Cirrus v Cessna 400?

What's to discuss? The TTx sells 20 or so a year the SR22T over 100 a year.
 
citizen5000 said:
What's to discuss? The TTx sells 20 or so a year the SR22T over 100 a year.
Click to expand...

so friggin what?!? coors lite is one of the best selling beers in the country, doesn't mean it's any good. and it's NOT good.

not saying cirrus isn't 'good', just saying your statement is pretty much useless.
 
There is one based on the field here, and I only know of 1 issue it's had in the several years it's been here. It's extremely fast, and the guys that own it routinely throw 2-3 mountain bikes in the back. That sums up what I know about them.
 
The Columbia 400 is the only aircraft the insurance company would consider similar enough to the Questair Venture that they would waive the 20 hour in type requirement when I was looking for instructors if that tells you anything. My instructor had lots of Columbia 400 time and had nothing but good things to say about it.
 
With the TTx, I like the control linkage and the speed. With the Cirrus, I like the cabin dimensions and the parachute. Comfort and perceived safety margin wins over the hearts of wives and the wide-asses of American pilots.
 
labbadabba said:
With the TTx, I like the control linkage and the speed. With the Cirrus, I like the cabin dimensions and the parachute. Comfort and perceived safety margin wins over the hearts of wives and the wide-asses of American pilots.
Click to expand...
Is the Cirrus that much bigger?
 
paflyer said:
Is the Cirrus that much bigger?
Click to expand...

I can't say because I've not sat in a TTx but from what I've read the Cirrus certainly feel's roomier. I also wonder if the TTx is as tricky to land as its Lancair cousin.
 
Here is what Van Bortel has to say about the two. http://www.vanbortel.com/files/Corvalis_vs_Cirrus_SR22.pdf

I have interest in a 2008 400. Great plane for traveling with two people. I kept the 182 for the load. One of the biggest complaints I have with the 400 is the landing weight restriction. Awesome plane to fly, a/c, G1000, 700 autopilot, not much to not love.

Jim
 
citizen5000 said:
What's to discuss? The TTx sells 20 or so a year the SR22T over 100 a year.
Click to expand...

More like 7 vs 320 in 2016

1st qtr this year they have sold 1 TTx even Mooney sold double
 
Last edited:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
gsengle said:
Proves very little.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Imagine if all these people buying cirrus aircraft knew anything about aviation. They would surely come to your realization that the planes they fly are horrible. Just dumb doctors with to much money....
 
dennyleeb said:
Imagine if all these people buying cirrus aircraft knew anything about aviation. They would surely come to your realization that the planes they fly are horrible. Just dumb doctors with to much money....
Click to expand...

Sales figures more often speak to the quality or quantity of marketing effort than to the product itself. From my perspective, Cirrus has done a wonderful job with the marketing effort compared with Cessna. That includes their training program, service center program, and traditional marketing efforts focusing on the key differentiators of the aircraft.

My sense is that the TTx is the overall better aircraft, but it's unclear to me how much long-term commitment is there. Cessna's business is focused on jets, and the TTx appears to be a very small part of the small part of their business. Locating pilots and mechanics experienced with them could be more challenging than with the more ubiquitous Cirrus models. All of those things (and a few others) would factor into a buying decision for me.


JKG
 
The issue in my mind is operational capability. I don't fly piston singles (sans BRS) at night-cross-country or over the top of low ifr mountain obscuration. It is just a personal set of minimums of mine, as I like having some plausibly high degree of survival if the fan quits. Lots of people can argue they can make it on an off-airport dark night (with god knows what electrical wires, poles, ditches, fences, etc) or descend in a mush into LIFR blah blah blah and all I can say is I really hope you never find yourself having to live those words...

I really like the Cessna 400/TTx, and the Mooney Ovation 3 / Acclaim, and I'd love to own either *at the right price and with good factory support*. The problem I see is that even with the example of the FIKI TTx (on paper a very close match to the SR22T), I personally lose operational capability in the Cessna, which means I would not be willing to pay a similar price for it vs. the SR22. I suspect I'm not the only one.

So I think if anything, Cirrus has done a major amount of damage not just to single engine competitors but to the light twin market because it gets you maybe 75% of the way out of jail compared to a (proficiently piloted) light twin, but without the terrible economics of many legacy light twins.

The market at this point doesn't lie, and it isn't all just marketing. Someone mentioned if the TTx has a BRS no one would buy a Cirrus, and I 100% agree (TTx is a superior flying airplane in every respect).

They aren't fooling everyone over and over again, it isn't about the marketing after a certain point, it is about operational capability. I don't understand why the other manufacturers don't get it, they either need to drastically reduce their pricing in order to offset this or they need to compete with Cirrus on this front which basically means BRS or modern twin (which is basically a DA42-VI ).
 
ocflyer said:
The issue in my mind is operational capability. I don't fly piston singles (sans BRS) at night-cross-country or over the top of low ifr mountain obscuration. It is just a personal set of minimums of mine, as I like having some plausibly high degree of survival if the fan quits. Lots of people can argue they can make it on an off-airport dark night (with god knows what electrical wires, poles, ditches, fences, etc) or descend in a mush into LIFR blah blah blah and all I can say is I really hope you never find yourself having to live those words...

I really like the Cessna 400/TTx, and the Mooney Ovation 3 / Acclaim, and I'd love to own either *at the right price and with good factory support*. The problem I see is that even with the example of the FIKI TTx (on paper a very close match to the SR22T), I personally lose operational capability in the Cessna, which means I would not be willing to pay a similar price for it vs. the SR22. I suspect I'm not the only one.

So I think if anything, Cirrus has done a major amount of damage not just to single engine competitors but to the light twin market because it gets you maybe 75% of the way out of jail compared to a (proficiently piloted) light twin, but without the terrible economics of many legacy light twins.

The market at this point doesn't lie, and it isn't all just marketing. Someone mentioned if the TTx has a BRS no one would buy a Cirrus, and I 100% agree (TTx is a superior flying airplane in every respect).

They aren't fooling everyone over and over again, it isn't about the marketing after a certain point, it is about operational capability. I don't understand why the other manufacturers don't get it, they either need to drastically reduce their pricing in order to offset this or they need to compete with Cirrus on this front which basically means BRS or modern twin (which is basically a DA42-VI ).
Click to expand...
Good analysis, thanks.
 
citizen5000 said:
The link is to a Cessna TTx marketing page and is dated (compares to the SR22T G3).

The SR22T has 1250 useful (TTx 1070 useful), both 3600 MTOW, 60/40 Seating - Seats up to 5 (TTx 4), the TTx is about 10kts faster at max cruise, cabin is 49w x 50h (TTx is 48w x 49h), lightweight carbon prop (TTx metal prop), the TTx is $100k more than the SR22T G6.
Click to expand...
You seem to display knowledge of both of these airplanes, so I second question to know if you've actually flown both of these to back up the Googled information that you've found.
 
Ryanb said:
You seem to display knowledge of both of these airplanes, so I second question to know if you've actually flown both of these to back up the Googled information that you've found.
Click to expand...

I have flown them and both are great planes. The TTx a bit more cramped in the cockpit but has a better panel IMHO. Both are side-sticks but the TTx has more 'feel' than the Cirrus which seems stiffer. The TTX has a separate prop control the Cirrus does not making the Cirrus a little simpler to operate.

Cirrus sells a lot more SR22Ts than Cessna's TTx. Why is not clear since the two planes are nearly identical in design, performance and maintenance costs and the two companies are clearly strong and supportive of their products. Yes the TTx is a bit faster at max cruise but few fly their planes at max cruise unless you are willing to trade increased fuel burn for the few minutes saved enroute.

Other than that, there are three standout differences that might make one choose the Cirrus over the TTx. The Cirrus has a split rear seat for two adults and kid, the TTx only two rear seats. The parachute is a factor as many have stated. And the TTx is about $100k more than the SR22T both planes fully loaded.
 
Last edited:
citizen5000 said:
What's to discuss? The TTx sells 20 or so a year the SR22T over 100 a year.
Click to expand...

McDonalds sells 75 Hamburgers a SECOND...that is right..I said 1 second the most in the world by a long shot...do you consider MCD's to have the best tasting hamburger on the planet?

JGoodish said:
Sales figures more often speak to the quality or quantity of marketing effort than to the product itself. From my perspective, Cirrus has done a wonderful job with the marketing effort compared with Cessna. That includes their training program, service center program, and traditional marketing efforts focusing on the key differentiation of the aircraft.

Yep, I often wonder why other GA companies implement the same thing..especially if it's working!

My sense is that the TTx is the overall better aircraft, but it's unclear to me how much long-term commitment is there. Cessna's business is focused on jets, and the TTx appears to be a very small part of the small part of their business. Locating pilots and mechanics experienced with them could be more challenging than with the more ubiquitous Cirrus models. All of those things (and a few others) would factor into a buying decision for me.


JKG
Click to expand...

I totally agree
 
FloridaPilot said:
McDonalds sells 75 Hamburgers a SECOND...that is right..I said 1 second the most in the world by a long shot...do you consider MCD's to have the best tasting hamburger on the planet?



I totally agree
Click to expand...

I love Big Macs. But I'm a little confused what that has to do with airplanes.
 
dennyleeb said:
I love Big Macs. But I'm a little confused what that has to do with airplanes.
Click to expand...

I believe it was pointing out that selling more of something than the competition doesn't necessarily mean it's a better product.
 
Not a statistics major I guess. Comparing McDonalds who has 36,899 stores worldwide to your local pub does not mean your local pub doesn't have a better burger. They have no ability no compete. Comparing them to Mooney/Cessna vs Cirrus who both build airplanes from 1 factory in the united states and market to the same exact customer base just isn't the same comparison.
 
FastEddieB said:
Nor the inverse!
Click to expand...

Is Gordon over here correcting English as well? I thought I was in a safe zone. Lol
My plane is having the annual done so the damn internet has to fill the void for just a few more days.
 
Last edited:
To the original topic

The reason I picked the 22 was because I needed 5 seats, higher useful load. Mine has 1200 lb. The chute and cabin size/comfort. Cessna has been offering some amazing deals on the TTx but it just didn't fit my mission. I was between the 206 and 22. But the 206 just doesn't have the options. Fiki, chute being the 2 major ones. Also speed
 
Last edited:
dennyleeb said:
To the original topic

The reason I picked the 22 was because I needed 5 seats, higher useful load. Mine has 1200 lb. The chute and cabin size/comfort. Cessna has been offering some amazing deals on the TTx but it just didn't fit my mission. I was between the 206 and 22. But the 206 just doesn't have the options. Fiki, chute being the 2 major ones. Also speed
Click to expand...

This exactly for me as well. 1200 useful with FIKI and AC and 5 seats and everything. And a chute. There was literally no reason for me to consider the TTx. Plus the cirrus is a more comfortable cabin for me.

Sure, the TTx is a few knots faster in the flight levels. So what? I'm rarely there. And not worth the fuel burn. Does the TTx suck? Hell no! It's a great airplane. But again, there's nothing from a spec perspective that would make me consider a TTx over a 22T.

I love when people say "oh it's just marketing" ...such crap. If you don't think that people looking at a 600-800k cirrus don't know about the TTx or others and they're just fooled by glossy handouts, then that is just, well, silly. Stop assuming Cirrus buyers are dumb, rich, non-pilots. It gets old.

And sales numbers mean something, whether folks want to admit it or not. Cirrus has a winning combination. Other manufacturers just don't right now. That could change later sure... people love to hate on the planes and company and pilots and I just don't know why.
 
Last edited:
I know a Columbia 400 owner who switched from a Cirrus SR22 when he came across a good deal. He enjoys the extra speed.

Despite their similar appearance, they fly a bit differently -- I think he mentioned different stall characteristics.

It's harder to find instructors trained specifically on the 400, just because the plane is less common, so getting transition training could be an issue, depending on where you live.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top