I think the TTX is for sure the better plane or the better Cirrus. The only reason Cessna failed, are heavy mistakes in sales and marketing and in the missing BRS Chute system, what customers wanted to have. Especially their wifes! 😅Cessna was sitting on their big aircraft company chair, thinking that their huge name and reputation will make the run. It obviously didn’t work out. So the winner is Cirrus. They had smarter strategies.

Cessna screwed up one of the best planes ever…Lancair should have kept the Columbia and worked with private equity if they needed money to grow the brand. Big companies like Textron are lethargic

Cessna called it quits because it had to. They moved the plant down to Mexico and most of the planes failed inspection because of inflight wing delam of carbon fiber. They took a great aircraft and ruined it by having it built in Mexico by unskilled labor. There was a VERY SPECIFIC reason it was built in Bend, Oregon. Not because Lancair was here, but because the humidity is extremely low, something a carbon fiber aircraft needs when being built. Moving it to Mexico which we all warned was a very bad idea caused moisture to build in the lamination process which caused in flight failures of the wings delaming. It's also very obvious that the spokes person of this video has no clue what he is taking about. The plane DOES NOT need a chute because it's spin recovery is excellent, it takes a lot of screw ups to even make the plane spin out of control unlike the Cirrus which was REQUIRED to have a chute because of it's lack luster spin recovery. Finally the Airworthy certificate was pulled by the FAA because of the poor build quality that unskilled labor in Mexico did to it.

@Airplanefish

2 жыл бұрын

Your correct about this. However.....the shop in Mexico was using swap coolers in the composite layup department. That's where the moisture came from. Cessna has enormous guidelines when repairing these aircraft. Alot of things need to be monitored and recorded then sent into Cessna along with glue samples so they can verify moisture content. Basically the area being repaired (sometimes the entire aircraft) has to be in a "tent" or climate controlled area the entire time the repair is being done. It adds a huge cost to the labor bill.

@samsharp8539

2 жыл бұрын

De-lam. Truly a scary thought. What ever happened to Cessna!s patented wing autoclave for bonding? Obsolete no doubt.

@istvanmeissler2238

2 жыл бұрын

How many of these planes were produced before the move to Mexico? Thanks.

@michaelmartin8331

Жыл бұрын

In addition, the plane did a great job of slowing down via the speed brakes which this poster failed to mention ( or I am assuming had no clue of). I really wish the presenters of some of these videos would do just a little better job in researching the airplanes they are representing to be an expert of.

@karlfriedrich7758

Жыл бұрын

Buyers were right to complain about the lack of a chute and airbags. The very aircraft itself is an example of why aircraft SHOULD have them as standard - what good is excellent spin recovery if you have a catastrophic structural failure? How many aircraft are certified for fully-developed spins? The minimum requirement for Part 23 is a single rotation recovery. That's pitiful and an incipient spin at best. A relative handful can actually demonstrate exiting a fully developed one. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having both, a chute and full spin recovery. Pipistrel can do it out of a fully developed spin in the Panthera. Any light aircraft may not NEED a parachute, but SHOULD have a chute because spinning isn't the only potentially unrecoverable situation you may encounter. I can think of at least 10 circumstances which could otherwise cause a catastrophic accident but that could be saved with a chute and the ASN Wikibase is literally filled with cases where pilots and their families would still be flying if they'd had one. I'll never understand people who think having a parachute is somehow a disadvantage. Even something as simple as an airbag seatbelt you'll find people complaining about like it's somehow a dent on pride to have an extra safety device.

Textron could destroy an anvil

@tobberfutooagain2628

2 жыл бұрын

Yep.

I was taking delivery of my new Columbia 400 at the factory. While in class we heard this loud banging noise on the roof. Went walked out to see hail the size of baseballs. It literally damaged all the aircraft at the factory expect for the units being delivered that week, they had those parked in the delivery hanger. That is what bankrupted Columbia. They never recovered, got behind on R&D and by the time Cessna took over, Cirrus was to far ahead. That is why it failed. Great airplane, just back luck.

This is kinda wild, cause I see so many TTx’s and Columbia’s in my home airport, with only occasional SR22’s

Thank you for taking your time to make this video! The Cessna TTx is a truly wonderful aircraft. The screens are actually 14” and can be split into 4 for situational awareness far superior to others. I currently own a TTx prior to that a 2008 Columbia 400 and a 2003 Lancair 350 before that. There is not a better aircraft. Cross country is wonderful! Stable, smoothe and predictable while maintaining a great safety record over a Cirrus. Cessna was not the best at Marketing.

The cost of owning one is more expensive to operate and since Cessna is bringing back the Turbo T 182 they should bring back the TTX

The reason the ttx failed and the sr series are doing well is because the people with the money to buy these things aren't "pilots", they're rich people, and rich people like the parachute.

@ADAPTATION7

2 жыл бұрын

And real pilots don't need parachutes 😁

@2Greenlid

2 жыл бұрын

Correction, our wives don’t feel comfortable cross country without the chute, any additional safety features is good, I assume you think real pilots fly with 1940s instruments only??

@ADAPTATION7

2 жыл бұрын

@@2Greenlid If you're flying the plane they I suppose your wives have a legitimate concern then.

@2Greenlid

2 жыл бұрын

@@ADAPTATION7 She is scared in 747s too, not everyone loves flying…I guess that is news to you?

@ADAPTATION7

2 жыл бұрын

@@2Greenlid Take the train then.

If Cessna wanted to win market share back from Cirrus and make the TTx successful, find a modern power plant that runs on Jet A like Diamond Aircraft and affix a chute system. It’s sad because it is a great plane.

The lancair had a 12v electrical system. The Cessna fit and finish was better, than lancair and had a 24v system. The g1000 was excellent. I agree the Cirrus was a commercial success. Cessna should have added the BRS at least as an option. I had a 2004 and a 2008 thanks to the tax treatment. Excellent airplanes.

@jdwilk5023

2 ай бұрын

Yes "Option" is the key word for the BRS. With Cirrus, if the chute is out of date the plane is apparently not airworthy.

@Dwayne - So how'd the RV10 compare to both in a SXS comparison? Also, with the turbo Cirrus, is it now a "better" aircraft than the TTX?

Formerly called "300 and 350 Corvallis", was successfully built in Oregon since 1998, but, Cessna decided to improve it only to be killed by two major mistakes, First mistake was cutting the labor cost by moving the composite shop to Mexico which this resulted in bad production quality and then FAA fined them $2.4 million, and the second mistake was by having a tiny useful load compared to the huge power plant on the airplane Cessna's decision making is the one to be blamed. However, Cessna 172 accident rate is 0.45 per 100,000 flight hours while Cirrus is way worse which was 1.6 per 100,000 flight hours, then fell to 1.01 per 100,000 flight hours after improving it's safety. (Wikipedia).

@wests3771

Жыл бұрын

That's kind of amazing considering how many more 172 are used for training

@PRH123

5 ай бұрын

​@@wests3771training is one of the reasons for the low 172 accident rate, flying two up with an instructor is pretty safe... and with flight schools racking up lots of hours, the rate gets very good....

Diamond Aircraft makes the best GA composite planes.

The TTX market is still going strong and the prices are more expensive than before but the Cirrus aircraft is still ahead of the light weight deposit built performance

Most of the video shots of the interior are the Columbia not the TTx

Hmm I wonder how the C 440 ,Sr 22 or the RV 10 or Piper Malibu would handle the Diesel Red A05 engine?. It would equate to aprox. 350 h.p. in a gas and burn a lot less fuel. It would have an overhaul life twice that of the Gas engine. 😢

Could you please do one on the Rockwell Commander.

@Dwaynesaviation

2 жыл бұрын

Yeaaasssssssssss already working on it

Just wondering how much faster this plane(or the cirrus)would be with a RG model...10-15 kts???

@mattmidgley2899

2 жыл бұрын

Just look at a lancair iv, that’s pretty much the rg version

I have never seen one of these as Cirrus is like taken over.But Cessna needs to bring this plane back

If anybody knows, I'm curious why the exterior colors for this aircraft would be limited? Thanks ahead of time for any replies. 😉✌️

@dickjohnson6573

2 жыл бұрын

Dark colors absorb heat. High heat weakens the composite structure.

@buzzz241

2 жыл бұрын

Ultraviolet light, from the sun ☀️, deteriorates the plastic composite over time. Certain colors can reduce that deterioration. That’s my understanding.

Learnt about this plane from Arma

Firstly, the Columbia was renamed the Corvallis. The name sounded like a male enhancement drug, or the name of a hyperactive leg humping hunting dog. Those who owned this example of Cessna’s “acquisition engineering” were having as much fun owning this plane as the Piper 6X owners. We had a 1972 Cherokee Six that would out climb, out haul, and deliver above-book performance. The 6X was a slug. The weeping wing was a plus though.

I had one. Such a d fantastic airplane!

This is the fastest single engine Cessna had manufactured

Ah yes, why did the Columbia 400/Cessna 400/Cessna 400 Corvalis TT/Cessna Corvalis TT/Cessna TTx lose out to the SR-22 series by Cirrus.... Short Answer: Cirrus developed a product more aligned to what GA buyers were looking for, therefore it sold more units. Long Answer: The Columbia suffered from a combination of design not aligned with the GA market, hamstrung by bankruptcy and re-acquisition by Textron, plagued with manufacturing difficulties by Textron management ineptitude and a failure to commit to additional upkeep and innovation until it was just too late. Scroll back to the late 1990s when Lancair developed a subsidiary called Lancair Columbia to manufacture a certificated derivative of their Lancair ES kitplane, which was used as an avionics testbed for NASA's Advanced General Aviation Technology Experiments (AGATE) program. Called the Lancair Columbia LC40-550FG and marketed under the name Lancair Columbia 300, this aircraft was updated with a fully FADEC controlled engine and became the Columbia 350 and turbocharged Columbia 400 . Cirrus approached the AGATE problem with a more modest and underpowered SR-20, flying with a 200 bhp Continental IO-360 engine. In 2001, Cirrus developed an upgraded version called the SR-22, which used the normally aspirated 310 bhp Continental IO-550, just as the Columbia 300 and 350 did. In 2006, a turbonormalized version of the SR-22 followed to better match the Columbia 400. The rivalry between the Cirrus and Columbia designs boils down to them both being open ended answers to the same design problem, but some answers are better suited to the customer's needs and desires. Lance Neibauer of Lancair began his business designing kitplanes with a focus on speed whereas Dale and Alan Klapmeyer of Cirrus Design set out to build an everyperson's airplane. And while not purely focused on speed, the Cirrus SR series was plenty fast to satisfy the average GA buy but also developed an airplane that was easy to fly, with an additional focus on safety and continually made product updates and improvements to the design. The Cirrus has a little bit more spacious cabin than the Columbia and, with continuous updates and improvements to the airplane, the ballistic parachute (I will not sit on the fence; this is a superior safety feature and Columbia/Textron SHOULD have integrated into the TTx) and improvements to their avionics packages, along with a commitment to customer training to reduce accident rates made Cirrus outshine Columbia in the technologically advanced high performance airplane race. Not all of the TTx failure to sell were related to this, however. Much of ended up being bad fortune combined with inept program management by Textron. In July 2006, the city of Bend, OR was hit by a freak and severe hailstorm, which damaged much of Columbia's inventory parked on the ramp outside the factory at the Bend airport. The property losses associated with this storm, combined with low sales over the preceding years finally caused Columbia Aircraft manufacturing to file for bankruptcy in January 2007. Salvation from financial ruin came to Columbia from a place over 1500 miles away - Wichita, Kansas. At the time Cessna aircraft was in development of a clean sheet, high performance, single engine airplane. Dubbed the NGP, or Next Generation Piston, the Cessna prototype looked more like the love child of a Cessna C210 Centurion and an SR-22. Cessna's parent company, Textron Aviation, quietly abandoned the NGP when it discovered that it could continue development of the plane for an additional $50 million, or it could acquire Columbia Aircraft - and its already certified Columbia 350 and 400 aircraft - for a mere $26 million. Cessna bought out Columbia in November 2007, saving the jobs of all existing Columbia employees - for now. With its new acquisitions, Cessna quickly rebranded the Columbia 350 and 400 the Cessna 350 Corvalis and 400 Corvalis TT, taking advantage of Cessna's large network of sales and support staff in a bid to increase sales. Cessna also, unfortunately, in a bid to improve efficiency and reduce costs, decided to close the old Columbia manufacturing plant at Bend, OR. Instead it move final assembly out to Wichita, KS, with all composite manufacturing moving to Chihuahua, Mexico. This decision proved tragic for the Corvalis and Corvalis TT, as new composite wings being delivered from the Chihuahua plant were found to have delamination issues and an Emergency Airworthiness directive was issued for all LC41-550FGs made there. The problem was finally traced to a bad curing associated with the environment of Chihuahua and was fixed, but production had ceased in the intervening time, further reducing production examples and expanding the lead of Cessna's competitors. In March 2011, Cessna announced that it was going to invest in a number of improvements to the 350 Corvalis and 400 Corvalis TT, rebranding the aircraft as the TTx (concurrently with this announcement, production of the Cessna 350 was quietly axed). While the TTx did make use of some improvements, most noticeably a proprietary version of the Garmin 2000 IFD, dubbed Garmin Intrinzic, it did not incorporate a lot of the changes customers were looking for such as a BRS parachute, a dedicated yaw damper, Flight Into Known Icing (FIKI) certification, and possibly even a larger, turbine powered variant of the Cessna 400. Attempts to improve the TTx followed, albeit slowly, with better exterior lighting, and FIKI certification, but the BRS and yaw damper were never among them. Citing poor sales, Textron finally terminated production of the TTx in 2018. And it's a crying shame, too, as the Lancair Columbia LC41-550FG, finally marketed under the name TTx, was an excellent, docile, maneuverable and safe airplane that was a joy to fly. It made use of a little more robust electrical system than did the Cirrus and considerably more responsive with the pushrod flight controls moved by a dedicated sidestick. Had bad fortune and poor company management not consumed it, the TTx might still be flying today in one form or another.

HUH...? What is the "Garmin G2000 flight avionics"...?? 😲

The main reason is because there was no ballistic parachute as a standard feature.

Is the announcer a real person or a text to speech engine? The latter seems likely with mispronunciations.

@PRH123

5 ай бұрын

I think an AI bot of some kind

The Cirrus is a much better design, from a maintenance standpoint. I’ve done Annual inspections on both and the Cirrus has a much cleaner design to disassemble for inspection and definitely easier to visually see what you need to inspect. From a pilots standpoint, the Cirrus feels more stable during takeoff and landing with the Cirrus have a wider landing gear stance. The Cessna just seemed heavy, over engineered, cramped cockpit, and just not as refined as the Cirrus. And from a mechanic standpoint, Cirrus has way better tech support!!

Hmmm… maybe, just maybe they’d have been better off sticking to high wings and making them more modern, ala Tecnam.

Retractable gear would have made this plane so much better.

The plane was not the problem . It is the pricing too many on the market for a lot less money .

Is it an expensive plane or can someone that’s now a business owner actually buy this. The 172 new is more than someone makes in 100 yrs

Not fierce competition, absurd price…. Cessna screwed themselves…..

Or speed brakes!

Didnt mention the speed breaks wich will quickly slow you to flap speed, sounds like a cirrus add..

Big mistake should have used lycoming engine

👌🏻👌🏻🇩🇿🇩🇿

Because if you can afford that plane, there are probably going to be other choices you'd make.

The rear seat footroom compared with cirrus was minuscule and impractical to comfortably take 4 people. Cirrus far more practical platform

If I had a gazillion dollars I’d buy that over a Cirrus.

Till yesterday, freaking everybody flies without these chute. .. Cirrus is fantastic, yes, but he had to put that chute because he has some serious issues with flat spin and recovery. That's the only reason Cirrus has these chute, because they really need them

3 words: Built in Mexico

Ill take cirrus any day every day

This did not clearly explain why the TTx failed, so fail.

Thee tax is a better plane.

Poor video. Did not explain why the TTx failed

hi

Fake news.

You are so wrong is so maníes point in the ttx 1-Flap info WRONG 2-Compose info WRONG 3-Triciclo info wrong 4- screens side wrong way bigger than any cirrus and any g1000 5- you place the wrong display for the g2000 wrong 6- the wrong cockpit when you compare 7- parachute for what … that is only for the cirrus that is NOT airworthy with out parachute in another words is not airplane with out parachute And gain for what if ttx recover spins Question what will gonna happens if you jump with a parachute and you start to do a spin on the air and them you upen the shoot ? your answer expose the white h elephant in the room and we all pilot knows that Ttx has that you did not place for reason the ttx was the pioneer to hace the ESP do you know what is that ?? So no way to spins now day after several year is now that start to be see in TBM jest etc is huge ESP electronic stability protection of course you know but you did not disclose The controller is a real one in the ttx the cirrus control is like those 1950 table games pull push and side side Ttx has full omnidireccional control ttx is the best ever single engine and the fastest one in its class in the world

Under 420lbs capacity with full fuel... fail. Us Americans are fat... we need 1500lbs cap with full fuel and it'll sell

The TTx failed because it was NOT as good as the Cirrus SR22T which was it's competition. The two planes were similar but the TTx was priced higher and lacked an airframe parachute.

@anthonycyr9657

2 жыл бұрын

It was a better aircraft than the cirrus in my opinion, faster, better handling, true side stick, looked better, and the lack of a parachute was not a deal breaker.

@speedomars

2 жыл бұрын

@@anthonycyr9657 It was only a little faster, 6kts due mainly to having a seperate prop control (Cirrus made it easier to fly by combining the prop control with the throttle). Your comment on handling and looks are subjective opinions the market did not agree with....Finally, the chute and price were the deal breakers.. What is a 'real' sidestick. Both planes had them...the exact same control.

@anthonycyr9657

2 жыл бұрын

@@speedomars The cirrus has a side YOKE, not a true stick like the ttx.

@speedomars

2 жыл бұрын

@@anthonycyr9657 You are joking right? Both planes had a side stick (some call them yokes). Both terms are correct. The side yoke/stick controls the ailerons and the elevator and has the same radio and trim controls on the top. SAME SAME.

@anthonycyr9657

2 жыл бұрын

@@speedomars Okay mr know it all, cant argue with fools like you who think they know everything.

Very poor analysis. It contradicted itself numerous times and stated “faults” with the TTX that are the same issues with Cirrus and any composite plane. It failed to state the intention of the video which was “why Cessna failed with the TTx. Did not like. Did not subscribe.

America does not like advancements or technological superiority. America likes and purchase what "George" likes and purchase. Then that becomes what "everybody" likes and purchase. When that happens the market is defined. "Everybody" buys the "best" no debates no questions asked. Japan is the culture that values therefore purchase technological superior products.