28 Mar 2024, 15:22 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 07 Mar 2018, 15:07 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/08/12 Posts: 12798 Post Likes: +5224 Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Look at some of the Premier crashes.
That probably says more about premiers than jets. The Mustang and Eclipse crashes are less compelling.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 07 Mar 2018, 15:54 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/07/15 Posts: 173 Post Likes: +135 Location: KPDK
|
|
I understand that the military is a different animal than GA. However, how much time do they spend in SE / ME piston aircraft before moving to turbines?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 07 Mar 2018, 16:14 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/26/15 Posts: 9514 Post Likes: +8745 Company: airlines (*CRJ,A320) Location: Florida panhandle
Aircraft: Travel Air,T-6B,etc*
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I understand that the military is a different animal than GA. However, how much time do they spend in SE / ME piston aircraft before moving to turbines? Hi Greg, Mil students get even less piston time than PPL training. Paraphrasing here for the widest possible audience, Navy (and other sea service) students first get approximately a dozen hours piston ASEL, day VFR. This is more or less the first part of the Jeppesen PPL syllabus, culminating in a pattern solo with three landings (maybe culminating isn't the right word, more like anti-climaxing). After that it's primary training, around 70 hours, plus ground school and simulators, in a turboprop single/complex/pressurized/beast. Their first solo in that (around 20 hours in those) is usually up into a MOA, usually above 10,000 feet, and includes supervised touch and goes at a practice field; obviously much more demanding than a PPL cross country solo. Their USAF equivalents' experiences are very similar (except that naval aviators are better looking and they get to wear wings of gold in the end). You hit the nail on the head, it's a different animal than GA. On the other hand so much of it is scripted, rehearsed, and briefed in excruciating detail compared to Part 61 pilot training. Operational mil flying has a lot of regulations and concepts that are similar to many 135 and 121 rules, but of course it's a different animal too.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 07 Mar 2018, 22:47 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/16/15 Posts: 823 Post Likes: +493 Location: Canton, Texas
Aircraft: BE55, B737
|
|
Username Protected wrote: So you go get a PPL IFR and MEL. That's possible in 150 hours.
Now go buy that Mustang and learn the rest in it. Maybe 100 more hours?
TOTAL recipe for disaster.
I never said anything about 100 hours of dual. Maybe it's 200. It's still cheaper..... and better training.
Maybe better training, but significantly less experience. All get appropriate training on the jet, not all have the experience to know that the jet training isn't enough to keep them out of trouble. Experience matters!
Les
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 07 Mar 2018, 23:55 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/04/18 Posts: 18 Post Likes: +20
Aircraft: Cirrus SR22T
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I've made this comment every time this type of discussion starts...
Forget the magazine articles and specs, fly a TTX and a NEW SR22T and it will be obvious why the TTX is going out of production (yes, I've done it several times with different versions).
Part of Cirrus' sales and marketing is LISTENING to customers. Useful load was a problem along with only 4 seatbelts for families with 3 small children. They fixed it along with most all of the other complaints of the earlier models, while Cessna could care less what piston customers want.
I am not just stating my general opinion about Cessna, I have bought two NEW restart Cessna's a 182 and a 206 and long term leased another 182 and a second 206. I've been to the factory, know both my local dealers well, been to Osh and talked to every Cessna rep I could find, etc. You know how many times I've heard from Cessna on any topic? ..... ZERO! I don't care what business you're in, if you don't care about customers you will fail.
BTW- I've almost bought a new G36 several times and you know how much follow up I got.... Zero. Doesn't give me much hope for the G36 either.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 08 Mar 2018, 00:03 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/04/18 Posts: 18 Post Likes: +20
Aircraft: Cirrus SR22T
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I've made this comment every time this type of discussion starts...
Forget the magazine articles and specs, fly a TTX and a NEW SR22T and it will be obvious why the TTX is going out of production (yes, I've done it several times with different versions).
Part of Cirrus' sales and marketing is LISTENING to customers. Useful load was a problem along with only 4 seatbelts for families with 3 small children. They fixed it along with most all of the other complaints of the earlier models, while Cessna could care less what piston customers want.
I am not just stating my general opinion about Cessna, I have bought two NEW restart Cessna's a 182 and a 206 and long term leased another 182 and a second 206. I've been to the factory, know both my local dealers well, been to Osh and talked to every Cessna rep I could find, etc. You know how many times I've heard from Cessna on any topic? ..... ZERO! I don't care what business you're in, if you don't care about customers you will fail.
BTW- I've almost bought a new G36 several times and you know how much follow up I got.... Zero. Doesn't give me much hope for the G36 either. My first comment here, but I’ll toss in my $0.02 with a similar experience to Alex. Before I bought into my SR22T in 2013, I flew the TTX a couple of times. The TTX is about 10 kts faster at normal altitudes and that’s about where the advantages stopped. 22T has 200 lbs more load, which on this type of airplane is huge and changes your mission. The 22T had not only the chute but FIKI, which I can say that in 5 years I have never needed either, but I have had situations where I put my hand on both buttons often and felt relief they were there. And as silly as the 3rd seatbelt is in the back, I have 3 little kids and with the belts and the 200 lb load increase, all 5 of us can go with all our luggage and full fuel. I could care less about the touch screen Garmin. Got one on my boat and it sucks in rough seas or if you’re just going fast. Curious to see how it does in turbulence. Minor thing, but Cirrus also has single lever control. Cessna has a prop governor. 1 more pilot workload thing a low hour pilot doesn’t want to deal with. I agree that Cessna just didn’t get it. Besides the 10 kts, it lost on all other comparisons. And look at the TTX in model years 2013 til it’s demise in 2018. I’m not aware of a single change. I was one that liked the Cessna name backing it and would have loved for it to be comparable but it wasn’t. Cirrus seems to come out with something every year that at least makes the wealthier folks think they need a new one. It will be interesting to see if they put the same sort of half-ass efforts into making the Denali a more mediocre version of the Pilatus as they did with the TTX.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 08 Mar 2018, 00:12 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10 Posts: 11885 Post Likes: +2848 Company: Looking Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Maybe better training, but significantly less experience. All get appropriate training on the jet, not all have the experience to know that the jet training isn't enough to keep them out of trouble. Experience matters!
Les Les, What you are really referencing is ADM. The question is how do we teach it. Traditionally in aviation, it was not taught, and you earned it with experience by gradually stepping up in capability in aircraft. Hence the phase: There are old pilots, there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots. However, a modern SR22, or Bonanza is from a weather and systems perspective every bit as capable as the piston twin which was usually the third plane in the step up mentality. Same issue for SETP, they have eliminated a huge segment of step up aircraft. The result, there are becoming fewer and fewer steps. Next, you should consider the changes in training. There is now an even greater emphasis on teaching ADM now, instead of letting the poor pilot learn it on his/her own. This can be seen by looking at the scenario training and a lot of the FAA FAST Briefings, or AOPA Wings )I think that is the name of the program). I have even read FlightSim and other training simulation programs have moved in this direction. With all these resources now, letting the poor fellow discover all this knowledge on his/her own is not only expensive and a waste of cash, it also likely costs a few lives or a few bent pieces of metal. Tim
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 08 Mar 2018, 12:25 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/30/09 Posts: 3343 Post Likes: +1948 Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
|
|
FIKI is an available option on the TTx as well as the 22T.
I agree, Cessna should have put their efforts into a GW increase. The aircraft is utility category at all loadings. Not sure what the limiting factor is for a GW increase. Maybe it was insurmountable. I think the market would have been fine with G1000 vs. the G2000.
The parachute thing never figured into my decision making. I just accept the limits that having a single engine brings. Same as I would in a PC12, Meridian or SF50, or for that matter, an SR22. I'd much rather land on a runway than under a canopy.
In the same year range (and used airplane price range), the Columbia 400 was a lot better than the SR22T. Better speed, better climb, better panel, better useful load, better comfort.
The other deciding factor was wingspan. At 36 feet, the Columbia 400/TTx fits in my T-hangar. At 38+ feet, the SR22 had the same wingspan as my Seneca II and it would not fit my hangar, nor would it fit any of the t-hangars that were likely to become available. Next step up was a small-box hangar, with a years long waiting list and $1200/m rent.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 08 Mar 2018, 23:32 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/23/17 Posts: 170 Post Likes: +45 Location: KSSF
Aircraft: T210N,182Q,310R
|
|
Just landed at my home base in San Antonio to a full ramp of cirrus, Bonanzas and other assorted aircraft and after a closer look at what all the commotion was about it was a cirrus showcase with the cirrus Jet and other cirrus products. Haven't run into anything quite like this gathering around a Cessna or Beechcraft product quite like this one anywhere lately.
HMMM
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 09 Mar 2018, 09:44 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/07/14 Posts: 114 Post Likes: +53 Location: Dumfries, VA (suburb of DC)
Aircraft: RV-10
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Cirrus is a strange company..... they actually "try" to sell the product they manufacture. I think Cessna does too, just not for the piston models. My take on their attitude is they believe the piston line sells itself, which is probably more or less true for the 172/182, but was not for the TTX in the face of active Cirrus marketing and product improvement.
_________________ Todd Stovall PP ASEL-IA RV-10 N728TT War Eagle!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 09 Mar 2018, 11:36 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/30/15 Posts: 714 Post Likes: +740 Location: NH; KLEB
Aircraft: M2, erstwhile G58
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Cirrus is a strange company..... they actually "try" to sell the product they manufacture. I think Cessna does too, just not for the piston models. My take on their attitude is they believe the piston line sells itself, which is probably more or less true for the 172/182, but was not for the TTX in the face of active Cirrus marketing and product improvement.
Not only does Cirrus try to "sell" their products... they also "market" the hell out of them. Cirrus marketing materials are outstanding and consistent; website, video, print.
Not sure I am aware of any discretionary purchase, that has a price tag in the range of airplanes, sells itself. Just look at the Beech piston numbers... declining and eventually will auger in. Cessna piston #s may not auger in, but certainly not as healthy as Cirrus.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|