Wonder why they didn’t bother to retrofit a chute. If these things can be added to a C182, surely the Cessna factory (!!) must be able to do so on a 4TTx.
I suspect the project was under-resourced. They never sold many, after all. Some year(s) they sold zero, IIRC. And the Cessna piston GA division is not the superbly organised bizjet division which churns out planes on time and on budget (mostly). Look at the Cessna 162 debacle; it seems to have badly misjudged the US market.
Michael wrote:
The best were those built in Lancair’s original factory in Bend Orgeon.
When did they move? Ours is a 2009 and the build quality is pretty good. Not sure it’s any better than a new Cirrus, but definitely better than the pre-Perspective Cirrus
As an aside, I just had a look at the Cessna website and come across this one: http://cessna.txtav.com/en/turboprop/denali.
Admittedly, I’m not in the SET market, but never even heard of it, is this a new(ish) airplane? TBM, Pilatus, competitor ?
Peter wrote:
I suspect the project was under-resourced. They never sold many, after all. Some year(s) they sold zero, IIRC. And the Cessna piston GA division is not the superbly organised bizjet division which churns out planes on time and on budget (mostly). Look at the Cessna 162 debacle; it seems to have badly misjudged the US market.
I have dealt with Cessna on several occasions over the years and have met a number of fairly senior people there. I wouldn’t quite characterise them as you do.
I think I would rather say that they are a decisive business and if something isn’t working they axe it. However, if they commit to something it is well done. The 162 was a flop so they pulled the plug. However then new Citations are spectacular, and when the commercial deal is right they go for it, for example with the Skycourier and Denali. With the Skycourier they have a really good chance of a success because they have a committed launch customer.
172driver wrote:
seriously, I don’t think you can sell any new SEP without one anymore.
Which would practically mean we would have a monopoly situation as Cirrus is the only one which has a chute as standard equipment in that cathegory?
Maybe you are right… people today wish a safety wire and tripple insurance for everything…. even if it means they have to do with less than they could for a lot more money.
I simply wonder how Cessna felt about the Corvalis. Somehow it does not fit their lineup and I wonder if they got simply stuck with it once their Chinese owners decided to acquire Columbia aircraft and then decided to just let it fade away?
I don’t agree that it is an inferior airplane to any other line up, it is actually one of the fastest SEP’s around (2nd only to the Acclaim and that is on paper) and certainly aerodynamically one of the nicest.
Were there any engineering issues on the TTx, after they moved from the Thermawing (which had various problems) to TKS?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I simply wonder how Cessna felt about the Corvalis. Somehow it does not fit their lineup and I wonder if they got simply stuck with it once their Chinese owners decided to acquire Columbia aircraft and then decided to just let it fade away?
Cessna (like Beechcraft and Lycoming) is owned by Textron, which is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.
Cirrus, Diamond, Mooney, Continental (& Thielert) Engines, and Austro Engines are Chinese owned. Piper is owned by the government of Brunei.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I simply wonder how Cessna felt about the Corvalis. Somehow it does not fit their lineup and I wonder if they got simply stuck with it once their Chinese owners decided to acquire Columbia aircraft and then decided to just let it fade away?
Whose Chinese owners?
In reality the whole game changed for Textron when they acquired Beechcraft, that was a much bigger deal and Beechcraft is a fairly impressive operation. I’ve been to the factory.
