https://www.flyingmag.com/textron-aviat ... BlCXrPr.01

This is rather sad. Textron should've kept composite production in the US and refined it, IMO. I think the move to Mexico played no small part in the demise of this plane.

I’d say the Cirrus is the primary demise, not Mexico

"Built since 2004, originally as the Columbia 300, the sleek speedster never achieved the market success it deserved."

Quoted above is a sub headline from the article with part of it bolded by me. It's a completely stupid headline. Nothing "deserves" market success. Market success is determined by value relative to competitors. As Brian infers the market determined that the Cirrus was a better value and so enough TTx's weren't produced to justify their continuing production. Tough.

I looked at the TTx before purchasing my Cirrus in 2013. It was a sleek plane and faster than the Cirrus. But it wasn't a difficult choice. In 2017 355 people against 23 voted the same way with their money.

I think it's interesting that the Bonanza is still being produced since only 13 (just over half as many as the TTx) were sold in 2017 which is almost half of what they have been selling the last few years. Perhaps that announcement is coming. I do hope not but it hardly makes sense to keep producing airframes in such small numbers unless you are a boutique maker like Mooney (who only made 7 airframes last year).

Agreed, seems like the market is driving to one modern piston single supplier (Cirrus), and while I like a lot of things about the newer (G3 and up) SR22s, I just am not a fan of the side yoke and general flight characteristics.

I feel like the SR22 must always be flown with one eye glued to the ASI when low/slow/maneuvering, as I just don't get the best feel of what is going on, and it can bleed speed in an instant (likely due to the prop/throttle linkage and general brick-like power-off glide characteristics).

If you are uncoordinated and/or find yourself approaching a power-on stall or accelerated stall for whatever reason, you can be in big trouble in hurry. In a nutshell everything is buttery smooth and confidence inspiring until you find the dark side and then the personality change is dramatic... doing nice wings-level power-off stalls is not going to show you what you will be working with if things get dicey low/slow/in a turn and you decide to hammer the throttle to get some speed back...

It seems like the parachute has done every other piston single in, I get it if one decides they are more comfortable flying night and LIFR with a single+chute vs single no chute. I'm in the category of no night/LIFR cross country in a piston single without a chute, but I would probably do it in a single with a chute as long as no massively hostile terrain lurked underneath (big mountains/ocean crossings). I know the "general wisdom" seems to be that having a chute should not encourage one to take risks they would not take in a piston single without a chute, but it seems the market just totally disagrees with this premise...

I'm curious what this will do the TTx/400 values, it seemed like the early GFC700 (2006/2007) equipped planes were a pretty decent relative value as long as you didn't need FIKI. I'd be curious to see if Cessna put in a big power turbo diesel in this airframe if that might be a nice long-term value proposition and that could off-set the lack of a chute.

About time!

Cessna/Textron isn't really serious about non-legacy cessna piston products line.

This airplane NEEDED a chute to compete with Cirrus, yet Cessna/Textron pretended not to notice. A chute & better marketing would have made the airplane the cirrus alternative.

Bummer

My 2003 Columbia 350 was/is a fabulous airplane

VNE OF 235
Descents of 6000 FPM
Utility category

Flies like you are wearing a wingsuit....no i’ve never flown a wingsuit

Cessna should have LOST the utility category, upped the useful load and added a parachute....

Chute: perception iz reality

That had to feel sporty

It's certainly coming eventually. But I think the G36 piggybacks off the G58 which piggybacks off the C90. I bet those 3 all go away together.

I wonder how feasible this would be, if it is possible with just testing or if the whole plane has to be redesigned and recertified from scratch. They seem to have STCs for 172/182 for BRS so one would think it is possible.

Then the trade off would be Cirrus SR22T interior size and better visibility vs TTx-chute being a bit faster but more importantly way more fun to fly...

I don't see how they could not sell a lot more if it had a gross weight increase and a chute added, just get prospects to hand fly them back to back...

Most of those planes are flown for travel, so "fun" (i.e. stick-and-rudder) is a very small part of it. Speed, comfort and safety.

It's certainly coming eventually. But I think the G36 piggybacks off the G58 which piggybacks off the C90. I bet those 3 all go away together.

It's certainly coming eventually. But I think the G36 piggybacks off the G58 which piggybacks off the C90. I bet those 3 all go away together.

Most of those planes are flown for travel, so "fun" (i.e. stick-and-rudder) is a very small part of it. Speed, comfort and safety.

I don't like it, but it makes sense. These companies exist to make money, not airplanes. Mooney has the longest track record of ignoring that charge, but they produce very little anymore.

Last weekend I received a full color tri-fold postcard mailer from Cirrus. It was impressive. Made me conclude they're interested in selling a lot of airplanes.

Figuring $80K for a new prop and engine, $40K for interior, $25K for A/C, and $80K for avionics, that's $225K before you buy an airframe. Well equipped they are $850K....there's the problem. You can't build an airframe of aluminum for $125K when you already own the fully amortized tooling? That would put the incremental cost at $350K. Sell 'em for $550K, not $850K.

Beech tried that for a bit maybe 10 years ago. Cut the list price $100k+. Apparently didn’t work