banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 15:22 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 167 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2018, 15:07 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2018, 15:54 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2018, 16:14 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2018, 22:47 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2018, 23:55 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2018, 00:03 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2018, 00:12 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2018, 09:15 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 05/05/09
Posts: 4946
Post Likes: +4780
Aircraft: G44, C501, C55, R66
I did the traditional step up starting with a Cessna 150. I enjoyed every step of the way. Most of the fun is anticipating the next step. I think these step up days are over. Not many people today are going to get out of their nice car and into a ratty 150 to learn how to fly.

On the Eclipse forum; a healthy percentage learned to fly in an SR22 and bought an Eclipse. The lowest time I personally am aware of is a 200 hour Cirrus pilot moving to single pilot ops in the Eclipse. 800 hours later, he's still alive and moving on to a Citation.

If you asked me a few years ago, I would have told you that skipping steps is bad and dangerous. I'm not sure I feel this way anymore. An all glass Cirrus is easier to handle and much safer than an analogue 172. Equally, the Mustang or Eclipse is easier to fly than a Cirrus.

Just my opinion but I think skipping most of the steps is the new norm for new pilots.

Back to the TTX issue. I don't think it was ever intended to be a stepping stone airplane.: it failed because of bad marketing, too many name changes, and was too expensive. They should have pressurized it too.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2018, 12:25 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2018, 23:32 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 09 Mar 2018, 09:36 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26431
Post Likes: +13064
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Cirrus is a strange company..... they actually "try" to sell the product they manufacture.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 09 Mar 2018, 09:44 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 09 Mar 2018, 11:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26431
Post Likes: +13064
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Sorry.... I thought the thread was about the TTX?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 09 Mar 2018, 11:36 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2018, 15:01 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
Been there, done that at a very large corporation. Built a great product, that was well liked by customers, profitable and had great potential for growing a new business segment. The inertia in the bureaucracy was enormous. Sales group had no idea, no formula nor any organizational structure to address new markets. Finance group just wanted to know where the billion dollars was going to be delivered. Advertising group was all over it, but couldn't even get a meeting with corporate communications group who shot everything down because they didn't want the "corporate branding image diluted with non-focus products" even though we were part of the group charged by the CEO to build new products and markets. So I left.

This has the same kind of feel to it, as an outside observer. It just didn't fit the corporate culture, which if you look at Textron, favors the business turbine segment. They got all excited about the latest FedEx twin courier whatchamacallit. Haven't really seen much interest at all in the company over anything with a reciprocating engine.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 167 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next




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

Jump to:  

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

.blackwell-85x50.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.