Another one bites the dust

[Ftlausa]

Cessna (Textron) has announced that they will no longer manufacture the TTx (formerly Columbia/Cessna 400) due to low sales.  Textron also manufactures the Beech Bonanza, and since it also suffers from low sales, I wonder if it is next of the chopping block.  Cirrus on the other hand, is selling planes at a very sustainable rate.  

One can only hope that Mooney will pick up some sales that would have been lost to the TTx. 

At the Mooney Summit, the Mooney factory rep said that Mooney forecast that Cessna and Cirrus were focusing less on piston sales, and that this presented an opportunity for Mooney.  On one level, I am sorry to see the TTx go (it was clearly the better of the composite airplane choices), but if it boosts Mooney sales and makes Mooney sustainable, then good will come from bad.     

[kris_adams]

Never flown a TTX but would like to one day.  I hate to see production of anything shutdown.

[steingar]

I flew one when it was still Lanceair.  Nice airplane, very fast.  No one ever worried about gearing up one of those.

[MyNameIsNobody]

My CFI lost his due to a recent hanger fire....I had not gotten my ride in it yet.  Less likely for that to happen.  Cause: Power strip gone bad.

[Oldguy]

Just had someone at our airport buy a Columbia 400 knowing it needed a top O/H. Beautiful plane, but still not a Mooney.

[Marauder]

1 hour ago, Oldguy said:

Just had someone at our airport buy a Columbia 400 knowing it needed a top O/H. Beautiful plane, but still not a Mooney.

My brother-in-law owns a Columbia 400. Paid $529,000 in 2004 for it. A true maintenance hog for him. Been through multiple jugs and other engine related issues. 

[Oldguy]

1 minute ago, Marauder said:

My brother-in-law owns a Columbia 400. Paid $529,000 in 2004 for it. A true maintenance hog for him. Been through multiple jugs and other engine related issues. 

Sad thing is, the new Columbia owner previously had a Mooney, but his wife (now EX-wife) made him sell it. 

[anonymouse]

I had a Columbia/Lancair 350 and just sold it for the M20K. It's a beautiful, luxurious, comfortable, well-handling, easy to fly, modern, well-designed, sexy plane. I never had any engine issues with it through 1350 hours - but the maintenance/annuals on it are no joke ($17k, $12k, $9k). Also, not having control over your panel is an expensive proposition when something goes wrong. Just ask the non-WAAS guys (like I was) how much it is to add ADS-B ($25k+). God forbid you ever have to replace a window ($20k), your flap motor dies ($20k), your data acquisition unit goes on the fritz (unsupported, replace the whole panel - Avidyne versions only) or someone else flings an errant pebble into your rudder while you are parked creating a near invisible crack in the fiberglass/carbon fiber skin ($7k).

That said, my non-turbo version hummed along at 175 knots @ 11.5 gph LOP or 190 knots @ 16 gph ROP and the wife acceptance factor was significantly higher.

[jetdriven]

Sounds like an ovation just 2-3 times the cost to own and operate 

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, anonymouse said:

I had a Columbia/Lancair 350 and just sold it for the M20K. It's a beautiful, luxurious, comfortable, well-handling, easy to fly, modern, well-designed, sexy plane. I never had any engine issues with it through 1350 hours - but the maintenance/annuals on it are no joke ($17k, $12k, $9k). Also, not having control over your panel is an expensive proposition when something goes wrong. Just ask the non-WAAS guys (like I was) how much it is to add ADS-B ($25k+). God forbid you ever have to replace a window ($20k), your flap motor dies ($20k), your data acquisition unit goes on the fritz (unsupported, replace the whole panel - Avidyne versions only) or someone else flings an errant pebble into your rudder while you are parked creating a near invisible crack in the fiberglass/carbon fiber skin ($7k).

That said, my non-turbo version hummed along at 175 knots @ 11.5 gph LOP or 190 knots @ 16 gph ROP and the wife acceptance factor was significantly higher.

Holy smokes!

[DXB]

It would be nice to think its modest market share would go to Mooney primarily over brand Cs, but sadly that's delusional.  

[MIm20c]

If Cessna purchased the Mooney company they would part it out within a year.  I used to think Cessna was a safe bet for a company that would stand behind/support a plane for the long term. But after the skycatcher, mustang, etc the new plane buyer is smart to go elsewhere. 

I hope to have many years pass before reading the same thing about Beechcraft and Mooney doing the same. 

[Yetti]

The title seems appropriate.... and because thread drift

 

 

[Hank]

   

Recent? Doesn't look like the one in your avatar . . . .  

[StevenL757]

9 hours ago, Marauder said:

My brother-in-law owns a Columbia 400. Paid $529,000 in 2004 for it. A true maintenance hog for him. Been through multiple jugs and other engine related issues. 

Ouch.  Were the engine issues mainly the extent of his maintenance worries, or did he experience other stuff as costly?  Flew one of them while still on the West coast, and although it was fast and sexy-looking with a really cool cockpit, I wouldn’t trade my Ovation for it for anything...hindsight being what it is.  It flew too much like a Cirrus, and having flown both the -20 and the -22, I’d never own one of those either.

[Marauder]

Ouch.  Were the engine issues mainly the extent of his maintenance worries, or did he experience other stuff as costly?  Flew one of them while still on the West coast, and although it was fast and sexy-looking with a really cool cockpit, I wouldn’t trade my Ovation for it for anything...hindsight being what it is.  It flew too much like a Cirrus, and having flown both the -20 and the -22, I’d never own one of those either.

I’m pretty sure he had some avionics issues as well. It is a speed demon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[MIm20c]

From memory the 400 had a lot of top end problems early on because of the very hot climbs the factory did during the testing of each plane. Glazed them over IIRC. I’ve flown in both the 22 and the 350 and prefer the 350/400 stick control. I like unique planes and I’m not overly excited about the Cirrus domination of the market. 

Did the 400 have multiple O2 tanks in the wings or am I thinking about something else?

[Yetti]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

   

Recent? Doesn't look like the one in your avatar . . . .  

Not me.  somewhere in Texas today

[anonymouse]

1 hour ago, MIm20c said:

From memory the 400 had a lot of top end problems early on because of the very hot climbs the factory did during the testing of each plane. Glazed them over IIRC. I’ve flown in both the 22 and the 350 and prefer the 350/400 stick control. I like unique planes and I’m not overly excited about the Cirrus domination of the market. 

Did the 400 have multiple O2 tanks in the wings or am I thinking about something else?

No. One tank in the back. Thermawing was a nice option, however. Having an all electric airplane with two independent busses, a crosstie, two alternators, etc. was/is a very nice design. The climate control (on most of them) is set it and forget it. The cockpit is very well laid out and very wide. Cirrus is the natural successor, but they are narrower, slower, clunkier, have that damn parachute to repack, et. al.

Edited February 27, 2018 by anonymouse

[Ftlausa]

I had heard that the TTx was a maintenance hog, and that's a big part of the reason I did not buy one.  However, the cockpit was very nicely laid out and it was a good flying plane.  IMO, they are a much nicer plane than the Cirrus.  No doubt, if the TTx had a chute they would have sold a whole lot more of them.  When better planes are losing out to inferior planes with a chute, it has to be the chute that is bringing the sales.