Isn’t ADS-B also a big issue? Have you priced a wheel pant?

ADSB is easy on the G1000 aircraft. (even easier on the older Avidyne airplanes) You get a choice of the GTX-335 or GTX-345. It has it's own WAAS GPS source and antenna, which is required on WAAS or non-WAAS G1000 models, as the older GIA63W firmware is not certified as a WAAS source. The 345 can display weather and traffic on the MFD, with some limitations.

It replaces the GTX-33 that's in the rack. Fairly straightforward operation.

I opted for the less expensive 335 and use an iPad with an ads-b receiver for ADS-B in, and I'm happy with that.

On useful load, that depends entirely on the optional equipment installed. My 2007 G1000 400 useful load it 1080.7lbs. I do not have the optional air conditioning, which is unusual. But it adds about 40-ish pounds to the airplane. Nor do I have Therma-Wing or TKS de-ice, which also add a good bit of weight.

I have a hot prop and TCAD Traffic and XM radio/weather integrated.

So my particular plane is one of the lighter ones.

I generally do not need to fly with full tanks either. It has generous fuel capacity, plenty of speed and LOP operation means a pretty decent MPG. The G1000's fuel totalizer has been quite accurate and I usually only fuel it for the trip plus an acceptable reserve.

Landing weight is usually the thing I have to pay attention to, 3420lbs.

I started to reply but Larry basically sums it up:

That and Textron didn't seem to learn anything from Cirrus on how to sell the thing effectively and get people upgrading on a regular basis. I'll hand it to Cirrus, they got that customer thing and market rotation down. Many, many returning customers to get the latest SR22 and trade in their 3 year old one. Then there is a big line of people waiting for the SF50 Jet.

Flying the Citation M2 having flown the TTx was eerily similar. It just felt the same and was an easy transition. I would think Textron could have made that stepping stone work for them. But I guess it isn't their thing.

There was a lot of work left to do on the TTx. But in Cirrus-land you get it out the door and then sell the G2, G3, etc.

Textron moved from having a professional piston sales staff to turning piston into the JV squad that wanted to sell jets. And sales tanking means no money for R&D, and now they’re circling the drain. It’s sad to see. The TTx was the most advanced single engine piston airplane I’ve flown, and even now the G6 SR22T still is behind it in a few areas. Oh, what could’ve been.

So I've learned that you CAN actually still upgrade the G1000 to WAAS, but it's only certain serial numbers. Also, I was told that you could do a field approval for just about any avionics sweet but there is no guarantee of approval. Does anyone have experience with field approvals?

The non-WAAS G1000 was produced in the 2006 and 2007 Model year of the Columbia 350 and 400. In 2008, WAAS became standard equipment.

There is a Service Bulletin from Cessna with everything necessary and approved to upgrade the non-WAAS g1000 to WAAS.

The downside is the kits are no longer order-able from Cessna.

You can source the 2x GIA63W and the MFD on the used parts market. However, the GIA63W are useful for a number of other aircraft makes to also upgrade early, non-WAAS G1000. They're hard to find.

The older Avidyne based Columbia airplanes used Garmin 430 and are easily upgradeable to 430W, or to GTN650 or to Avidyne slide-in replacements for WAAS or whatever you want.

[[/quote]

You might want to find one, and sit in it first. Try operating the doors, they are awkward, except for those blessed with double joints. Sit in the back seat, and enjoy the lack of legroom, while the headliner brushes your hair every time you move.

Sit in the pilot's seat and look for all the controls. Some are hard to find, just to keep you guessing. Try to do a magneto check, preferably on a windy day. when you have to hold the stick with one hand, to prevent it from knocking your other hand off the key. Look out the windshield and notice how little you can see. It contributes to the landing incidents these planes are known for.

Your mechanic will grin when he sees all the billable hours for just un-cowling the engine. Piano hinges to misalign, tabs to break off, countersunk screws without washers to help scratch the paint away. Even more billable hours to find the rare parts for this low volume plane! It also takes hangar rash to a whole new level, with its' lack of removable wingtips. A cracked wingtip on any other plane is far too simple to replace. Let's make the wingtip part of the main wing assembly! We simply cut off the damaged area, and Cessna cuts off the tip of a production wing, and we graft it onto ours. Oh the labor! College tuition for the mechanic's kids!

Before you shoot back, this is just a compilation of the things potential customers and mechanics noticed when comparing a Cirrus SR22T and the TTx side by side during a sales demo.

No one bought the TTx. But five bought new SR22t's.

And that's really why the Columbia/Corvallis/400/TTx didn't make it.[/quote]

I a sorry but I have never read a post with more utter horseshoe in it. Let me debunk this ridiculous and silly post point by point...
1. The doors. Best doors on any single engine airplane in any fleet. Far better and easier to shut you merely reach up and pull straight down on them carefully not letting them slam. Then a simple push back of the handle and its secured. The Cirrus suffers from MANY door open incidents on the runway. These doors never do. Not to mention the fit and finish of the door is far better than any Cirrus. Ridiculous. Even my wife (who never notices such things) commented on their well engineered ease of use. Once you posted this I knew that the rest was going to be a joke.

2. The controls? Are you kidding? They are a pivot around a point stick that is far FAR more intuitive than the dumb back and forth sideways yoke of a Cirrus. Everything in the TTx is easily visible (I will post a picture later) from the pilot seat and requires absolutely no movement on the part of ones head to access and see everything. "Holding the door open while doing a runup"" LOL REALLY?" The door is CLOSED during all operations friend its never opened unless you want to board or deplane. The air conditioning works quite nicely thank you. As to"landing incidents"... lol another joke. The Cirrus has FAR more landing incidents than the TTX or Columbia 400 by hours flown. Look it up.

3.The rest of this pertaining to the far superior airframe than the Cirrus is just conjecture and stupidity. If the airframe is so flimsy why is it certified in the UTILITY category when the Chevy er,,, Cirrus is certified in the NORMAL category?

The fact is the TTX would've blown the Cirrus out of the water if Textron would've had the sense to add a chute. Thats the ONLY thing the Cirrus has on the TTx and for most real pilots thats just an appendage only good for the wifes approval.

The Cessna TTx is a Ferrari, the Cirrus is a Camry. Now Camrys are good cars but nothing to brag about and certainly nothing to compare to a Ferrari.

[/quote]

The statements I posted were made individually by many people who compared the two planes, side by side. Including test flights. The magneto check comment came from a guy who got a bruised wrist during the run up, it was gusting to 25 in the run up area. These were written comments, on the comparison cards given to the attendees.

And so, we have no TTx, because the market has spoken. The market includes passengers, who are usually not pilots. As pilots, we overlook some short comings. But passengers focus on the shortcomings. As for "calling BS", IMHO it's pretty hard to look customers in the eye and try to tell them they aren't seeing what they're seeing. They wrote up their own observations before deciding upon and committing to a $750K purchase.[/quote]




You know how I know you dont have any first hand idea of what you are talking about? When you mentioned comfort being a liability in the TTx..... it is the MOST comfortable airplane as a pilot I have EVER flown including all the Cessna lines, the Beechcraft lines, the Mustang, the even the Piaggio! It has very comfortable seats, a perfect seating position, perfect positioning to the controls (especially the touch screen controller right at your fingertips) and terrific visibility - with the exception being out the front being a bit narrow. Have you ever OWNED a TTx or Columbia? A Cirrus?

Now THIS is a man that understands the TTx and the market. Well said sir!

You might want to find one, and sit in it first. Try operating the doors, they are awkward, except for those blessed with double joints. Sit in the back seat, and enjoy the lack of legroom, while the headliner brushes your hair every time you move.

Sit in the pilot's seat and look for all the controls. Some are hard to find, just to keep you guessing. Try to do a magneto check, preferably on a windy day. when you have to hold the stick with one hand, to prevent it from knocking your other hand off the key. Look out the windshield and notice how little you can see. It contributes to the landing incidents these planes are known for.

Your mechanic will grin when he sees all the billable hours for just un-cowling the engine. Piano hinges to misalign, tabs to break off, countersunk screws without washers to help scratch the paint away. Even more billable hours to find the rare parts for this low volume plane! It also takes hangar rash to a whole new level, with its' lack of removable wingtips. A cracked wingtip on any other plane is far too simple to replace. Let's make the wingtip part of the main wing assembly! We simply cut off the damaged area, and Cessna cuts off the tip of a production wing, and we graft it onto ours. Oh the labor! College tuition for the mechanic's kids!

Before you shoot back, this is just a compilation of the things potential customers and mechanics noticed when comparing a Cirrus SR22T and the TTx side by side during a sales demo.

No one bought the TTx. But five bought new SR22t's.

And that's really why the Columbia/Corvallis/400/TTx didn't make it.

Before you shoot back, this is just a compilation of the things potential customers and mechanics noticed when comparing a Cirrus SR22T and the TTx side by side during a sales demo.


No one bought the TTx. But five bought new SR22t's.

And that's really why the Columbia/Corvallis/400/TTx didn't make it.[/quote]

I don't know about that. I love mine. I have hundreds of hours in the 400 and quite a few in a Cirrus, and I find the 400 way more comfortable at 6'3, 200lbs. I regularly fly 5 hour trips, good luck doing that in a Cirrus. 10 gallons of extra fuel is nice. My useful load is right under 1,000.

The 400 is a much better built plane, de-cowling isn't a big deal. If someone was 5'4 I could see them having a problem seeing over the cowling, never been an issue for me. Speed brakes are nice. Van Bortel does a great job supporting the airplane, and preserving pricing.[/quote]

I guess no one really read the statement in BOLD print. Potential buyers made the statements after viewing, sitting in, and flying the two planes.

I did a long trip home in a brand new SR22 Turbo from the factory delivery center in Knoxville just a year ago.

The first thing you notice is how hard the seats are in the SR22T. As near I can tell, it is the aluminum honeycomb used for impact protection in the seat. Can also hear it make "tinkling" sounds as you move around in them.

The Oregon Aero seats in my Columbia are fantastic, comfortable and very ergonomic. They weren't standard in the early model years, but most were ordered with it. By 2006, the Oregon Aero seats were standard equipment.

I also noted that my Columbia 400 is a decent bit faster on the same fuel.

Here's Austin Meyer's comparison sheet.

https://austinmeyer.com/lancaircirrus-comparison/

[/quote]

I guess no one really read the statement in BOLD print. Potential buyers made the statements after viewing, sitting in, and flying the two planes. [/quote]

Uh huh. Potential buyers whose wives couldn't do without the false security sense of a parachute..... because the Cirrus as an airplane is not anywhere as nice or as well built as the TTx. Happy wife ... happy pilot I suppose.

I guess no one really read the statement in BOLD print. Potential buyers made the statements after viewing, sitting in, and flying the two planes. [/quote]

Uh huh. Potential buyers whose wives couldn't do without the false security sense of a parachute..... because the Cirrus as an airplane is not anywhere as nice or as well built as the TTx. Happy wife ... happy pilot I suppose.[/quote]

Three of the buyers were women pilots....one of whom owned and flew her own Citation. I guess she's just stupid?

Cirrus is a marketing company that happens to be in the airplane business. And they have to make money off of piston aircraft.

Cessna has no such concerns. Bottom line, having flown both—the TTx absolutely dominates the G3 SR22T. That was the direct competition when launched. Textron let it wither on the vine with lack of updates and lackadaisical sales and marketing.

To be fair, the 400 wasn’t engineered to the same standards as the high wing aircraft. It was improved a lot during the redesign but I think a lot of people in Wichita wish the money had gone into bringing back the 210. It took a recertification effort anyhow…

Three of the buyers were women pilots....one of whom owned and flew her own Citation. I guess she's just stupid?[/quote]

Yes, if she picked the Cirrus over the TTx she's stupid. Why would someone pick an airplane thats uglier, less comfortable, slower, less range, has G1000 over G2000 avionics and has less control harmony? For more money? Yep, stupid. LOL.