Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Cessna 400 TTx deliveries started (and production ends)

Peter wrote:

The Q is how many parts in common does the TTx have with other Cessna models.

Well if take out all the vendor supplied systems there’s really not much left and what is, has zero commonality with the rest of the Cessna line-up.

Last Edited by Michael at 25 Feb 09:55
FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Only 300 for both the Columbia deliveries and Cessna?

Peter asked about the CESSNA (!) figures and I quoted them from GAMA.

Ok, that explains it @172driver.

All sources I see is that the complete series (Columbia and Cessna combined) are approximately 1000 airplanes.This will not allow Cessna easily to stop supporting them or even try to do what they did with the Skycatcher or what Beech did with the Starship.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

The parachute argument beats everything. Thinking you can sell aircraft which you have to emergency land, when there’s a modern product next door where you just pull the chute, is stupid and shortsighted. Cirrus has disrupted the market, nothing else, and they have rightfully taken away most of the business from i.e. Textron, who were too slow, too lazy, and too stupid to have a strategy for the single engine piston segment. When they were finally awake, Cirrus had meanwhile taken away the whole business and the figures didn’t justify retrofitting a BRS into the Cessnas and Beeches anymore, and particularly not to the bean counters being in charge.

It is bad management, nothing else. In fact, it’s so bad, it’s even comparable to horse coach manufacturer’s strategies when confronted with the Benz Motorwagen and the Otto engine.

For the 172s, a BRS CAPS solution is available, directly from BRS. Cessna could have integrated it as a standard equipment into the 172. They could have eliminated variants. For the Beech, it would have been a bit more complex, due to the retractable gear. But doable, nonetheless.

Last Edited by EuroFlyer at 26 Feb 14:11
Safe landings !
EDLN, Germany

Sure Cessna likes to milk their old cash cows, like everybody else in GA if they can get away with it, but I think the huge impact which the Cirrus chute had on the pilot getting the “family stamp of approval” was not apparent until quite recent years. Had it been apparent when Cessna took over the Lancair product, they might well have done it. And one could have the same discussion about Mooney…

I think Cessna basically lost interest in the product, some years ago.

With a fleet of 1000 of these, the parts business is valuable enough and will carry on, either under Cessna or under somebody else.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Anyones who has gone to Oshkosh will also know that marketing and sales have a lot to do with it.

The Cirrus booth is front and centre and they have at least 6 SR20/22 on display with super keen and friendly sales people. The aircraft are open (literally have their doors open) and everyone is encouraged to jump in. We were also taken for a test flight in the G6, Cirrus have have loads of demo aircraft and run demo flights all day.

By contrast the Textron booth had one sad TTx that was locked and abandoned. It was really impossible to find anyone who knew anything about it.

The end result is that Cirrus sold more SRs that week than Textron sold TTxs all year.

EGTR

NIL: Textron / Cessna’s core market is Jets, pure & simple. All the rest is just noise to them.

I wonder if they would consider selling the TC to a smaller, younger and entrepreneurial team ? That would be the best outcome by far, but I doubt that there is anyone willing to step-up to the plate.

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

From here

Peter wrote:

The Cessna 400 had loads of problems in the early days and these blighted it

Really ? Where did you get that ?

As you know, I own/operate/maintain a 1st generation Lancair Columbia 300 and that airplane has proven to be extremely reliable and virtually maintenance free.
I also recently acquired a 2010 Lancair / Columbia / Corvalis 400 and I am not aware of "loads of problems " with it either, nor earlier examples…

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

Why not ask your customer (former customer?) based near Paris? Some pretty basic Thermawing alternator drive issues… Obviously the later full TKS would have removed those.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The thermawing is an STC’d option, it’s not “the airplane” and my friend and client’s is sorted and working very nicely.

Is that what you qualify as “loads of problems” ?

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top