BeechTalk - BT - Cessna is advertising their TTx here on BeechTalk

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Oct 2016, 23:42

Username Protected wrote:

Maybe the issue is your location. I'll admit I don't know a lot about the Acclaim weights. My Bravo is a 1993, no AC and no TKS.

One of my best friends has a SR22, I have nothing against it, I even like it and like the way it flies, love that it has a chute but even my wife understands the amount of junk each will haul. She looks in it and says no way we could have one. I believe you are wrong about the baggage areas between a long body Mooney and the Cirrus. When it comes to seats, mine come totally out in one minute. To haul two bikes I remove the front wheels and seat posts (posts to be easier, handlebars are still on both) One bike and I just remove the front wheel, loosen skewer and it's off in three seconds. Even my friend admits the difference in hauling capability. On our last fishing trip guess who had to haul both coolers with fish/ice, the fishing pole and both of us still had three souls on board with luggage. Where those bikes are, I put a cot in there and use it for coming at SnF. You "might could haul the same stuff....with no passengers :lol:

I'm not sure I understand your landing fuel statement. Wouldn't you have to have a distance ? And regarding the weights....I didn't think you could gat a Mooney with both TKS and air. As you probably know, if you need to haul the weight legalities aside the Mooney will haul everything you need just don't plan on taking off in 2,000'

The spring is expensive but maybe 10k, and it's a SB not mandatory. But yes it's a concern for some. It breaks, ok do the engine, buy a belly, quick repair to the step. Really no big deal on a Mooney :eek:

most seem to have already had a gear up LOL.

Tony,

You might have a point where it comes to space ;-)

But not when it comes to weight. The point is Cirrus has both AC and TKS. My point is the only way to legally land the theoretical Acclaim that is comparable to SR22T is to have only 13 gallons on board. I don't know any IFR pilot willing to do that. I like about 25gallons in a 300hp piston. The landing weight is what's stopping Mooney from moving forward with the airframe. The landing gear needs to be redesigned.

As to the spring, it's not 10K, it's just not available anymore for older models without the newer gearbox. You need a new gearbox. I'm not sure whether the 93 has the newer gear box or not. Spring is about 2K, but the new gear box was 25K when I bought it.

And yes, I know they will go up loaded to the ceiling with gold bars and no, I never worried about that wing breaking. Mine did 1,300fpm at 3,800 when I ferried it, but it was a 310hp. It's the best wing in general aviation.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Oct 2016, 23:46

Username Protected wrote:

All this chute talk puzzles me.
Doesn't the chute still have you hitting the ground at a "big thud" rate.

Does everyone know that if their engine fails, they can slowly just trim the stab trim all the way back, and keep the airplane wings level with the rudder (ruddervators) using the turn coordinator. The key to this is to not pull back on the yoke, in fact I've practiced this not holding onto the yoke at all, the airplane stays wings level with the rudder control.

Our airplanes are designed with a certain sized elevator trim tab with certain travel limits, so that it cannot move the elevator enough to stall the airplane.

You'll end up just above stall, be it in clean or dirty config.

Go out and try it, with some altitude of course.

Remember once you're ready to power back up, trim forward, or you'll be climbing like a homesick angel.

So pop out the gear and try it and see what your vertical descent rate will be. Bet you about as fast as the chute but without the airbags or 26g seats, so you'll end up with a broken back. So you'll slam the ground as fast as the chute vertically plus 60 or so knots horizontally. Good luck.

Try it, bet you you're going down faster than the chute.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2016, 00:21

Username Protected wrote:

All this chute talk puzzles me.
Doesn't the chute still have you hitting the ground at a "big thud" rate.

Does everyone know that if their engine fails, they can slowly just trim the stab trim all the way back, and keep the airplane wings level with the rudder (ruddervators) using the turn coordinator. The key to this is to not pull back on the yoke, in fact I've practiced this not holding onto the yoke at all, the airplane stays wings level with the rudder control.

Our airplanes are designed with a certain sized elevator trim tab with certain travel limits, so that it cannot move the elevator enough to stall the airplane.

You'll end up just above stall, be it in clean or dirty config.

Go out and try it, with some altitude of course.

Remember once you're ready to power back up, trim forward, or you'll be climbing like a homesick angel.

So pop out the gear and try it and see what your vertical descent rate will be. Bet you about as fast as the chute but without the airbags or 26g seats, so you'll end up with a broken back. So you'll slam the ground as fast as the chute vertically plus 60 or so knots horizontally. Good luck.

Try it, bet you you're going down faster than the chute.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2016, 00:25

Username Protected wrote:

As far as plastic wonders go I'd rather be in an aluminume A36 with a pilot side door, or for the money I'd get a Mooney they come with pilot side doors, yup they do. Anyone thats thinking about any of the Plastic airplanes without first thinking of the the new Mooneys got something wrong in the head.

Parts over nighted from factory vs a vague promise of something 6 months from now.

Regular software updates vs waiting 10 years for WASS/ADS-B update.

Mooney/G36 are pretty to look at in the maintenance hangar. Cirrus can actually make money for your company because it's in the air.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2016, 14:42

Username Protected wrote:

Marketing 101, talk about what people care about........

TTx - great airplane (no chute)
SR22 - great airplane (with chute)

difference in sales volume is like 10 to 1

Cirrus markets what people truly care about, safety!!!

It's the number one reason we have heated discussions......

Put a chute on the TTx and it would sell as many as Cirrus

Not the case... You have to go back to the early days of Lancair Certified and Cirrus... Lancair had over two years of order backlog and dealers nationwide... Cirrus wasn't even close.

It looked like Lancair was going to take over the single engine market and I believe that would have... BUT... the cash requirements became a huge problem. Lance needed to expand and increase his production capabilities to keep up with demand and retain customers. Cirrus had the production but a lot less demand, many would be Lancair Columbia owners purchased SR22's because they didn't want to wait.

So Cirrus won the marketing value with cash and production capabilities, not parachutes.

Unfortunately, the desperate need for cash flow led to the death of Lancair Certified. Lance was unable to find a backer with deep enough pockets in the US so he went to Malaysia, in a word the Chinese are "Ruthless" and they began to self destruct, they hated the Lancair name... I guess because it was Lance's name... so as they pushed him out they changed the name of the company to Columbia, if Coca Cola was that stupid we'd all be drinking Pepsi.

After investing $90 Million dollars and committing the ultimate marketing sin... they bankrupted the company and Cessna purchased Lancair Certified for $25M

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2016, 14:54

I do agree the parachute is an awesome marketing strategy... it's comforting, but does it really save a lot of lives... probably not.

It would certainly make you feel better flying over the clouds or at night, but very few fatalities result from the loss of an engine. Aviators still tend to kill themselves in one of two ways... flying the airplane into the ground, often at night or in bad weather... usually in the mountains or spinning it into the ground from a low altitude usually close to the airport. In these two scenarios which represent the vast majority of fatal crashes the chute is useless.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2016, 15:12

Username Protected wrote:

If a guy sits in a new mooney and takes it for a ride and then sits in a plastic wonder and goes for a ride, I estimate the clear winner would be a Mooney. Got plenty of time in Mooneys nothing in a Sirrus I know Mooneys fly wonderfully, and as for safety you are inside a chrome moly cage. Safety wise I take my chances in a Mooney. And now with two doors and the speed You can't touch that.

Well, I did and I picked the Columbia 400 (aka TTx). I like it a lot better and find it more comfortable for long flights. I like the way it flies and handles. The fixed gear is only a 7kt penalty, when comparing all-out top-speed to all-out top-speed. For 7kts, I think I'll take the fixed gear vs. the complexity of retractable gear (and of course the possibility of forgetting to put it down).

There's something about the Mooney cabin I just don't like. It feels restrictive, like I can't shift my legs around.

If you're talking new-to-new, the TTx comes with the G2000 flight deck which I have to say, is a nice step up from the G1000. (My '07 is a G1000).

They both nice planes, but having looked at both, I picked the COL4 because I like it better.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2016, 15:14

Username Protected wrote:

Long time lurker (and future pilot!) but I'm a digital marketing consultant.

Ads like the one above are in a display network. I believe this is Google's display ads network. Cost is likely $3.50 - $4.00 CPM (or cost per 1000 views). Advertisers can determine what type of websites they want their ads displayed on, in this case "aviation themed", or based on a number of other specifics.

I think we are giving people at Cessna too much credit as I've seen this exact ad on a number of other sites.

Phillip

The leaderboard ad above is directly tied to Beechtalk. The site's "Advertise" page at top left shows that a leaderboard and newsletter combo is approximately $1250. I know firsthand that cost is per week. The ad revenue is too good for Beechtalk to pass up and use Google display ad network. Therefore it seems as if Beechtalk is part of the Cessna TTx / piston-engine media plan.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2016, 15:59

Username Protected wrote:

Yep, did it with prop pulled to coarse, gear down, flaps down, kinda flys just above the bottom of the green and white bottoms of the arcs on the airspeed indicator ( and that's why the bottom of the arcs are where they are ). Not saying it's perfect, but carrying 150lbs with a squib to blast the aircharge around, adds to weight and stall speed etc.
:rock:

Vertical descent in the Cirrus under chute peaks around 19 MPH at max weight (going on memory). Lateral speed is based on wind. This will almost always be less then vector in the almost stalled config you propose. Let alone, when you run into an object on the ground.

Note: I am pretty sure the vertical speed in the Cirrus under the chute is slightly higher then the glide descent rate.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2016, 16:02

Back to the OP, I think it is cool that Textron is advertising here.
Based on the number of plastic plane discussions, and the general derision for those whop buy a new Bonanza when there is an older A36 which can do the same mission with a better useful load, is easier to comply with ADS-B.... I can see why they made the choice to position the TTX instead of the Bonanza.

Tim (with flame suit on)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2016, 16:13

Username Protected wrote:

There's something about the Mooney cabin I just don't like. It feels restrictive, like I can't shift my legs around.

Flown them all, best pilot seat for me, Mooney, hands down winner........and I'm 6'4" 185lbs.
2nd best is now my PC12, but had to get that frigging seat comfortable, third best was Larry L's 182.........damn comfortable.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2016, 16:59

Username Protected wrote:

Back to the OP, I think it is cool that Textron is advertising here.
Based on the number of plastic plane discussions, and the general derision for those whop buy a new Bonanza when there is an older A36 which can do the same mission with a better useful load, is easier to comply with ADS-B.... I can see why they made the choice to position the TTX instead of the Bonanza.

Tim (with flame suit on)

Textron is really the key here. Really neither Cessna nor Beechcraft are companies. They are just brands.

As they say - I really hate it when that happens........................

Yeah I know, without it a lot of brands / products would be lost. But still, sitting her in St Louis we're lost pretty much most of our major local based corporations. Ralston Purina, Anheuser Busch, and now Monsanto.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2016, 20:44

Goofy reason not to own a Cirrus or TTX. You have to take the wheel pants off in the winter. Moderately painful? In Duluth the Cirri look funny without their wheel pants. Great airplanes. Will likely own one someday.

Both of my airplanes have a certain amount of utility that I like. Try 4 with ski gear. You bet. 3 with 3 bikes in an A36-yes. Utility equals satisfaction with your plane. Nice to see Textron selling the TTx. It still needs a chute.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Nov 2016, 21:05

Quote:

. Nice to see Textron selling the TTx. It still needs a chute.

No. like all fleets it needs an ongoing training program.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Nov 2016, 09:46

Username Protected wrote:

If a guy sits in a new mooney and takes it for a ride and then sits in a plastic wonder and goes for a ride, I estimate the clear winner would be a Mooney. Got plenty of time in Mooneys nothing in a Sirrus I know Mooneys fly wonderfully, and as for safety you are inside a chrome moly cage. Safety wise I take my chances in a Mooney. And now with two doors and the speed You can't touch that.

Well, I did and I picked the Columbia 400 (aka TTx). I like it a lot better and find it more comfortable for long flights. I like the way it flies and handles. The fixed gear is only a 7kt penalty, when comparing all-out top-speed to all-out top-speed. For 7kts, I think I'll take the fixed gear vs. the complexity of retractable gear (and of course the possibility of forgetting to put it down).

There's something about the Mooney cabin I just don't like. It feels restrictive, like I can't shift my legs around.

If you're talking new-to-new, the TTx comes with the G2000 flight deck which I have to say, is a nice step up from the G1000. (My '07 is a G1000).

They both nice planes, but having looked at both, I picked the COL4 because I like it better.