18 Apr 2024, 15:02 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TTx vs SR22T - why didn't the TTx succeed?  Posted: 13 Aug 2020, 05:52 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 08/08/16
Posts: 700
Post Likes: +222
Aircraft: A36 :-)
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I don’t believe that the Columbia, Corvalis, T240, TTx, et al, was a failure. I believe that Cessna failed it. I think you are correct, but when I was looking into it my major reason to not engage towards TTx was the runway needed. Cessna loyal buyers are often keen on short fields and the TTx was bad at that. The G36 suffers from the same issue - fat belly long roll needed. Cirrus simply had the chance to occupy an abandoned 'multi-purpose compromise' the others left open for quite some while. With Textron is became worse for Cessna and the current focus on the SkyCourier niche won't do any better.
_________________
'Speak your mind even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.'
Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TTx vs SR22T - why didn't the TTx succeed? Posted: 15 Aug 2020, 14:03 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3353
Post Likes: +1962
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think you are correct, but when I was looking into it my major reason to not engage towards TTx was the runway needed. Cessna loyal buyers are often keen on short fields and the TTx was bad at that. The G36 suffers from the same issue - fat belly long roll needed. Cirrus simply had the chance to occupy an abandoned 'multi-purpose compromise' the others left open for quite some while. With Textron is became worse for Cessna and the current focus on the SkyCourier niche won't do any better. What sort of runway performance were you looking for? Part of being slippery and fast, and having the high-wing loading to cut through turbulence is to give a up little on the slow speed. That being said, I've had no issues operating at KPAO.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TTx vs SR22T - why didn't the TTx succeed? Posted: 15 Aug 2020, 17:25 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/24/19
Posts: 398
Post Likes: +187
Location: Birmingham
Aircraft: Vans RV-6; Archer II
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Heads up, I find the two airplanes very compatible. The TTx is faster, the Cirrus, to me, more comfortable. Other than that, they are nip and tuck.
If you want to know why Cirrus succeeded, the number one reason, ask the 9,000 people that bought them.
The defining issue is the chute: period. You may not agree with that but 9,000 buyers obviously don't care.
I'm planning on buying a faster, turbo airplane. I'm not considering the TTX for one reason.
Want to guess?
Jg Your wife.
Once I know the prize for a correct answer, I can provide an appropriate shipping address.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
|
