banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 11:30 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 167 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 18:09 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/07/13
Posts: 116
Post Likes: +16
Location: KSQL
Aircraft: F33A TN
Flying Magazine is reporting that Cessna has quietly ended TTX production. There's an ominous quote in the article, (bolding added by yours truly for emphasis):

Quote:
Cessna produced only 12 of the model in the fourth quarter of 2017 after selling 31 in total the year before, numbers that while small still outpaced production of the Beechcraft Bonanza, Textron Aviation’s other low-wing high-performance piston single.


https://www.flyingmag.com/textron-aviat ... news022018


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 18:15 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
The gradual loss of the 35, 33, and 36TC don't bode well for the 36 ... but it shares a lot with the G58 that I still think is a loss leader for the C90 line. If the C90 closes, I bet the 36/58 go with it.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 18:16 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 02/28/12
Posts: 841
Post Likes: +541
Company: CiES Inc
Location: Bend OR
That's a shame, I and a few friends had a lot of involvement in that aircraft - RIP


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 18:21 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 6088
Post Likes: +3381
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KPWA)
Aircraft: planeless
Bonanza should be sold off to a company that might actually do something with it. Frankly the way all these big companies treat it, it deserves to die.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 18:22 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 7975
Post Likes: +6844
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
Un-effing-believable. In the meantime, Cirrus probably sold 300+ SR-22 models this year.

It's the chute, stupid! :hammer:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 18:24 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/12/10
Posts: 1688
Post Likes: +1067
Location: Southern California
So according to this, the TTX beats the SR22 in many aspects.

https://www.flyhpa.com/2016/02/detailed ... -sr22t-g5/

Why is the TTX dying? I think I’ve only seen 4-5 in the wild. Seen probably 10x that in SR22’s.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 19:27 
Online



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/22/14
Posts: 9194
Post Likes: +16351
Company: Mountain Airframe LLC
Location: Mena, Arkansas
Username Protected wrote:
So according to this, the TTX beats the SR22 in many aspects.

https://www.flyhpa.com/2016/02/detailed ... -sr22t-g5/

Why is the TTX dying? I think I’ve only seen 4-5 in the wild. Seen probably 10x that in SR22’s.

Marketing genius, the chute being inclusive. It is the 21rst century; Beech/Textron hasn't figured this out. Has nothing to do with composite vs aluminum.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 19:33 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/05/10
Posts: 1165
Post Likes: +743
Company: C-Star Inc
Location: 16FL Florida & T67 Texas
Aircraft: J35, N14DF
Cirrus is the best marketer in the aviation business.
Bar none.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 19:37 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/31/18
Posts: 157
Post Likes: +115
Username Protected wrote:
So according to this, the TTX beats the SR22 in many aspects.

https://www.flyhpa.com/2016/02/detailed ... -sr22t-g5/

Why is the TTX dying? I think I’ve only seen 4-5 in the wild. Seen probably 10x that in SR22’s.


How could a "detailed comparison" omit the useful load of each aircraft. From my quick google-fu it appears the SR22 has about 200 lbs more useful load than the TTx. Besides the Parachute, that is the only other significant difference between the two. You can take an extra person in the SR22! Hell it has a better useful load than an A36.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 19:43 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 09/02/09
Posts: 8415
Post Likes: +8303
Company: OAA
Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
Username Protected wrote:
So according to this, the TTX beats the SR22 in many aspects.

https://www.flyhpa.com/2016/02/detailed ... -sr22t-g5/

Why is the TTX dying? I think I’ve only seen 4-5 in the wild. Seen probably 10x that in SR22’s.


Not where it counts - in the marketplace. So, now it joins the Edsel, another supposedly superior product that couldn't find enough buyers.

_________________
Travel Air B4000, Waco UBF2,UMF3,YMF5, UPF7,YKS 6, Fairchild 24W, Cessna 120
Never enough!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 20:50 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/10/12
Posts: 6819
Post Likes: +7927
Company: Minister of Pith
Location: Florida
Aircraft: Piper PA28/140
Username Protected wrote:
Cirrus is the best marketer in the aviation business.
Bar none.

Ironically, so was Cessna-- in the 60's and 70's.

_________________
"No comment until the time limit is up."


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 21:01 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/12/07
Posts: 23662
Post Likes: +7350
Location: Columbia, SC (KCUB)
Aircraft: 2003 Bonanza A36
Username Protected wrote:
So according to this, the TTX beats the SR22 in many aspects.

https://www.flyhpa.com/2016/02/detailed ... -sr22t-g5/

Why is the TTX dying? I think I’ve only seen 4-5 in the wild. Seen probably 10x that in SR22’s.


How could a "detailed comparison" omit the useful load of each aircraft. From my quick google-fu it appears the SR22 has about 200 lbs more useful load than the TTx. Besides the Parachute, that is the only other significant difference between the two. You can take an extra person in the SR22! Hell it has a better useful load than an A36.


Tony,

Welcome to BT. But I'm going to have to call you out on your last statement of the SR22 having a better useful load than the A36.
_________________
Minister of Ice
Family Motto: If you aren't scared, you're not having fun!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 21:08 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/11/12
Posts: 1560
Post Likes: +809
Location: san francisco (KHAF)
Aircraft: C55 baron
Username Protected wrote:
Cirrus is the best marketer in the aviation business.
Bar none.

In GA I’d credit the Cessna Citation and Garmin Aviation lines with excellent, sustained marketing execution. Well past what Cirrus has done so far in scale and impact.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 21:11 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/31/18
Posts: 157
Post Likes: +115
Username Protected wrote:
Tony,

Welcome to BT. But I'm going to have to call you out on your last statement of the SR22 having a better useful load than the A36.


Hi Rick, I know its a bold statement to make on this forum in my first post. Thanks for the welcome. I've started occasionally flying a 58 Baron and a couple A36's at my new job so signed on. I've learned a lot digging around the last few weeks.

The 1982 A36 I flew yesterday has a useful load of 1140 lbs. The 2004 A36 that we also fly has 1040 lbs. 1040 is also the number that Cessna had on it's website for the TTx. SR22 website advertises over 1300 lbs useful load.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 21:14 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/20/14
Posts: 6452
Post Likes: +4524
Aircraft: V35
I took a brief look at a used Columbia vs my V35. The Columbia was significantly smaller in cargo room, used more runway, and was actually heavier empty as well. My V35 has all the options and air conditioning.... 2297 empty. The Cessna was 2500. Gosh did it seem heavy for the size of airplane it was!

My takeaway... the interaction of the certification process and Lancair did not go well. To allow for the possibility of uninspectable voids in the composite, they had to add a lot,of heavy composite. The choice to go for utility category rather than normal category compounded the problem. They wound up with such a heavy plane, it was already at a disadvantage.

There were other factors, to be sure. But what stood out to me was that I felt like I would be trading down in room and useful load from a four seat Bonanza. For that kind of weight, might as well get a later model A36.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 167 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 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

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