It's pretty clear that there isn't all that much innovation these days in the certified piston market. I've just been trying to figure out why, when innovation comes around, it doesn't succeed?

I don't mean to start a Cirrus vs Columbia argument. Everybody has different priorities. But the TTx seems like a very innovative aircraft. For example, things I'd love to have:

- Speed brakes
- Inflatable door seals
- High V speeds so that I can fit in with fast traffic
- Garmin 2000
- Solid construction (which allowed for those high V speeds to begin with), like dual wing spars
- Truly impressive cruise speeds up high (235 knots is an awesome figure)

I would have thought that such innovations would be really competitive to a certain segment of pilots. Is it just Cessna marketing that let it down? Is there anything else in the pipeline that would bring a new modern innovative airplane to the market? Wouldn't it have been a better idea for Cessna to stick with the TTx and shut down the Bonanza line instead? Maybe they could have renamed the TTx one more time to the Bonanza-NG?

Oh chute... good question!

No chute.
No money until Cessna bought it
No marketing after Cessna bought it
Manufacturing issues
No chute
High price tag for a plane with no chute.
Also, it didn’t have a chute.

I hope a great discussion comes out of this. I'm a Columbia 400 owner. I love the plane, and I hate how Cessna treats (treated) the plane. The chute must be a factor, but who knows how much of a factor it was? Cirrus has a good plane and great marketing. It's likely the 2008 crisis combined with the hail storm that destroyed Columbia's operation was a factor too, but maybe at that point Cirrus already had a great lead (I don't know the numbers).

I hope someday it becomes a case study in some business school.

Cessna

The hailstorm might have changed things, but I doubt it.

It’s the chute. That’s the killer app cirrus had nobody else could match

235 knots ... ok at FL250. The TN22 was 225. Close enough

Cirrus figured out how to sell a new airplane for 5x the price of a used. They figured out what those people wanted

Perhaps a little short, but not being facetious. Cessna has had not interest in competing in that market. Leadership changed and the model was abandoned. In fact, iirc the TTx was outselling the Beech pistons when it was shut down. Was a great aircraft, and very safe, statistically as safe or safer than the Cirrus, but Cessna had terrible marketing, some manufacturing snafu's in Mexico, poor sales force penetration, and failed to energize the demographic for that aircraft. With some mods and a GW increase, would be a great plane. Just like a Mustang with a G3000, winglets, slightly bigger engines.... Never mind. Cessna just doesn't want to compete in the light owner flown market.

Buy a Lancair ES and have more useful load to carry your heavier wallet

The chute is a primary issue but the whole safety culture that Cirrus has been promoting and marketing heavily since around 2011 has been a big factor. Related to that, but marketing driven, they have brought in an entirely new group of pilots who have a different mindset toward flying and equipment. To another poster's comment about Cessna's lack of interest, Cirrus has just flat out marketed everyone in this segment. Finally, Cirrus is a great company, takes terrific care of customers and has resulting loyalty in the marketplace that anyone would envy. Cessna may have that in jets but no one has replicated it in pistons (at least not for a very long time).

I’m digging out an old recollection here, so the details may be fuzzy.

I was talking to a Lancair employee once (maybe at OSH) who was there when they were still producing them as Columbia’s. He said that Lancair sold more units annually than Cessna ended up doing.

Cessna took it and tried to cut costs by moving manufacturing to Mexico. That introduced supply and manufacturing issues that prevented them from fulfilling orders to their dealers. Eventually Cessna determined “it wasn’t selling well” and dropped the product line.

He was pretty disappointed to see its fate, especially since Lancair did a better job selling and building them.

TTX was certified in the utility category - has to be very strong for G loading. FAA had a conservative philosophy, since possible voids in composite would not be detected, assume the worst and the plane has to meet strength requirements assuming the max undetected voids.

Result, the TTX weighs as much empty as a G36 but has a smaller interior than a Cirrus. It’s strong like an aerobatic plane and frankly doesn’t need to be. Just grab a towbar and try to push one.

That means there was never the room or useful load to compete. Features like the parachute or air conditioning would be hard to add since weight and baggage space was already a problem.

Can I borrow 10 Million dollars or maybe 20 Million? I promise to return at least 2 Million to my Angel Investor.

My first airplane at a whopping 120 hours was a 2003 Columbia 350 which I flew for 11 years and 1600 hours. The love affair will never end for Columbia airframe. 6000 fpm descent.
VNE of 235 knots. My best groundspeed of 272kts on a trip at 17,500 feet. 19,000 feet briefly once at 14 whopping inches MP and 164 knots true. I could go on and on. Mine was non turbo.

I currently own 1/2 of a 2014 G5 Cirrus. I like the Cirrus...a lot. It is almost as good as the 2003 Columbia, except It is way way better. PARACHUTE MATTERS

I currently also own a 1982 Aerostar 702P which will happily ignore an engine out and climb loaded and dirty on one engine IF THE KNUCKLEHEAD IN THE LEFT SEAT DOES HIS JOB.

For an experienced pilot the Cirrus is EASY. Hand flying or punching buttons once I am above 600 feet there is just no stress. (Eastern US) I do practice engine out landings but if an airport is not in glide range the Cirrus parachute is 99% effective at having its pilot walk away and posting event on social media that evening. 99% .. I don't kid myself that Aerostar on engine out has the same ratio.

Two Bonanza pilots lost their lives in the last year who both had a field made after engine out. They both died
Ditch, power lines, treeline , helmet fire......or pull the red handle
60-80% IF you have a field made or 99% for the red handle.
Ego be damned....I want to live

Back to the angel investor opportunity

Although not quite as roomy as Cirrus width wise the Columbia has plenty of room...room for a parachute with plenty of room leftover for baggage. My guess is about equal baggage room after adding chute on Columbia.

Utility category can be changed to normal and add useful load increase.

If anyone seriously thinks this is doable and Cessna will sell the TTX brand and proprietary info
I have 5-10 % of the needed investment.....but

Some dreams need to stay just dreams

How to make a small fortune in farming...start with a large fortune.

Why didn't the TTX succeed....chute, I wish i knew

The cruise performance claims from Cessna were also confusing with the TTX.

The problem is that VNO reduces progressively above 12000 ft until 25000 ft, where it is around 137 kt. At that indicated speed, the TAS is approx 204 kt (ISA).

So to get the claimed 235 kt TAS at 25000 ft, the aircraft indicated speed has to be well above VNO.

In reality, it is a 200 kt aircraft.

Indicated airspeed vs true airspeed at altitude.
I’m not the expert to school you but when I am doing 235 knots true in my Aerostar at FL230 my indicated airspeed is around 170.

You are correct about vne decreasing above 12000ft.
From memory reduce vne by 3 knots per 1,000feet above 12,000 feet so If I am correct
VNE at 20,000 feet would be 211 indicated or maybe calibrated airspeed. Would have to be in a fairly steep descent to reach those speeds...indicated.

No piston Single is as strong as Columbia