Textron did not want to be bothered selling the TTX. They gave Van Bortel their TTX inventory to sell last fall with the agreement not to announce the end of production until they were sold.

Textron knows exactly what they are doing. For good or bad.

So you bought the plane that has neither?

So you bought the plane that has neither?

if i was a textron manager I'd look at how many piston plane sales spread out over so many models, and quickly conclude that some models have to go. No different than GM finally seeing the light that it makes no sense to have the same basic car sold as a chevoldsmobuickillac. It's easy to look at a particular model and say there are reasons to keep it, but big picture they need to do some consolidation and inevitably somebody is going to lose out.

When Cessna bought Columbia, there was a lot of noise about Cessna getting into composites and redoing the whole line of planes from piston to jets based on "plastic".

Then look at all the trouble many companies including Cessna have had with composites.

Cessna picked up a lot of technology, and a lot of knowledge. The question is if they can leverage it.

Now leaving that behind and getting to now.

Look at the Cessna piston line. It shares a LOT of components and processes across the whole line. This is 200+ planes. The shared parts, processes and components saves them a lot of money.

Beech saves some money by having the Baron and Bonanza share a lot. Is this enough? Maybe.

TTx shared what with who?

One last point, Cessna over the past decade keeps dipping its toes into the Jet-A piston space. Until this is ready and real, I do not see Cessna committing real funds to overhaul/update the whole line.

Tim

Sorry, but I do not see how comparing the full fuel payloads is ever useful (it is useful to know a full fuel payload of an airplane otherwise selected, but not a comparison). Just consider two airplanes that are otherwise identical, but one has larger tanks, such as Cessna 150 and Cessna 150 Patroller. The additional weight of extra tankage is negligible, but utility of the airplane is greater. Yet when you compare full-fuel payloads, the Patroller seems inferior. This absurd result arises from using a useless metric to compare airplanes.

Sorry, but I do not see how comparing the full fuel payloads is ever useful...

Why the head scratch?

Early Comanche 250’s could be had with either 60 or 90 gal tanks. Is the 90 gal version less desireable because it had less full fuel cabin load?

IMO a plane that can fill both the tanks and the seats, is a poor design. It needs more tanks or more seats.

A lot of composites are on the Latitude and Longitude jets. Did the TTx (Columbia) line serve as a sacrificial purpose?

It makes one wonder - what type of Volume for the TTx would Cessna have needed to"
- Keep it in production
- Allow for potential product updates a la Cirrus.

In some ways, Cessna seems to have a good position with the TTx. They have the trainer market with the 172 (realizing that lot's of flight schools use used 172's). The TTx would be a great modern step up from a 172.

then again - this is old time thinking. Anyone who trains on a 172 will probably not be in the market for a TTx (or Cirrus) at the price point they go for. Then again - if you have a viable new plane market, you also create a viable used plane market. Again, cirrus a great example of that.

It seems to me that the GA market for small piston planes is not going to be coming back anytime soon. As Jason and the other high-flyers point out - GA is now the land of light jets. Flown by pilots for high. I don't see enough new business men/women pilots coming around create any sort of a piston revival. God bless the folk on this board that are in that position. But most are flying some wonderful but "classic" planes.

I think so; the timing fits. As for reality? who knows?

Tim

I dont know but I think they cancelled the wrong aircraft, the TTX was modern, composite, fast and cool looking. Update it with a chute & higher useful and it would have smoked the Cirrus. I have flown both the Cirrus and the Columbia 400 and the Columbia was my preferred one.
Textron does not have a fast 4 seater aircraft so what are they trying to achieve?

Seems like it was a also a nice potential stepping stone into their light jets. The low wing G2000 would be a nice stepping stone from someone going from a modern low wing slick and fast piston to a jet like the Mustang or even the M2. But then I get the feeling that Cessna even thinks the light jets are below them. They did absolutely nothing for the Mustang during its run, letting it die a slow death, even late to get the common G1000 features out on other aircraft for years, after only some 400 units. Even an average OEM could have squeaked a few hundred more units out of that model with some cheap but significant upgrades like winglets, more modern avionics Nxi, G2000/3000, custom interiors etc. Now their low end is the M2. The M2 is a nice jet, but not really great for the owner pilot. Too much airplane for the typical owner flown mission of 250 nm, and the cockpit feels like it was built more for people on the payroll, than people with a bankroll. The only small aircraft companies appealing to owner pilots with true cross country aircraft left still innovating that I can think of, are Piper, Cirrus, Diamond and Socata. Maybe some of the newer startups, but none of them look to be deiced true CC aircraft, and most are still vaporware. Maybe stuff coming from Tecnam, Pipstrel, we will see.

Cessna piston = trainers (172s) and trucks (182s & 206s). Hot rod plastic just doesn’t fit into any of the assembly lines. They should give the TC to Cirrus and let em run with it.

They would run it right into the circular file.