Different ones are disappearing from different market sectors but only 2 3 4 are disappearing from all market sectors.
Item 6 has been removed on the Cirrus (as pictured in the article) but only as a marketing exercise, paid for by all Cirrus pilots via lower engine efficiency in cruise.
There are also some clueless comments e.g.
Half of them – good riddance!
But don’t touch my six pack. Until a G600, that’s not got 10 years old software and costs $35K, gets down to sub $10K, then I’m staying with the pots. They’re more intuitive anyway.
A PFD is just a posh 6-pack anyway, just the relative size and style has changed, but they’re all in the same places.
AdamFrisch wrote:
But don’t touch my six pack. Until a G600, that’s not got 10 years old software and costs $35K, gets down to sub $10K, then I’m staying with the pots. They’re more intuitive anyway.
Everyone says that until they have them….
JasonC wrote:
Everyone says that until they have them….
Exactly. I wouldn’t do without, the Air Data Computer (TAS, wind vector) is worth it alone. Wouldn’t want to miss that.
Item 6 has been removed on the Cirrus (as pictured in the article) but only as a marketing exercise, paid for by all Cirrus pilots via lower engine efficiency in cruise.
You have any data to support that opinion, Peter? AFAIK a manual prop control (available as a retrofit) does not make the plane faster or more efficient.
It’s simple engine theory. The Cirrus always runs at a rather high RPM which (apart from much more noise) means higher friction losses. With a manual prop control, you can achieve the same power output by choosing a lower RPM but a higher MP. It’s probably not in the order of 10% but it is noticeable and in my view the noise argument is enough to want a prop control in a (turbocharged) aircraft. I can fly at 21" and 2400 RPM (like a Cirrus would roughly) or at 25" and 2100 RPM.
Never understood why they took the blue lever away. Should have eliminated the red one, that one has no place in a modern aircraft.
This is not my cup of tea really but I should think a FADEC could be made to handle the mixture as well as the prop setting?
JasonC wrote:
Everyone says that until they have them….
Well, a single needle gives you much that a number can’t give you. You’ll find that most EFIS’s have to generate various methods of displaying a parameter to give the pilot the same information as a single steam gauge gives (such as rolling drum number + trend vector + tape, to replace a single altimeter). Further a number always requires an additional interpretation step, whereas one look at a gauge tells you instantly where the needle is in the range, plus the trend.
But it’s the future, or so they say.
