andersenpj
Filing Flight Plan
Seems to have disappeared from the cessna website. Can't find any news or other info. Anyone know what's up?
Cessna ttx gone?
- Thread starter andersenpj
- Start date
Lowflynjack
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2014
- Messages
- 4,065
- Display Name
Display name:
Jack Fleetwood
According to Wikipedia: Production was ceased and the design no longer offered by the manufacturer by February 2018.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Flew in one when it was Lanceair. Nice airplane, a pity there'll be no more. That said, they were only selling a handful every year. Not a big surprise.
Zeldman
Touchdown! Greaser!
What a good way to get rid of the competition,.... buy out then stop production.
Last edited:
bnt83
Final Approach
I don't fly Vernier throttles.
Last edited:
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,885
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
The TTX wasn't actual competition for anything Cessna produced. Remember that Cessna was working on a plane to rival the Cirrus, dubbed the NGP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_NGP
Cessna realized it made more sense to buy up Columbia and take the product that was already viable and selling well than try to design its own airplane. I had some outside involvement in the project early on in my career. It made sense - buy up a competitor for the Cirrus.
It just didn't work out.
RudyP
Cleared for Takeoff
Bummer. The TTx is a very nice airplane. One of my friends owns 3 (well he owns 2 and his wife owns one). He bought one of the very last 2017s
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,885
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Just out of curiosity, is there a reason that they own 3?
Normally when people own multiple aircraft they own different aircraft that are optimized for slightly different missions, even if they might be overall interchangeable to some degree.
Not a criticism at all, I'm just curious as to the logic.
Last edited:
labbadabba
Pattern Altitude
Other than speed, what was the draw of the TTx over the SR22? Control linkage?
This also makes me wonder about other planes like the Tecnam P2010 which seems like a very cool plane especially with the IO-390
This also makes me wonder about other planes like the Tecnam P2010 which seems like a very cool plane especially with the IO-390
paflyer
Final Approach
Real sidestick? Faster is good. If I had to choose, I think I'd want the Cessna over the Cirrus, although I haven't flown either.
Tarheelpilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,385
- Location
- North Carolina once again.
- Display Name
Display name:
Tarheelpilot
I liked the ttx better than the cirrus. The manufacturing issues they had in Mexico were a huge problem.
Sinistar
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Messages
- 3,712
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad
Bummer 
As I have learned about planes I really liked the TTX. I recall it having a little better climb, can land at MTOW where the SR22 needs some fuel burned, was a bit faster than the SR22, the control linkage implementation was more preferred and no parachute to have to have serviced later on for big $$$$$.
As I have learned about planes I really liked the TTX. I recall it having a little better climb, can land at MTOW where the SR22 needs some fuel burned, was a bit faster than the SR22, the control linkage implementation was more preferred and no parachute to have to have serviced later on for big $$$$$.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,885
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Faster, better looking, the real side stick is much nicer in my opinion than the Cirrus sidestick. If you don't want to maintain a parachute, that's a benefit.
Cirrus has become like the King Air of the piston single world. Everyone buys it because they got the formula right. It's not the fastest, but it's fast enough. It's very comfortable. People feel safe in it (parachute, avionics).
I think from a technical standpoint, the TTX was better. But from a technical standpoint I'd argue that the Cheyenne, Conquest, and MU-2 are better than the King Air. Yet, Beechcraft won.
JustinD
Line Up and Wait
Having flown both I can say that the TTx did indeed handle better than the cirrus, the control linkage with the sidestick was phenomenal compared to the citrus side yoke. However other than that and the speed I think the Cirrus is an overall better package. A 22T is fast enough, much greater useful load, and definitely more comfortable. If you told me to take one, I’d take a 22T over the TTx it would offer more of what I feel I need as a pilot, a nice, multi-use, flying machine
ironnerd
Ejection Handle Pulled
labbadabba
Pattern Altitude
Interesting that it outsold the G36s last year...
paflyer
Final Approach
Betamax v VHS.
And the locomotive style TPM controls are a turnoff. At least to someone used to a quadrant.
RudyP
Cleared for Takeoff
Obviously he really likes the plane for one. But also they have two different locations (San Diego and northwest), both are pilots and he likes having options I guess. But yeah, seems a little overkill to me too. I suspect the older plane will be sold off in the not too distant future even if that isn’t the plan now. I’m also trying to talk him into splitting a Mustang with me so who knows?
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,885
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
That makes a lot of sense and is something I hadn't considered, thanks. A TTx is probably going to be something many people will fly coast to coast, so I can see the benefit of having one on the east coast and one on the west coast.
The Mustang is a nice plane, I think Cessna got that airplane figured out nicely. Good luck with that.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,227
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Personal opinion, but the nose landing gear and window placement always seemed slightly off on the TTx. Like it was too heavily designed in CAD without an artist's eye. Cirrus windows seem more coherent? But that's completely subjective I get that
Totally agree with you there. Owning and flying an MU2 would be bad ass.
I agree. Many moons ago the Bonanza was that plane that did everything just about right.. now that's the Cirrus. It's fast enough, even the humble SR20 compared to what most people learn on. It's comfortable, and all fancy glass aside the chute is a nice safety. Yes, there's a cost to it, but I think their sales figures are testament that most people don't mind paying it..
Yes. Please. Can we never ever see those throttle again? I feel like some kind of chemist when I'm fiddling with those. Let me get my galileo thermometer while I'm at it
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,227
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
I wasn't completely surprised. I was recently surprised how little actual airplane you get out of the G36 today. That's a big, imposing plane with serious ramp presence.. beautiful looking really. But the spec sheet on it is... disappointing
176 KTAS and 1,063 useful? That's not a 6 passenger plane. Unless you're going strictly by looks then the TTx and 22T both outperform that.. carry the same (or more) and go (much) faster
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,885
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
The King Air has the interior and the ramp presence/appearance that has made it popular. The Cheyenne, Conquest, and MU-2 (add in the Commander as well) were faster, more efficient, and I think better range. But with many of the original buyers of those planes being people who sat in back and were only flying them on ~1 hour legs anyway (in the turbine world the average hour:cycle ratio is right about at 1:1), the speed difference wasn't enough to matter and they liked comfort.
From an ownership perspective, I personally think the King Air has the least to offer. It won't fit in a T-hangar, it's slow, the inspection requirements on it get expensive unless you fly it a bunch. But again, it's got the features that the decision makers like over the competition.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
What is the useful load comparison between SR22 and TTx? We occasionally fly a Cessna 400 here and the useful load is not too useful. Maybe thats why Rudy's friend needs multiples, so they can take 4 people somewhere.
The A36 has never been a 6 passenger airplane. Yesterday I flew a 1982 A36 that has an 1140 lb useful load. We also fly a 2004 which even with a 50 lb higher gross weight has 1040 lb useful load. It's a comfy 4 passenger airplane.
I for one like vernier throttles. Dial it in and it sticks.
The A36 has never been a 6 passenger airplane. Yesterday I flew a 1982 A36 that has an 1140 lb useful load. We also fly a 2004 which even with a 50 lb higher gross weight has 1040 lb useful load. It's a comfy 4 passenger airplane.
I for one like vernier throttles. Dial it in and it sticks.
Ignorance here, but what does real sidestick mean compared to what the cirrus has?
SixPapaCharlie
May the force be with you
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,012
- Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
Cirrus side stick is more like a yoke where it is rolling left and right for roll but you push and pull it in for elevator. I believe the Cessna is more like a four-way gimbal
JustinD
Line Up and Wait
easy way to describe it is the cirrus side stick is actually a side yoke. as mentioned above it actually moves in and out, like a yoke does, for pitch, for roll you roll it left and right
the TTx had a joystick, mounted on the side, meaning it pivoted around a central point, to go nose down or up it did not slide in or out but rather pivoted forward or back.
JustinD
Line Up and Wait
absolutely, especially considering in the 22T and TTx you got a turbo with the option for FIKI. the turbo offers a huge performance increase especially for not flatlanders, and the FIKI adds that extra bit of utility should the time or need arise, such times you might be stuck on the ground with a G36
I personally would go with a T206H over a G36 for the same if not slightly less price i think you get more airplane and much more utility
G-Man
Cleared for Takeoff
Any rumors about Textron shutting down production on the Baron or Bonanza?
I'm strictly asking - have not heard anything.
I'm strictly asking - have not heard anything.
Gotcha.. thanks
paflyer
Final Approach
It's still expensive, but the "per hour" fiction looks better on paper.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,885
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
That’s the problem with “per hour” numbers - they don’t reflect the reality of the $50k items that pop up now and then. Some you can plan for and some you can’t.
paflyer
Final Approach
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,885
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
"How much money does it take to run one of them fancy airplanes?"
"All of it.
At work I teach an “Aviation 101” class to new hires. That is one of my slides, almost those exact words. I did it with the meme of The Joker standing in front of the pile of money burning from The Dark Knight.
COL4Driver
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 9
- Display Name
Display name:
COL4Driver
Why do we own three? The cynical aircraft owner (for 30 years) side of me says that this way we will always have at least one airworthy aircraft
Of course, the reality is far more mundane......started off by me buying a 2006 Columbia 400 new, which 10+ year and 2,450 hours later I still enjoy. Of the six planes I have owned, by far the most reliable, plus it is a really simple airplane-no retractable gear, no vacuum pumps, excellent avionics and handling. So that takes care of plane #1.
Plane #2 is Ann's, 2015 TTx-she works for some big airplane manufacture in the Pacific Northwest, and wanted something modern with FIKI for commuting to SoCal and to Oregon (we have a weekend home in Florence). Looked at several planes but decided that she liked the TTx the best, so that is how her purchase came to be. Also nice that we both fly same airplane so on long trips we can split-up the flying duties, etc.
AS for plane #3, well, after flying her plane for a bit and really liking the G2000/FIKI, was very comfortable in the airplane and decided that I wanted to buy another new one, so I did. For the moment, at least, it is the second-to-last TTX ever built, but I'm not 100% sure that the airframe is dead.....
As to how long we will keep all three, who knows, Ann will be the first to tell you that I have a bad habit of never getting rid of things.....but I suspect that the 2006 will be around for quite some time, sorry Rudy!
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
Interesting that Textron killed the more capable, more modern, higher sales volume low wing single in their line. Maybe they just don't like plastic?
For some time I've thought, in this age of composites, it's the retractable singles that are the endangered species. Time will tell...
For some time I've thought, in this age of composites, it's the retractable singles that are the endangered species. Time will tell...
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,885
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Why do we own three? The cynical aircraft owner (for 30 years) side of me says that this way we will always have at least one airworthy aircraft
Of course, the reality is far more mundane......started off by me buying a 2006 Columbia 400 new, which 10+ year and 2,450 hours later I still enjoy. Of the six planes I have owned, by far the most reliable, plus it is a really simple airplane-no retractable gear, no vacuum pumps, excellent avionics and handling. So that takes care of plane #1.
Plane #2 is Ann's, 2015 TTx-she works for some big airplane manufacture in the Pacific Northwest, and wanted something modern with FIKI for commuting to SoCal and to Oregon (we have a weekend home in Florence). Looked at several planes but decided that she liked the TTx the best, so that is how her purchase came to be. Also nice that we both fly same airplane so on long trips we can split-up the flying duties, etc.
AS for plane #3, well, after flying her plane for a bit and really liking the G2000/FIKI, was very comfortable in the airplane and decided that I wanted to buy another new one, so I did. For the moment, at least, it is the second-to-last TTX ever built, but I'm not 100% sure that the airframe is dead.....
As to how long we will keep all three, who knows, Ann will be the first to tell you that I have a bad habit of never getting rid of things.....but I suspect that the 2006 will be around for quite some time, sorry Rudy!
Makes perfect sense.
COL4Driver
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 9
- Display Name
Display name:
COL4Driver
There is a lot about this which doesn't make sense, but since when is that unique in corporate America? I faithfully read the transcripts of the Textron quarterly earnings calls, and they never as in never mention their piston line. Jets yes, TP on occasion, but never pistons. They pay more attention to their snowmobile line (Arctic Cat) than their piston airplanes.
One rumor (among many) as to why the TTx has been shelved is due to shortage of factory space in Independence, they need room on the production floor for the Denali and The SkyCourier, so they axed the TTx. Since I believe the the Beech products are still made in Wichita that could make some sense.....but it's not like there's a shortage of empty land in Independence, either, and at some point if they build as many of the new planes as they hope to build, they are going to need more space, so why not plan ahead now before you have started producing the planes?
Since 1/01/2015, and thru Q3 2017 Textron has sold 87 TTx's vs 57 G36's and 51 G58's, so it's not like TTx sales were out of line with their other low-wing piston products, let alone how the plane could possibly do if they actually marketed it...for reference they did sell 108 182's in the same time frame, but I think it is fair to say that TTx sales have been decent.
Yet another rumor is that with all of the other piston products being upgraded (if you can call it that) from G1000 to G1000 NXi, Cessna wanted to do same for TTx but did not have the engineering resources to do so because of their other airplane projects. That one sounds like total BS to me, but it is what I have been told by one Cessna employee.
I suppose we will all have to wait for whatever "official" announcement Textron puts out to have some idea as to the real story. I certainly hope the aircraft lives on, I do think that the primary reason it has not competed with the SR22 is the lack of BRS with it's perceived benefits. I think a distant second is the difference in useful load (both airplanes have the same 3,600 lb gross weight). Like most of us I rarely fly with more than two people on board including myself and the plane is an excellent two-persons plus full fuel (102 gallons) plus baggage aircraft. The divide seats by half to estimate number of pax and baggage you can carry with full fuel rule is pretty accurate for most GA airplanes, I had the same limitations in my PA46-carry three adults, full fuel, and bags. On those rare occasions in the 400 where I have carried 3-4 people, I still am able to carry 50-60 gallons of gas which is usually far more endurance than those pax are willing to put up with.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
I think the yolk vs. stick thing is sort of academic between the Cirrus and TTx. The Lanceair that I flew was flown mostly with trim and I'll bet the Cirrus is too. The Lanceair had a 4 way trim switch right on the stick. Indeed, I told the owner it sounded like a dangerous thing, if he lost electrical power could he still control the aircraft? Not a lot of lever on that short stick. He told me he pulled the breaker on the trim system and was able to muscle it around, though certainly not with ease. Stick forces have gotta get heavy when you're moving that fast.
I bet the TTx was just a corporate orphan. Cessna bought it from Lanceair, I bet there was just no one around to defend it from the chopping block. Really stupid in a big important way, the TTx was their only composite airframe.
I bet the TTx was just a corporate orphan. Cessna bought it from Lanceair, I bet there was just no one around to defend it from the chopping block. Really stupid in a big important way, the TTx was their only composite airframe.