28 Mar 2024, 06:50 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 20 Feb 2018, 21:25 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/10/14 Posts: 1730 Post Likes: +828 Location: Northwest Arkansas (KVBT)
Aircraft: TBM850
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Un-effing-believable. In the meantime, Cirrus probably sold 300+ SR-22 models this year. It's the chute, stupid! A buyer willing to put a 10% deposit down on an SR22 today can expect delivery in November. Cirrus is ramping production from 350/yr to make more (SR 20/22) [youtube]https://youtu.be/-PdTNmPoY94[/youtube] If Cessna made 12 TTx planes in Q4 that is not too far below Cirrus production, but seemingly way below Cirrus sales.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 20 Feb 2018, 22:21 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/12/07 Posts: 23662 Post Likes: +7348 Location: Columbia, SC (KCUB)
Aircraft: 2003 Bonanza A36
|
|
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.
A 1982 with 1140#s? That must be one heavy plane. I have two A36s, one with TN that has a useful load of 1500#s (admittedly with an aftermarket STC) and a heavy FIKI with AC 2002 A36 with 1100#s of useful load.
The NA SR22's that I've flown were a 2.5 person with a briefcase plane. I'm assuming the Cirrus and TTXs are turbo'd.
We're glad to have you on BT. I hope you'll stick around.
_________________ Minister of Ice Family Motto: If you aren't scared, you're not having fun!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 20 Feb 2018, 22:47 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/18 Posts: 157 Post Likes: +115
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A 1982 with 1140#s? That must be one heavy plane. I have two A36s, one with TN that has a useful load of 1500#s (admittedly with an aftermarket STC) and a heavy FIKI with AC 2002 A36 with 1100#s of useful load.
The NA SR22's that I've flown were a 2.5 person with a briefcase plane. I'm assuming the Cirrus and TTXs are turbo'd.
We're glad to have you on BT. I hope you'll stick around. The 1982 has AC. I believe the 2004 does as well. Correction: Cessna advertised 1065 lb useful load for the TTx. My understanding is that Cirrus has improved the useful load over the yeara with structural updgrades. Also worth noting that SR22 is Normal Category while TTx was Utility.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 21 Feb 2018, 10:17 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23612 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Full fuel payloads:
Cessna TTx = 450 lbs (102 gal of fuel) Cirrus SR22T = 708 lbs (92 gal of fuel) From real examples or from the web/brochure specs? I think it would be fair to discount the 10 extra gallons (60 more lbs) and to discount for faster speed (saves some fuel). So on a max range flight in the SR22T, what is the useful load on the TTx when fueled for the same flight? In other words, it isn't fair to the TTx to claim it under performs when it gives you the choice to fly farther with larger tanks and faster speed. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 21 Feb 2018, 15:58 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/04/16 Posts: 185 Post Likes: +128 Location: Redmond, WA
Aircraft: M20K
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Full fuel payloads:
Cessna TTx = 450 lbs (102 gal of fuel) Cirrus SR22T = 708 lbs (92 gal of fuel) From real examples or from the web/brochure specs? I think it would be fair to discount the 10 extra gallons (60 more lbs) and to discount for faster speed (saves some fuel). So on a max range flight in the SR22T, what is the useful load on the TTx when fueled for the same flight? In other words, it isn't fair to the TTx to claim it under performs when it gives you the choice to fly farther with larger tanks and faster speed. Mike C. Aviation Consumer had a chart in the Ovation article that had cruise speeds at 65% power (POH numbers) for the Acclaim, TTX, and SR22T. At FL200, the Acclaim does 215, the TTX 205, and the SR22T 185. I don't have fuel burns for that power setting for each aircraft, but the Acclaim is only rated 280hp versus the TTX's 310 and Cirrus' 315, so the Cirrus will burn more at 65% than the TTx. The Cirrus has a big useful load number but the picture does get worse when you start looking at payload against range. All three are at least competitive in that metric.
It's surprising that Cirrus manages to outsell the others by such a wide margin, other than marketing. When I worked at Microsoft, they used to haul a Cirrus in to try to sell it to Microsofties about once a year. They also have a plane at the Aviation trade show in Puyallup every year. I don't know if I've ever seen a TTx or Acclaim in person. Even so, if you're going to spend $800k on an airplane it seems like it warrants a bit more research than, "I'm going to buy one like that one plane at the trade show." You know, maybe take a trip to each of the factories, put together a spreadsheet or something.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 21 Feb 2018, 16:38 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/21/09 Posts: 11864 Post Likes: +14519 Location: Albany, TX
Aircraft: Prior SR22T,V35B,182
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What a video, wow! Thinking not many of those guys are walking around bemoaning how GA is dying....
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 21 Feb 2018, 16:41 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/21/09 Posts: 11864 Post Likes: +14519 Location: Albany, TX
Aircraft: Prior SR22T,V35B,182
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Even so, if you're going to spend $800k on an airplane it seems like it warrants a bit more research than, "I'm going to buy one like that one plane at the trade show." You know, maybe take a trip to each of the factories, put together a spreadsheet or something. I did that. In my spreadsheet, it started with a column that had SEP's that had a parachute. It was a short list.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 21 Feb 2018, 16:48 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/08/15 Posts: 92 Post Likes: +45 Location: College Station, TX
Aircraft: Cessna P210 Slvr Egl
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Aviation Consumer had a chart in the Ovation article that had cruise speeds at 65% power (POH numbers) for the Acclaim, TTX, and SR22T. At FL200, the Acclaim does 215, the TTX 205, and the SR22T 185. I don't have fuel burns for that power setting for each aircraft, but the Acclaim is only rated 280hp versus the TTX's 310 and Cirrus' 315, so the Cirrus will burn more at 65% than the TTx. The Cirrus has a big useful load number but the picture does get worse when you start looking at payload against range. All three are at least competitive in that metric.
It's surprising that Cirrus manages to outsell the others by such a wide margin, other than marketing. When I worked at Microsoft, they used to haul a Cirrus in to try to sell it to Microsofties about once a year. They also have a plane at the Aviation trade show in Puyallup every year. I don't know if I've ever seen a TTx or Acclaim in person. Even so, if you're going to spend $800k on an airplane it seems like it warrants a bit more research than, "I'm going to buy one like that one plane at the trade show." You know, maybe take a trip to each of the factories, put together a spreadsheet or something. Try sitting in them. Faster planes tend to have smaller cabins. The room and view in a Cirrus is amazing. I owned one for four years and loved it. I test flew the Columbia 400 and the Cirrus SR22TN. On paper the Columbia 400 won, but after flying the Cirrus it didn't matter. I've never sat in the Acclaim, but I hear they are quite small.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 21 Feb 2018, 17:06 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/30/15 Posts: 714 Post Likes: +740 Location: NH; KLEB
Aircraft: M2, erstwhile G58
|
|
Post copied from the other "TTx" thread on the Brand X forum.....
GAMA Shipment Data for 2017
Cirrus SR20; 46 Cirrus SR22; 135 Cirrus SR22T; 174 Total Cirrus Piston; 355
Cessna 172; 129 Cessna 182; 46 Cessna 206; 40 Cessna TTx; 23 Total Cessna Piston; 238
Bonanza G36; 13 Baron G58; 23 Total Beech Piston; 36
Total Textron Piston; 274
Cirrus has 355 units spread out over 3 models; 3 very similar models. And the only difference between the SR22 and SR22T is the "T". Textron has 274 units spread out over 6 different models.....
Bonanza sales down every year since 2014 from 40 units to 13. Baron sales down from 40 units in 2014, but up every year since low of 18 units in 2015
Does not take the prescience of the Amazing Kreskin to see & be concerned about the trends. Also, for 2017, sales of pistons worldwide were up 6.5%.
Interestingly, Pilatus SETP sales were down in 2017 to 86, from 100 in 2016. King Air units also down in 2017 to 86, from 106 in 2016. Turboprop shipments down 3.3%
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 21 Feb 2018, 18:41 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/06/15 Posts: 256 Post Likes: +263
Aircraft: Bonanza A36
|
|
Cessna's mistake was going head to head with an established competitor with a plane that most people can't tell apart from the market leader. It's arguable that the TTX is a better aircraft in just about every measurable way than a Cirrus, but it doesn't matter because it doesn't have a parachute, and maybe they don't market as well as Cirrus, and . . .
Now if Cessna pressurized the TTX and kept the price below $1MM they might have had a unique niche in the business, or if they stretched it a bit to make it bigger (club seating perhaps?), or made any number of design decisions - there would at least there be some reason for a new customer to look beyond the SR22.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Ends TTX Production Posted: 21 Feb 2018, 20:25 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/04/16 Posts: 185 Post Likes: +128 Location: Redmond, WA
Aircraft: M20K
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Aviation Consumer had a chart in the Ovation article that had cruise speeds at 65% power (POH numbers) for the Acclaim, TTX, and SR22T. At FL200, the Acclaim does 215, the TTX 205, and the SR22T 185. I don't have fuel burns for that power setting for each aircraft, but the Acclaim is only rated 280hp versus the TTX's 310 and Cirrus' 315, so the Cirrus will burn more at 65% than the TTx. The Cirrus has a big useful load number but the picture does get worse when you start looking at payload against range. All three are at least competitive in that metric.
It's surprising that Cirrus manages to outsell the others by such a wide margin, other than marketing. When I worked at Microsoft, they used to haul a Cirrus in to try to sell it to Microsofties about once a year. They also have a plane at the Aviation trade show in Puyallup every year. I don't know if I've ever seen a TTx or Acclaim in person. Even so, if you're going to spend $800k on an airplane it seems like it warrants a bit more research than, "I'm going to buy one like that one plane at the trade show." You know, maybe take a trip to each of the factories, put together a spreadsheet or something. Try sitting in them. Faster planes tend to have smaller cabins. The room and view in a Cirrus is amazing. I owned one for four years and loved it. I test flew the Columbia 400 and the Cirrus SR22TN. On paper the Columbia 400 won, but after flying the Cirrus it didn't matter. I've never sat in the Acclaim, but I hear they are quite small. I'm 6'2 and need to lose about 40 pounds. I have sat in a Cirrus many times (like I said, they haul them out for marketing events all the time) and Mooneys even more often. The Mooney feels like a Corvette, the Cirrus feels like a Camry. I drive a Corvette. I fly a Mooney.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|