Cessna ttx gone?

steingar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep, they are traveling planes, not fly low and maneuvering-by-hand planes; typical flight. It's take-off, climb x00 feet, engage the auto-pilot, arrive near the destination, AP fly the approach, disengage the AP and land. Yeah, sometimes you hand fly the approach/visual approach, but it's travel, how much "fun" is hand-flying 400 nm at cruise altitude?
 
steingar said:
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.
Click to expand...

I haven't flown a Columbia, but I did fly the Evolution (which has the same setup). I find the side stick a lot nicer to fly than the Cirrus side yoke personally. The controls really were pretty light.

The trim failure in case of an electrical failure is sub ideal in some ways, but it does create a setup that's overall simpler in many ways and not unprecedented. In fact, the MU-2's roll trim is electric. It has two little ailerons at the end of the flaps which move independently for roll trim. Part of how they mitigate the risk on that is that there are two motors with a switch that allows you to select one, the other, or both (default is both - selecting left or right only is considered an emergency procedure). If you have a total electrical failure then you lose roll trim, but that's not too common, single or twin. I've only had it happen to me once, and it wouldn't have happened if I had a proper voltmeter in the Aztec. I then added a voltmeter.
 
wayne said:
Yep, they are traveling planes, not fly low and maneuvering-by-hand planes; typical flight. It's take-off, climb x00 feet, engage the auto-pilot, arrive near the destination, AP fly the approach, disengage the AP and land. Yeah, sometimes you hand fly the approach/visual approach, but it's travel, how much "fun" is hand-flying 400 nm at cruise altitude?
Click to expand...

Only 400 nm? I've done hand flying for 1,000+ nm in a day, and have enjoyed every minute of it. Lancairs are a lot of fun to hand fly. So are 310s. The 414, not so much unless you're at a lower altitude. We'll see about the MU-2.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Only 400 nm? I've done hand flying for 1,000+ nm in a day, and have enjoyed every minute of it. Lancairs are a lot of fun to hand fly. So are 310s. The 414, not so much unless you're at a lower altitude. We'll see about the MU-2.
Click to expand...

You're nuts. :p ;) :D Plus you're flying faster than most people.

I find hand-flying at cruise boring or tiring depending upon the weather. I'd rather let the AP do that and I manage the flight/radios. Then I'm fresh for the approach and doing things once we arrive.

Some people think 200 nm is a looong way. Really. They compare time difference between planes at even 100 nm. o_O

One daughter is at college 165 nm direct line distance away. We typically drive there; other than a day trip. Another daughter is at college 250 nm away and we fly there. The shorter of those two just doesn't save much time flying. We do 400 nm after work for weekend trips, so no it's not that far to me.
 
GRG55 said:
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...
Click to expand...

In this case, the retractable has ten thousand airframes in the field. The discontinued airplane has a couple hundred, I'd guess, and isn't selling. Which one offers Textron more future business in airframe sales + support?

That's the one they kept.
 
wayne said:
You're nuts. :p ;) :D Plus you're flying faster than most people.

I find hand-flying at cruise boring or tiring depending upon the weather. I'd rather let the AP do that and I manage the flight/radios. Then I'm fresh for the approach and doing things once we arrive.

Some people think 200 nm is a looong way. Really. They compare time difference between planes at even 100 nm. o_O

One daughter is at college 165 nm direct line distance away. We typically drive there; other than a day trip. Another daughter is at college 250 nm away and we fly there. The shorter of those two just doesn't save much time flying. We do 400 nm after work for weekend trips, so no it's not that far to me.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm nuts, but it still comes out to having done 10+ hours of hand flying in a day. Not to say I do that all the time and there are times when I just turn on the AP and let it do its thing, but I've done it before. Frankly I think that people use the autopilot far too much and should hand fly a lot more. It may not feel like you're getting any benefit in cruise, but the slight adjustments you make in trim and using the yoke get you the feel of the aircraft that allow those more precision adjustments at the last second more natural.

Now some airplanes are legitimately less rewarding to hand fly than others, no doubt. Like I said, the 414 up in the flight levels is not particularly rewarding. But there's still benefit to flying it up there and the familiarity with the controls that comes with it. Doing a takeoff and landing isn't very much.

I also am against letting the autopilot fly most approaches.

Ultimately, if you can hand fly a plane and are comfortable doing so, then it doesn't matter whether the autopilot works, and to a large extent you can get thrown in any other airplane and fly it from the get-go. Most of the time when I see people have problems in a new aircraft and start quizzing them, they never hand fly. The ones who get right in and make you think that they've got 50+ hours in it, yeah, they're the ones who hand fly a lot. Doesn't take a ton of hours to get that way, either.

I agree with you on the speed comparisons. My trips are ridiculously long for the most part, so I'm an oddity. But even for me, I'm looking at efficiency on the MU-2. Last night I was studying the charts for the most efficient speeds to aim for (and got it pretty much figured out). I'll still be doing 50-60 KTAS more in cruise than I was doing in the 414, so that's going to shave a lot of time off of the trips.

I'm a grumpy old man. Now get off my lawn. And turn off that autopilot for a few minutes! ;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'm a grumpy old man. Now get off my lawn. And turn off that autopilot for a few minutes! ;)
Click to expand...

ROFL :D

Ted DuPuis said:
I also am against letting the autopilot fly most approaches.
Click to expand...

When I first started flying the SR22 I did the majority of my approach practice with the AP. That was because the AP was new to me and I needed to learn how to use it. Previously I was flying an Arrow that would just track the heading bug and the DG precessed. :( So I had to continually update the DG and keep the pitch trimmed manually. Or just hand fly it, which sometimes was easier. It trimmed pitch well, but there were adjustments needed. It also meant all approaches were hand flown.

Now in the Baron or a SR22 I like to do a mix of AP and hand flown approaches. That way I'm comfortable with both. The APs are different in their abilities too. The STEC 55x tracks the ILS typically better than I do, other than gusty conditions, but I do much better than the FCS 810. Plus the 810 seems finicky at times about how it gets set-up; probably just me doing it wrong. So, when it's not working right that just becomes a "failed" AP / hand flown approach. :)
 
Never flown either, but for me if you are buying one of these, money is no object. And if money is no object, I'd want the chute.
 
wayne said:
When I first started flying the SR22 I did the majority of my approach practice with the AP. That was because the AP was new to me and I needed to learn how to use it. Previously I was flying an Arrow that would just track the heading bug and the DG precessed. :( So I had to continually update the DG and keep the pitch trimmed manually. Or just hand fly it, which sometimes was easier. It trimmed pitch well, but there were adjustments needed. It also meant all approaches were hand flown.

Now in the Baron or a SR22 I like to do a mix of AP and hand flown approaches. That way I'm comfortable with both. The APs are different in their abilities too. The STEC 55x tracks the ILS typically better than I do, other than gusty conditions, but I do much better than the FCS 810. Plus the 810 seems finicky at times about how it gets set-up; probably just me doing it wrong. So, when it's not working right that just becomes a "failed" AP / hand flown approach. :)
Click to expand...

I agree with being comfortable using an autopilot for approaches if you have one that can do it well enough. There are situations where it can make sense to do it. I think if you have an autopilot you can't trust to actually fly the approach, you just shouldn't mess with it for an approach and plan to hand fly it. I personally have a very high standard for what level of performance out of an autopilot I need to trust it shooting an approach. But I also know I can do a better job than most marginal autopilots.

Most non-professional pilots don't shoot enough approaches to truly be proficient in hand flying, and that's part of why I advocate hand flying all approaches other than doing some practice to know how the autopilot will perform and how to use it if you do think you'll use it for an approach.

With the guy behind the yoke remaining the #1 cause of fatalities, I think the pilot community tends to let the autopilot spend too much time practicing its skills and not enough time letting the human practice his or her skills.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Yeah.... I would want something that burned kerosene and could go on a 135 certificate. I still don’t know how they find buyers.
Click to expand...

Plenty of airplanes can go on a 135 certificate that don't burn kerosene. I flew Navajos on 135, and there are 135s that operate SR22s. A new TTx could be put on a 135 fairly easily. Usually the problem you have getting an individual bird on 135 is that it's old and has a lot wrong with it, or it's yeared out on engines/props/etc. so you have a large financial hurdle to overcome before putting it on a certificate.
 
I think you guys are underestimating the sales power of the chute. Nothing in else the "new" category has one, and its a major boon to the spouse-sales-pitch.
 
George Mohr said:
I think you guys are underestimating the sales power of the chute. Nothing in else the "new" category has one, and its a major boon to the spouse-sales-pitch.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for @SixPapaCharlie to demonstrate the chute at Gaston's. Maybe he can do it after I demonstrate passing him with one engine feathered.
 
GRG55 said:
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...
Click to expand...

Cirrus sold 355 aircraft last year, and Cessna sold 23 TTxs. In the retractable piston single group, Mooney sold 7, Piper sold 9 Arrows and 9 Mirages, and Textron sold 13 Bonanzas. Yep, the retractable piston single is getting scarce.

kyleb said:
In this case, the retractable has ten thousand airframes in the field. The discontinued airplane has a couple hundred, I'd guess, and isn't selling. Which one offers Textron more future business in airframe sales + support?

That's the one they kept.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the TTX airframe being built in Mexico? That may have been much of it. My experience has been that senior management tends to overstate the cost savings of outsourcing, and understates the managerial costs involved. That may have been most of it. Textron built 251 metal piston, 69 metal turbine, and 180 metal jet airplanes. Maybe that wasn't enough volume of the composite airframes to keep the line going.

Source: GAMA Annual Report
 
It may not have been manufacturing rescources - it may be engineering and maybe even structural test resources. Composite structures are quite a jump from metal structures.
 
Yep...Cessna is dropping the Columbia line. It should have kept the Columbia name, Corvalis...TTS, WTF was that. Columbia made a great name and had a great rep, just bad finances. The plane is sweet and by far better to handle that a Cirrus. Just let your best single die and keep selling 1/2 million dollar skyhawks. Oh...enjoy the new ADs. I can really see Cessna really curtailing their whole piston line again a la the 1980's.
 
If I had the money and was looking to buy something factory new and my options were the Bo, Cirrus, TTX, or Malibu I’d pick the Cirrus every time. Apparently the people that actually have that sort of money mostly agree with me.

Of course if *I* had that kind of money and could spend it on anything, I’d go buy a cherry beaver (that doesn’t sound right) and start up a single pilot air taxi in Kodiak and do that until I die. The nice thing about the beaver is it flies slow enough that you probably won’t even know you hit the ground in the event of an engine failure. It’s basically the first BRS
 
Sounds like Textron only had enough sales to support one "high end" piston single. Take away the Bonanza, and you leave Beech hurting. Take away the TTx, and Cessna gets by on the other piston singles, turbo-props, and jets. I am curious to see what the Cessna Denali does to Kingair sales.

And the TTx (dumb name... but better than "Corvallis") is no more.
 
Last edited:
Part of Curtis's success is that they've started innovating new features nearly every model year, features that make the plane operate more like a modern car. Those regular innovations are making buyers list after new models and upgrade with some regularity.

Nobody else is doing that. The chute isn't the only reason that Cirrus is successful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Plenty of airplanes can go on a 135 certificate that don't burn kerosene. I flew Navajos on 135, and there are 135s that operate SR22s. A new TTx could be put on a 135 fairly easily. Usually the problem you have getting an individual bird on 135 is that it's old and has a lot wrong with it, or it's yeared out on engines/props/etc. so you have a large financial hurdle to overcome before putting it on a certificate.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know pistons can go on a 135.

My statement wasn’t very clear. What I was trying to say is I would buy a turbine that was already 135 current so I could get it through conformity without to much $$ or time delay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Tarheelpilot said:
Yeah I know pistons can go on a 135.

My statement wasn’t very clear. What I was trying to say is I would buy a turbine that was already 135 current so I could get it through conformity without to much $$ or time delay.
Click to expand...

Fair point and I agree.
 
Oddly enough I read this thread this morning. I get to work in the afternoon and see a "C-240"* on ILS final at my airpatch. Its odd enough that a civil aircraft wanted to fly the ILS, but during wing flying? Anyway I got the binoculars out and see what looks like a TTx. So I ask the guy if it was and he confirmed it and said that that one was the first off the assembly line. Good looking airplane but that lime green color....not so much.

*yes it should have been listed on radar as a C-400 if it was the "first off the assembly line" but I didn't question it.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Good looking airplane but that lime green color....not so much.
Click to expand...

This one? I personally love the color scheme:

seVug5W.jpg
 
Eric Gleason said:
Part of Curtis's success is that they've started innovating new features nearly every model year, features that make the plane operate more like a modern car. Those regular innovations are making buyers list after new models and upgrade with some regularity.
Click to expand...

Sales create revenue. Revenue funds R&D. R&D innovates new features. New features create sales. It's a cycle.
 
kyleb said:
In this case, the retractable has ten thousand airframes in the field. The discontinued airplane has a couple hundred, I'd guess, and isn't selling. Which one offers Textron more future business in airframe sales + support?

That's the one they kept.
Click to expand...

Your logic escapes me. For a new aircraft manufacturer 17,000 airfames over 70 years is more of a liability than an asset. And the TTx outsold the Bonanza each of the past three years. I can't see a potential TTx buyer switching to a Textron Bonanza; they are more likely to defect from Textron to Cirrus.

And for all those touting the "success" of Cirrus on this thread, 350 or so planes a year is hardly a success. It's a cottage industry. Ferrari sells twice that many cars on average every month, and many of them cost multiples of a new SR-22T.

Such is the state of the new manufacture piston aircraft industry that a company selling half the number of airplanes it did a decade ago is considered a "success". :( I think this industry is in serious trouble, and will not go into the next inevitable economic downturn/recession in a particularly healthy state.
 
Last edited:
asicer said:
Sales create revenue. Revenue funds R&D. R&D innovates new features. New features create sales. It's a cycle.
Click to expand...

Cirrus piston sales are down by half in a decade. Some cycle...
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
Cirrus piston sales are down by half in a decade. Some cycle...
Click to expand...

When a 172 costs $350K+ today, when inflation says it should cost less than $100K, it's no wonder there's a problem. Especially for an aircraft that hasn't seen much in the way of "technological advances" since the 60's (avionics notwithstanding).
 
GRG55 said:
Your logic escapes me. For a new aircraft manufacturer 17,000 airfames over 70 years is more of a liability than an asset. And the TTx outsold the Bonanza each of the past three years. I can't see a potential TTx buyer switching to a Textron Bonanza; they are more likely to defect from Textron to Cirrus.

And for all those touting the "success" of Cirrus on this thread, 350 or so planes a year is hardly a success. It's a cottage industry. Ferrari sells twice that many cars on average every month, and many of them cost multiples of a new SR-22T.

Such is the state of the new manufacture piston aircraft industry that a company selling half the number of airplanes it did a decade ago is considered a "success". :( I think this industry is in serious trouble, and will not go into the next inevitable economic downturn/recession in a particularly healthy state.
Click to expand...

It is similar to the decision Beechcraft made with the Starship vs the Kingair. They chopped the one with relatively few units in the field, knowing there is lots of future business supporting the more popular one and they didn't want to go full out building and supporting two aircraft in the same niche.
 
GRG55 said:
Your logic escapes me. For a new aircraft manufacturer 17,000 airfames over 70 years is more of a liability than an asset. And the TTx outsold the Bonanza each of the past three years. I can't see a potential TTx buyer switching to a Textron Bonanza; they are more likely to defect from Textron to Cirrus.

And for all those touting the "success" of Cirrus on this thread, 350 or so planes a year is hardly a success. It's a cottage industry. Ferrari sells twice that many cars on average every month, and many of them cost multiples of a new SR-22T.

Such is the state of the new manufacture piston aircraft industry that a company selling half the number of airplanes it did a decade ago is considered a "success". :( I think this industry is in serious trouble, and will not go into the next inevitable economic downturn/recession in a particularly healthy state.
Click to expand...

Only the LaFerrari sells for more than a new SR22T, and its production numbers are tiny. The rest of the lineup sell for less than half of what an SR22T goes for, and some for less than half what a base SR20 costs. Nonetheless, your point is well taken, new airplanes are crazy expensive and are out of reach for the overwhelming majority of people.
 
asicer said:
Doesn't look that bad. Was ~415, is now ~315.
p1c6vfiqqb1ivf1i5f11e11451ak66.jpg
Click to expand...

Depends which year you start your analysis. Here's the data from 2004 to 2017 inclusive:

upload_2018-2-23_9-20-1.png
 
If the TTx had a chute the sales would have been greater and the line would have probably survived. Who can argue that point? Like an earlier poster noted, nervous spouses of Cirrus buyers probably make a lot more sales than than they are given credit for.
 
Brad Smith said:
If the TTx had a chute the sales would have been greater and the line would have probably survived. Who can argue that point? Like an earlier poster noted, nervous spouses of Cirrus buyers probably make a lot more sales than than they are given credit for.
Click to expand...

I'll argue that point. Sales of the TTx may have been marginally greater with a chute, but there's no evidence it would have made any difference in the outcome.

Have a look at the Cirrus sales data in the post above and then compare with the trends over the same 2004 to 2017 period from a number of other piston aircraft manufacturers below. There's a common theme to all of them. The financial crisis in 08/09 hammered General Aviation piston manufacturers, including Cirrus. None of them, including Cirrus, has recovered from that.

Piper is sometimes maligned for not having any new product, but it is noteworthy that it along with Cirrus are the only two that have battled back to 50% of their decade old sales volumes. I think that perhaps calls into question the contention that plastic and a parachute are needed to sell an airplane these days.

Perhaps there's an argument that without advanced composite products like Cirrus and Diamond, aggregate piston aircraft sales might be even lower. But the other player with "modern" product, Diamond, hasn't recovered very well at all.

Textron has been consolidating its piston model lineup for several years. There's no way of knowing with certainty what the difference might have been if the TTx had a chute, but come the next recession Cessna might be down to making Skyhawks and not much else in the piston world. :( Mooney? Let's not even go there.

There is no industry or company that I know of that can be considered healthy and successful when aggregate sales remain substantially lower than they were a decade earlier. There should be real concern that the next recession is going to TKO piston manufacturers. Maybe we'll be touting Cirrus as a success because it's the only one to survive?


upload_2018-2-23_9-48-54.png

upload_2018-2-23_9-49-38.png

upload_2018-2-23_9-50-17.png

upload_2018-2-23_9-51-57.png
 
They killed off the TTx so they would have room to bring back the 177.
 
PPC1052 said:
They killed off the TTx so they would have room to bring back the 177.
Click to expand...
Ohh... if only...

I really do think the TTx was cancelled to keep Beech in business. Anybody got them Beech numbers handy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top