by each of the above, but the first one seems unlikely to cause a catastrophic failure (just a power loss) and the second one is unlikely to cause a cylinder to “come right off” if it is a small crack in the combustion chamber area.
How often are cylinders replaced due to finding a large crack that was an imminent total engine failure?
is unlikely to cause a cylinder to “come right off” if it is a small crack in the combustion chamber area
Quite!
How often are cylinders replaced due to finding a large crack that was an imminent total engine failure?
A good Q. They are certainly replaced after they come right off 
Actually the whole engine may be scrap at that point. It’s not that rare to find a crack which could have extended all the way round. I’ve seen many such photos over the years.
Martin wrote:
The danger I see is that these systems tend to be OEM only
Well, that would be true for Avidyne version as well, even though they are maybe a bit less critical as the nav source comes from outside.
Martin wrote:
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
15 k is a lot of money for upgrading a system like that considering the variants a customer with a non-integrated solution has. I heard 40 k for the upgrade of the original Mooney G1000 and similar figures for some Diamond types, but worse, even here there were some mentions around that “older” G1000 systems can’t be upgraded at all?
One of the horror scenarios in that regard are for instance the first Eclipse jets, some of which are virtually worthless as the avionic can’t be updated whatsoever. That may be an extreme case but it certainly has rung bells with me to be VERY careful with integrated avionic suites.
Martin wrote:
If the manufacturer ever goes belly up, things could get interesting.
That of course would be a problem in almost any situation.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
even though they are maybe a bit less critical as the nav source comes from outside.
That’s not true for the R9.
15 k is a lot of money for upgrading a system like that considering the variants a customer with a non-integrated solution has.
Assuming apples to apples comparison, that is upgrading two units including antennas, 15 thousand doesn’t seem to me that bad. But who knows how much is it today. Compared to upgrading an FMS, it’s peanuts.
I heard 40 k for the upgrade of the original Mooney G1000 and similar figures for some Diamond types, but worse, even here there were some mentions around that “older” G1000 systems can’t be upgraded at all?
Yeah, Diamond quoted even more than that, AFAIK. And with them I’m never quite sure they are in fact interested in you upgrading. Keeping older airframes up-to-date is not exactly in their interest, jacking up prices discourages it. And if they can’t get rid of you, at least they’ll milk you. There shouldn’t be a technical issue with upgrading older installations. That doesn’t mean such upgrade will be offered.
One of the horror scenarios in that regard are for instance the first Eclipse jets, some of which are virtually worthless as the avionic can’t be updated whatsoever.
I doubt that’s true. It might be prohibitively expensive, but should be doable. It’s easiest to do for the manufacturer and I believe that is what Eclipse (or whatever they are called today) are doing – buying the old birds, upgrading them to the latest spec and selling them. But I haven’t really looked into that one.
Martin wrote:
I doubt that’s true
We had a thread here a while back on the Eclipse and I researched it then. The very first batch with the 1.0 and ETT avionics can’t be upgraded. That may well be because the factory has decided not to offer that upgrade but it is still quite a problem for anyone who owns or tries to sell one of these. The others can be but at prices which often exceed hull value. The only useable airframes are those with Avio 1.3 upwards which apparently are those airframes which get bought back for upgrade to the Total Eclipse mod. Practically, any airframe with avoinics below the 1.7 standard is not really worth looking at.
And that is the crux with these integrated systems. I’ve seen my share of 500/501 Citations which are on the market cheaper than some of the new VLJ’s and can be quite attractive airplanes. I know one guy who flies a 501 over here which came originally without any GPS nav, today it features a 530/430 WAAS set and he is looking into upgrading it to the new GTN boxes. The installation of the initial fit as well as the later upgrade to WAAS was a in jet terms not very expensive thing to do and has massively increased the usability of the airplane whereas the first Eclipses can’t even legally be equipped with the GNS400 system the 1.3 and up had. I once asked the guy why he does not upgrade for a Mustang or the likes and he said clearly that he liked the old 501 (he’s got long range tanks and I understand STC’d engines on it) much better and it has better range, payload and is cheaper for him to fly. Have to take his word for it but I can see where he is coming from in the avionic side.
the first Eclipses can’t even legally be equipped with the GNS400 system
Surely you can install any Garmin GPS (GNS430… GTN750) into any N-reg plane, using the Field Approval route?
I recall that many years ago the FAA decided a GPS is a Minor Alteration anyway – very different to the JAA/EASA position. (May differ if there is an autopilot connection).
Field Approvals are very hard to do in Europe but the alternative DER 8110 route is available and while it’s a ripoff for light GA customers, on any jet it will be fine. You will likely need a DER anyway if drilling antenna holes in a pressurised hull.
Peter wrote:
You will likely need a DER anyway if drilling antenna holes in a pressurised hull.
That is one problem yes and the 2nd one will be that it may be possible to install it but with the 1.0 / ETT they can not be linked to the autopilot.
Eclipse or what ever they are called now do NOT support these first airframes and therefore they are basically worthless other than for the engines and spareparts.
Given that
and not one of these said anything
I would say that
unfortunately there’s a percentage of Cirrus pilots who never understood the system
is a dramatic understatement.
What is the lowest RPM achievable before the MP starts to reduce? Presumably this must be altitude dependent, on the non-T version.
Peter,
you are possibly missing that most Cirrus pilots/owners just keep out of Cirrus-specific forum threads (which is totally in their rights to do obviously), since there is nothing for them to be learned from these. It’s just plain “work” correcting all the recurring BS. This thread is a good example, right from the start.
I only see that almost ALL non Cirrus pilots here don’t understand the plane, know little about it (landing gear, avionics, prop control) but have very strong opinions about it.
Some of you are always on this mission, and it’s boring after a while.
