You have any data to support that opinion, Peter?
Yes; I posted very clear test flight data here a year or two ago and you should find it by searching on keywords like cirrus rpm friction etc. I am packing up now so can’t look.
Plus some company got an STC for reinstating the prop rpm lever and they made various claims – rather excessive IMHO but… I mentioned that STC in the open section of the COPA site and recall getting a rather hostile reception.
AdamFrisch wrote:
They’re more intuitive anyway.
I fully agree for ASI – reading digital number on the final approach take much more time when just briefly checking if the needle on the ASI is in the region where it should be. I guess it´s had contributed to number of Sr-20/22 accidents – together with different force to speed feeling..
Archie wrote:
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.
If you take say ASI, it is probably correct that reading a number is a little harder but I think you get more info out of it eg trends that are harder to see on a dial in one look but you can see on an EFIS. But remember the rest of the instruments and the whole package combined. An altimeter is much easier to read on an EFIS. On an EFIS the scan is also easier (IMHO). Trends can be highlighted (ASI warnings, envelope protection etc). Terrain can be overlayed. V speeds can be shown. Autopilot modes can be shown. All in a more reliable solid state system than traditional analog instruments.
Overkill in a C152, yes sure.
But it’s the future, or so they say.
I disagree with that – it is the present. Like it or not.
I guess it´s had contributed to number of Sr-20/22 accidents
Really, it has been cited as a cause of accidents? Where?
JasonC wrote:
Really, it has been cited as a cause of accidents? Where?
this is my pure personal opinion, I haven´t done any research on this. Control force on SR20 are decreasing when the aircraft is slowing but the decrease is not that significant as with other aircraft. This is not bad by definition – it just requires you more frequently check speed on the ASI- unless you have hundreds of SR20 hours. That was my conclusion after first few flight in SR20G2 years ago. A reminder pop up earlier this year where I was doing kind of easy visual approach after easy IFR flight and suddenly found out myself below 70 kts.
Getting used to EFIS stakes a bit of time, like anything else, but I wouldn’t give it up for anything.
Airliners haven’t gone to EFIS because it’s harder to work with!
One doesn’t necessarily read the numbers – one looks at the position of the bugged speed in relation to the actual mark and the trend vector if any. Very easy and intuitive. It’s a different, but faster and easier scan.
Michael,
the control feedback is not the strongest side of the Cirrus. That has to do with the integrated spings and the completely electric trim system. The airplane flies very nicely by hand, very responsive and has a great roll rate too … but it’s true that the aerodynamic feedback is not as good as in other planes.
Most Cirrus’ are flown 90 percent by autopilot anyway … especially with the GFC700 and DFC90/100 autopilots nobody really flies by hand much. I am glad that i had flew over 1000 hours before I got it, because it’s a bad thing for a beginner to never hand fly …
Josh wrote:
one looks at the position of the bugged speed in relation to the actual mark
that´s what I didn´t found easy, it might come after first 100 hrs on glass cockpit
Flyer59 wrote:
Most Cirrus’ are flown 90 percent by autopilot anyway
that´s the problem. Airlines are ok – flying long and stable approach a two heads there. But GA aircraft is sometimes doing shortcuts and brief look at the ASI is what you need – I guess this accident case study by AOPA is a good example. Hard to say if other aircraft would save this but Cirrus and glass did contribute for sure in my eyes. But on the other hand,it´s comfortable and roomy cabin together with cruise capability is important for some customer.
I mentioned that STC in the open section of the COPA site and recall getting a rather hostile reception.
Strange. I have never made that experience.
I am not so convinced that a manual prop control changes much. There have been other tests that say: Homeopathy.
Michal,
I have not heard about once accident that had that cause. While you are right that the position of a needle in relation to a round dial can be recognized more easily than a number in a box it still no problem once you got used to it. Now, after 2.5 years of SR22, I have a problem with the dials already … Also ther ASI is color coded and bothe the DFC90/100 and the GFC100 autopilot will (even actively in the newest versions) prevent the pilot from flying into the stall.
I didn´t want to say it was the cause, definitely not. Common ATC and pilot actions were more important as far as I remember. Anyway, flying dials will be less and less common when we are speaking about IFR, you already moved and most of us will follow – no matter we like it or not….and I did like flyi G1000 in 172 this summer.
