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):



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

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.

That's a shame, I and a few friends had a lot of involvement in that aircraft - RIP

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.

Un-effing-believable. In the meantime, Cirrus probably sold 300+ SR-22 models this year.

It's the chute, stupid!

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.

Cirrus is the best marketer in the aviation business.
Bar none.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.