banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 10:18 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: TTx is out of production
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2018, 22:13 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/03/08
Posts: 16179
Post Likes: +8782
Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
Cirrus crash because cirrus owners actually fly their aircraft. Look on flightaware or your average full service FBO ramp. There are SR22s and the occasional Mooney.

Just looked. It's 9pm central time:

7 SR22
2 SR20
2 SR22T

Contrast that with

2 C340
1 P210
2 Malibus
2 Diamond Twins
2 Skylanes
2 BE36
1 C310
0 C210


Last edited on 22 Feb 2018, 23:22, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: TTx is out of production
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2018, 22:22 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/29/16
Posts: 1337
Post Likes: +1824
Company: RE/MAX at the Lake
Location: Mooresville, NC
Aircraft: Cirrus SR22
Username Protected wrote:
Cirrus has done a good job marketing their product but the early models suffer from seriously low useful load. An example - a friend volunteered to haul me and another pilot in an SR22T from Houston to Fort Worth to pick up an airplane. The straight line distance is 211 nm. The owner was a relatively light woman at 150 lbs. I am 275 and the other pilot was 200 lbs. We had to stop in Waco for fuel. In a A36 we could have departed with full fuel. How is Cirrus is getting away with that stuff?


Something is not right with your example. In our Cirrus I could have hauled that weight plus 85 gallons of gas which is more than the tanks will hold. That gives me a range of around 650NM, far more than the 211 you planned.

I'm not sure what useful load was for the Cirrus you rode in but the worst useful load I have encountered with a Cirrus is 950 lbs. Subtract the 625 pounds of passengers in your example and you are left with 55 gallons of gas. I flight plan at 20 on take off and 15 in cruise. That's 3 hours of flying time with a VFR reserve. In 3 hours I can fly 500 miles, more than double your 211 that you said you had to stop for gas. It doesn't add up.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TTx is out of production
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2018, 22:22 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
I have a Columbia 400 and really like the aircraft. I'm sad to see the TTx out of production, but I'm not surprised. Nor will I be surprised when there are no more Beech aircraft coming off the line either.

Cirrus has outsold because they market better and they cultivate turnover through promoting the used market. Many Cirri are sold to second-time customers, on their second and even third new Cirrus aircraft. It is a pipeline - the 2 year old airplane needs to get sold to someone so that the owner can buy a brand new one. The guy with a 5 year old SR22 needs to move it so he can buy a 2 year old one and so on.

Textron basically looks at the secondary market with (benign?) indifference.

The TTx/Corvallis/Columbia is a unique aircraft, with a great safety record and generally easy to keep flying.

Columbia took a beating in 2006-2007, first with all the problems getting the G1000 launched with very lengthy delays and then the freak hailstorm that damaged some 70 aircraft waiting to be delivered to customers. Then the economy going haywire and the resulting bankruptcy was inevitable.

Once Cessna bought the marque, they didn't really seem to "get it". They spent a lot of time and money creating a new type certificate for the TTx (T240) which in all reality, was virtually an identical airplane and the COL4. They never really got behind it either and lengthy delays in getting allocations for the customers who managed in persisting to want one in spite of dismal and indifferent marketing efforts, made it much easier to just go somewhere else.

I think G36 and G58 are short timers. I hate to say that, especially on a Beech board, but I don't see them lasting much longer without substantially increased volume.

Hard to say on the 172/182/206 piston line. Probably always be a market for a 172. Not sure if it is a big enough market to keep Textron interested.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TTx is out of production
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2018, 22:50 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12797
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
Probably always be a market for a 172. Not sure if it is a big enough market to keep Textron interested.


Piper will step in if they leave. I doubt the UND/ERAU folks care much between the two.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TTx is out of production
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2018, 23:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/03/08
Posts: 16179
Post Likes: +8782
Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
Username Protected wrote:
Once Cessna bought the marque, they didn't really seem to "get it". They spent a lot of time and money creating a new type certificate for the TTx (T240) which in all reality, was virtually an identical airplane and the COL4. They never really got behind it either and lengthy delays in getting allocations for the customers who managed in persisting to want one in spite of dismal and indifferent marketing efforts, made it much easier to just go somewhere else.


What really killed off the model line was moving the production to Mexico and losing the institutional knowledge built up at the Bend facility. Diamond had a rocky start with their production line in Canada, but they had the experienced staff from Austria to help them get things straightened out.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TTx is out of production
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 05:59 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
Username Protected wrote:

What really killed off the model line was moving the production to Mexico and losing the institutional knowledge built up at the Bend facility. Diamond had a rocky start with their production line in Canada, but they had the experienced staff from Austria to help them get things straightened out.


I can't disagree that some dumb things happened in that move, including the emergency AD against a half-dozen aircraft still in production due to a failed wing bonding on a test flight.

But in the end, I don't think the buyer can tell if the wing was made in Bend, Mexico or Beijing for that matter.

They sure do react to the while the company addresses the market. I know of some tales of recent TTx, bought new, with defects and a resolution process that really don't sit well with me.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TTx is out of production
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 07:16 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/03/08
Posts: 16179
Post Likes: +8782
Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
Username Protected wrote:
But in the end, I don't think the buyer can tell if the wing was made in Bend, Mexico or Beijing for that matter.


Right, but the market could tell when for two years Cessna wasn't able to deliver any planes.

The other thing I never quite understood was why the 300/350 and the 400 were substantially different planes. I don't know much about aircraft production, but the fewer molds you need to maintain and the more parts commonality across your lineup, the less money you are going to spend.
When Columbia folded in 2007, they still sold 34 of the 350s along with 118 of the 400s. It's only after Cessna took over that the 350 sales completely collapsed. If you look at 2017 Cirrus sales, more than half of the production are still NA planes. The idea that 'nobody who spends that much money wants a NA plane' is simply not true.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TTx is out of production
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2018, 09:37 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/16/09
Posts: 663
Post Likes: +643
Location: British Columbia
Aircraft: Cessna 350
Cessna never made it their strategy to upgrade the airplane to compete with Cirrus which obviously would have required an STC for a parachute. It seemed to exist in their line as a training step up to a jet but the small owner operator jet market potential remains to be realized. Given my experience owning one I would assume going forward ownership will require significant levels of tolerance for heavily intrusive proctological treatment from Cessna.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TTx is out of production
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2018, 01:15 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 07/01/17
Posts: 64
Post Likes: +32
Location: Irvine, CA
Aircraft: DA-42-NG
Username Protected wrote:
Given my experience owning one I would assume going forward ownership will require significant levels of tolerance for heavily intrusive proctological treatment from Cessna.


Are you able to comment further on this? Are there type specific issues that cause this plane to be more hassle than a turbo cirrus, turbo bonanza, turbo 210, etc (basically any SEP running a tsio 520/550)?


Top

 Post subject: Re: TTx is out of production
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2018, 04:59 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
Username Protected wrote:
Are you able to comment further on this? Are there type specific issues that cause this plane to be more hassle than a turbo cirrus, turbo bonanza, turbo 210, etc (basically any SEP running a tsio 520/550)?


I can't think of any. It's actually pretty easy to maintain, though it is more like working on a newer model car than an older model airplane, and you need to find someone to work on it who is familiar with it. Less hassle actually, with fixed gear vs a Bo or a 210, and the lack of a BRS chute vs. a Cirrus.

The Cessna/Textron part is what I think Tim is talking about. It's a fairly small population of aircraft and that means not a wide level of aftermarket support. One can buy all kinds of Bonanza parts, or Piper Cherokee parts, or Cessna 1x2 parts on the aftermarket from any number of third-party suppliers, due to the size of the fleet. There's enough of a market for lots of STC's and PMA'd parts.

The size of the COL3/COL4/T240 fleet doesn't provide a great deal of economic incentive for aftermarket suppliers. Parts will most likely have to come through Cessna for a long time.

There's also the whole G2000/G1000 and Avidyne support thing. You can't get so much as a firmware update for a G1000 without it going from Garmin-to-Cessna (or Beech or Mooney, etc) and only then to you. That's a PITA. I still don't have a "factory blessed" ADSB solution for my G1000 system, though there is a way to install a GTX335R with its own WAAS source. One more bump up the firmware levels would allow for the G1000 to be the WAAS source and likely updating the GTX33 to -ES status. But that won't happen unless Cessna/Textron decide to allow that to happen. The firmware for the GIA/GDU exists with Garmin, but it won't be released except through Cessna.

Maybe they'll make it happen, maybe they won't. I would suppose that we're not the hot talk at the water cooler at company headquarters.

My gut tells me Beech piston line is next.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TTx is out of production
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2018, 10:04 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/14/13
Posts: 6055
Post Likes: +4628
When you get your hands on a G3X Touch you’ll understand how 10-15year old the G1000 is

The TTx sold with the G2000 and that still didn’t save it


Top

 Post subject: Re: TTx is out of production
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2018, 11:02 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/20/15
Posts: 450
Post Likes: +232
Location: Germany EDLN
Aircraft: Beech Bonanza F33A
I will never understand why Textron hasn’t started to invest into certifying the Bonanzas and Cessnas for BRS CAPS long ago. I’d have done it and I would now be selling the Bonnies and the Cessnas, maybe fewer variants, but with chute.

Selling a product sometimes means it needs to be upgraded to be successful. Cirrus has disrupted the SEP market by introducing the chute. It’s the new standard.

As Textrons management I’d have started the certification process instead of letting those guys take my business. The money IS there, as everybody can see from the Cirrus sales figures.

It’s called investment. Its called lifecycle management. The profit margins gone to Cirrus over the last 2 decades or so would have amortised the cert cost long time ago.

This is what happens when slowpokes are managing companies. Businessmen ? ROFL :lol:


Top

 Post subject: Re: TTx is out of production
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2018, 14:44 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/05/11
Posts: 387
Post Likes: +172
Location: Atlanta, GA
Aircraft: SR22
Username Protected wrote:
Cirrus has done a good job marketing their product but the early models suffer from seriously low useful load. An example - a friend volunteered to haul me and another pilot in an SR22T from Houston to Fort Worth to pick up an airplane. The straight line distance is 211 nm. The owner was a relatively light woman at 150 lbs. I am 275 and the other pilot was 200 lbs. We had to stop in Waco for fuel. In a A36 we could have departed with full fuel. How is Cirrus is getting away with that stuff? It's the parachute. Cessna should have added it to the TTX and stayed out of the utility category.

Just my tuppence worth on the subject.


Surely this cant be correct and there is a disconnect somewhere? Running the numbers in Fltplan shows that you can make this trip nonstop with that load no problem. I mean cmon 211 miles?!

Also, I'm pretty sure that the TTx with a parachute would have taken a lot of sales from Cirrus. If I was in that market I would buy a Cirrus over the TTx just for the parachute alone.


Like any other small GA plane it depends upon the "empty" weight from whatever options are installed. The SR22T weighs more empty than the NA; just the turbo if nothing else. Most of the SR22Ts I've seen have TKS and some have AC. You add it all up and there's not a lot of useful load remaining. Plus the 3 people in that example out weigh the four of us; me, my wife and our two younger daughters, the older daughter doesn't fly with us. This is with the kids in high school and college.

I flew a 2002 SR22 with a 1,103 useful load. We regularly flew with four, luggage and full fuel. On longer trips with more luggage we reduced the fuel a small amount. Fortunately none of us are heavy; we all play sports and in shape.

The A36 has a 200 lb higher gross weight than the early SR22 and smaller fuel tanks. That should allow you to carry more inside; it is a six seater versus a four seater.
_________________
Wayne

LinkedIn
instagram: waynecease


Top

 Post subject: Re: TTx is out of production
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2018, 16:07 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
FWIW, my Columbia 400 has a useful load of 1080.7 lbs.

The figure I generally have to watch is my landing weight of 3420lbs. If I take off at full gross weight of 3600, I have to burn off 30 gallons to reach landing weight.

With two bigger people in the front seats i sometimes need a little in the baggage compartment or hat shelf to be in CG.

Range has not been a problem and the G1000 allows for very good fuel/load management.

It is a slippery bird. I figure about 11-12nmpg from startup to shutdown in most normal flights.

Typical profile is climb straight to mid teens at 1400fpm level off and configure for LOP cruise. Start the descent 50 miles out. Great traveling machine.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TTx is out of production
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2018, 09:39 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/16/09
Posts: 663
Post Likes: +643
Location: British Columbia
Aircraft: Cessna 350
Username Protected wrote:
Given my experience owning one I would assume going forward ownership will require significant levels of tolerance for heavily intrusive proctological treatment from Cessna.


Are you able to comment further on this? Are there type specific issues that cause this plane to be more hassle than a turbo cirrus, turbo bonanza, turbo 210, etc (basically any SEP running a tsio 520/550)?


The issue is parts from Cessna, especially any STC related items. For example, I required an electrical modulator for the prop de-ice boots. A simple item 2/3 the size of an I Phone that takes current from the alternator and distributes to the boots and is an STC item which is not owned by Cessna, I assume. No after market independant availability. $5,500 undelivered from Cessna. Especially painful for us Canucks.

Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4




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

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