First, I am not a "qualified expert" just a layperson's opinion, but I think Cessna/Textron Aviation really struck out on this decision. Secondly, great aircraft, have not owned one but have flown in them. Third, the market, aimed solely at the entry-level pilot, now dominated by Cirrus, would have been a great "feeder system" into Cessna/Beachcraft's other products
When the first King Air was introduced, it was a marginal airplane. But Beech did not give up, and they gave it incremental improvements. Suddenly, after 20 years, Beech discovered they have a winner in their line up, and still in production now. Cessna /Textron executives have more of the North American short term mentality, they can only see from quarter to quarter. They already had some failures then , like the 162 Skycatcher.They did not have a lot of patience, or wish to spend much money, but they wanted a high performance composite plane, to cash in on the latest trend. The quickest way is to buy someone else's design, and put your name on it. Since the plane did not receive too much attention from engineers or money, like the early King Airs, and Starships, was a marginal plane, and have some serious payload shortages. Further short cuts were attempted, with changing the names, that of course did not help and eventually Cessna had to quit producing the plane.
I agree,that TTX is a good plane,but I wouldn't say it's better than SR 22. When test flying TTX I had a problem with my head bumping in the top frame of the aircraft but that wasn't the worst.The controls were very stiff, as if the airplane doesn't want to do what I wanted it to do. And that you don't have in Cirrus. In Cirrus I like the sensibility and ease of the controls
Is not true … about the control is because you don’t know how to properly trip And I’m 6 feet and setting my seat is perfect I don’t own a ttx I own a cirrus and even do I say the ttx in 200 tine better We buy cirrus because our wife are in between from our “ introduction “ aviation after they understand how bad are cirrus you go with the ttx … Epic M600 and TBM … the cirrus controll are chip and very bad all about the cirrus is ship that is not a aviation company is a advertising comply one of the best to lie via advertising that why is the most sale plane just for that and only for ignoran pilots new or Marry and the only first step for the wife is the cirrus That is the all strategy wife pilot new buyer that all Plus add a parachute because no recover and with out can’t be approve to fly but is so good the “advertising “ … well lies
I think the important thing to note here is that Lancair did all the work with designing this aircraft. Textron just bought it and made the dudes at Cessna incorporate it. It was being built in Oregon until in 2009 they fired everyone and moved production to Kansas. I personally think Cirrus was just annoying Textron and they wanted to hit back.
The other reason Cessna did not wish to put much money into the TTX, their heart is no longer with piston planes. They make far more money building kerosene burners, so why should they bother with whole airplanes that cost less than the radar unit on one of their jets. I called their piston line The Wichita Insult. Here is a big company, taking a 3/4 century old design, make a few small design changes, such as adding fuel drains by the Lawyers, update the panel and price and offer it to the public with a take it or leave it attitude. Even the jets, the whole industry are still struggling with the "sound barrier" They were also about a dozen years late copying the PC12. I have not heard much about the Denalli lately, maybe they have engine issues delayed it???
I think the chute should be an option, it is a very expensive maintenance item. Just about the whole Cessna line had modern replacements by others. The 210 replacement is a bird designed by the late Martin Hollemann, called the Super Stallion. (Aircraft Design company) I think his wife are holding on to the rights to it. Only about 5 been built. If you close off enough wing compartments, it can hold enough fuel to fly to Hawaii. 2100 Kt miles. Even farther if you use a Chevy engine. The Stallion can fly circles around the 210. I am hoping some billionaire will put it into production.
OMG … each time that I see this video … I got soooo impressed how well was done and how much knowledge in every single point nailing Avery single topic looks like you own one extremely preside and not buy and finally people start to tell the true about the so ahead still the ttx is from any airplane even she stop to run 5 year ago and no one even get close … and how REALY bad in cirrus that people Utube are scare to tell the true well most the utube they are not at all the educated … one thing that I want to make a huge comment ( if you are a skydiver and before to open your parachute you start it to spin … question what will gonna happens?…….. YES !! You got it right you will be entangled… well the cirrus did not invented the parachute for plane was the plane in the test face the plane did nkt pass the spin recover but with their huge advertising machinery because FAA denied their certification because WILL NOT RECOVER the cirrus company wity advertising and huge lawyer machinery they name the parachute a … !!!!! Recovery parachute !!!! Bualaaaa the legality that FAA require was to recovery spin becarse the cirrus could not ever so the cirrus with the parachute has a recovery parachute … but was for spin ??? Remember ? But corruption money and lawer they pass … WRONG as the skydiver the plane spin you will open the parachute as the sky diver will happens Desastre !!! So cirrus had killmote pilots that any other plane ever Thanks for advertising FAA contruction and pilot and people ignorant is tue most dangerous plane call tje safety one goooshhhh The cirrus can’t fly if the parachute is nkt there is nkt airworthy. You did an amazing thing but about thre parachute all is a lie
Years ago, I was at Oshkosh, and I came across this TTX , Corvolis or what ever you call it. I mentally took the useful load, minus full fuel weight, and I was left with a two seater, and that was being generous, the passenger better be well under 170 lbs. So I said it out loud enough for the Cessna reps to hear it, what a nice 2 seater, and there was a few ugly faces there.
@@northernandyboy beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally love the vertical front of the tail section, it has set them apart from everything else since the late 50s. Just like when Cirrus first came out they were distinctive
First, I am not a "qualified expert" just a layperson's opinion, but I think Cessna/Textron Aviation really struck out on this decision. Secondly, great aircraft, have not owned one but have flown in them. Third, the market, aimed solely at the entry-level pilot, now dominated by Cirrus, would have been a great "feeder system" into Cessna/Beachcraft's other products
Thanks for all the great information, told objectively and honestly! You guys do such a good job! Thank you!
The TTX is awesome except for the price tag
I mean it’s faster and cheaper than a cirrus
@@evanphillips4015 No, not cheaper.
When the first King Air was introduced, it was a marginal airplane. But Beech did not give up, and they gave it incremental improvements. Suddenly, after 20 years, Beech discovered they have a winner in their line up, and still in production now. Cessna /Textron executives have more of the North American short term mentality, they can only see from quarter to quarter. They already had some failures then , like the 162 Skycatcher.They did not have a lot of patience, or wish to spend much money, but they wanted a high performance composite plane, to cash in on the latest trend. The quickest way is to buy someone else's design, and put your name on it. Since the plane did not receive too much attention from engineers or money, like the early King Airs, and Starships, was a marginal plane, and have some serious payload shortages. Further short cuts were attempted, with changing the names, that of course did not help and eventually Cessna had to quit producing the plane.
I agree,that TTX is a good plane,but I wouldn't say it's better than SR 22.
When test flying TTX I had a problem with my head bumping in the top frame of the aircraft but that wasn't the worst.The controls were very stiff, as if the airplane doesn't want to do what I wanted it to do. And that you don't have in Cirrus. In Cirrus I like the sensibility and ease of the controls
Is not true … about the control is because you don’t know how to properly trip
And I’m 6 feet and setting my seat is perfect
I don’t own a ttx I own a cirrus and even do I say the ttx in 200 tine better
We buy cirrus because our wife are in between from our “ introduction “ aviation after they understand how bad are cirrus you go with the ttx … Epic M600 and TBM …
the cirrus controll are chip and very bad all about the cirrus is ship that is not a aviation company is a advertising comply one of the best to lie via advertising that why is the most sale plane just for that and only for ignoran pilots new or Marry and the only first step for the wife is the cirrus
That is the all strategy wife pilot new buyer that all
Plus add a parachute because no recover and with out can’t be approve to fly but is so good the “advertising “ … well lies
I think the important thing to note here is that Lancair did all the work with designing this aircraft. Textron just bought it and made the dudes at Cessna incorporate it. It was being built in Oregon until in 2009 they fired everyone and moved production to Kansas. I personally think Cirrus was just annoying Textron and they wanted to hit back.
The other reason Cessna did not wish to put much money into the TTX, their heart is no longer with piston planes. They make far more money building kerosene burners, so why should they bother with whole airplanes that cost less than the radar unit on one of their jets. I called their piston line The Wichita Insult. Here is a big company, taking a 3/4 century old design, make a few small design changes, such as adding fuel drains by the Lawyers, update the panel and price and offer it to the public with a take it or leave it attitude. Even the jets, the whole industry are still struggling with the "sound barrier" They were also about a dozen years late copying the PC12. I have not heard much about the Denalli lately, maybe they have engine issues delayed it???
I love the way the ttx looks, but I don't like the side stick or center stick. It's yoke or nothing.
Do a video about diamond da 50
I think that aircraft falls into the 180 knot category but yes, a video on it would be good.
God all it needed was a higher usefull load for the parachute and cirrus would've been gone! the ttx looks so much better.
The chute is a very expensive maintenance item.
I like the ttx
Ya agreed
I don't like the stick layouts....call me old fashion.
The TTX needs 250lbs of increased useful load a parachute for the wives and more interior room. Cessna really should just remake the 210
I think the chute should be an option, it is a very expensive maintenance item. Just about the whole Cessna line had modern replacements by others. The 210 replacement is a bird designed by the late Martin Hollemann, called the Super Stallion. (Aircraft Design company) I think his wife are holding on to the rights to it. Only about 5 been built. If you close off enough wing compartments, it can hold enough fuel to fly to Hawaii. 2100 Kt miles. Even farther if you use a Chevy engine. The Stallion can fly circles around the 210. I am hoping some billionaire will put it into production.
OMG … each time that I see this video … I got soooo impressed how well was done and how much knowledge in every single point nailing Avery single topic looks like you own one extremely preside and not buy and finally people start to tell the true about the so ahead still the ttx is from any airplane even she stop to run 5 year ago and no one even get close … and how REALY bad in cirrus that people Utube are scare to tell the true well most the utube they are not at all the educated … one thing that I want to make a huge comment ( if you are a skydiver and before to open your parachute you start it to spin … question what will gonna happens?…….. YES !! You got it right you will be entangled… well the cirrus did not invented the parachute for plane was the plane in the test face the plane did nkt pass the spin recover but with their huge advertising machinery because FAA denied their certification because WILL NOT RECOVER the cirrus company wity advertising and huge lawyer machinery they name the parachute a … !!!!! Recovery parachute !!!! Bualaaaa the legality that FAA require was to recovery spin becarse the cirrus could not ever so the cirrus with the parachute has a recovery parachute … but was for spin ??? Remember ? But corruption money and lawer they pass … WRONG as the skydiver the plane spin you will open the parachute as the sky diver will happens Desastre !!! So cirrus had killmote pilots that any other plane ever Thanks for advertising FAA contruction and pilot and people ignorant is tue most dangerous plane call tje safety one goooshhhh The cirrus can’t fly if the parachute is nkt there is nkt airworthy. You did an amazing thing but about thre parachute all is a lie
Short on useful load
Years ago, I was at Oshkosh, and I came across this TTX , Corvolis or what ever you call it. I mentally took the useful load, minus full fuel weight, and I was left with a two seater, and that was being generous, the passenger better be well under 170 lbs. So I said it out loud enough for the Cessna reps to hear it, what a nice 2 seater, and there was a few ugly faces there.
The Mooney Acclaim Ultra is still faster with less power.
I personally find Mooneys ugly but no one can argue with their speed and efficiency.
@@northernandyboy beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally love the vertical front of the tail section, it has set them apart from everything else since the late 50s. Just like when Cirrus first came out they were distinctive
@@sarider6294you’re also comparing retractables with fixed gears. Of course it’s faster.
Thompson William Perez John Jones Kimberly
The TTX failed because it had no parachute. Simple as that.
Pure ignorance