Honda Jet

[XXX]

I know, it's not a Mooney. Still it was cool to see this beauty in person.

[1964-M20E]

that is my cross country machine. 

[GeorgePerry]

it about as small inside as a mooney.  Comfortable once sitting down but no fun to get in and out of

[XXX]

13 minutes ago, GeorgePerry said:

it about as small inside as a mooney.  Comfortable once sitting down but no fun to get in and out of

Kind of like one of their other products, the Civic?

[Hank]

It's a fraction the price of other jets. I thinking only five (5) new Ovations. And 2-3 times the fuel burn of one O.

And the Honda Jet was designed, is being built and was tested in the United States, down in Greensboro, NC.

[carusoam]

Hmmm..... made in America.  I'm going to need the one piece windshield with that.... 

The wingspan looks narrower than a Mooney.

Best regards,

-a-

[Hank]

Anthony, if you look closely, you'll see that the windshield is one piece . . . on each side!   The wingspan is 39.8 feet, it just looks shirt because the fuselage is larger than ours,and it has those awkward winglets. I followed the development closely, and tried hard to get hired in even as a paper pusher; between two decades dealing with the FDA as a medical manufacturer and my PPL dealing with the FAA as a pilot and aircraft owner, I thought my skills would transfer well. But I couldn't get an interview. So I  left WV and came to AL instead. Hope sales take off!! (pun intended)

[AndyFromCB]

So it took Honda 15 more years to create a Beech Premier IA, other than of course the much larger cabin, much better range, climb rate and high speed cruise and pretty much identical overall nm/lb if you want to go as slow as the Hondajet (440knots at 1000lb FL410 vs 380knots at 600lb max cruise at FL430, Premier will do 370knots at 660lb an hour at long range cruise). The V1 and Vref speeds are actually lower on the swept wing Premier. Thanks, but not thanks (not that I can afford either, but if I could, I'd take a used Premier, $3 million difference buys a lot of fuel). The cabin size difference really is day and night for less than 10 gallons an hour more. Neither will depart Aspen/Jackson Hole with any fuel with seats full. I truly do not see what Honda did here and how it's competitive. 

Edited October 6, 2016 by AndyFromCB

[Hank]

The Honda is a clean sheet design with engines made specifically for it by GE. The cabin looks to be easily expandable to make follow-on larger models. It's designed for single pilot operation, planned for owner operators as a personal plane rather than the business use of the Premier.

You can make the same argument against almost any new plane, car, boat, etc. why buy a new one for $X when a used one with similar performance can be had for only $Y? Because at some point, all the used ones will be used up. Somebody has to buy the new ones or pretty soon there will be no used ones . . . 

[carusoam]

The big design feature of the engines mounted over the wing.... Is there any real advantage?

• Weight is better distributed over the wheels than traditional fuselage mounts.  Great for taxiing over rough surfaces. 
• stones are not ingested by the engines mounted up there.
• pilots can see they are flying a jet.
• ?

Best regards,

-a-

[AndyFromCB]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

The Honda is a clean sheet design with engines made specifically for it by GE. The cabin looks to be easily expandable to make follow-on larger models. It's designed for single pilot operation, planned for owner operators as a personal plane rather than the business use of the Premier.

You can make the same argument against almost any new plane, car, boat, etc. why buy a new one for $X when a used one with similar performance can be had for only $Y? Because at some point, all the used ones will be used up. Somebody has to buy the new ones or pretty soon there will be no used ones . . . 

How is it any different than Premier pilot wise? Both are single pilot certified, both come with identical V speeds/wing loading on the higher side of small jet spectrum. That's my biggest beef with this airplane. Small tires, no effective lift dump system, high landing speed means long runways. If you can handle the HondaJet, you can pretty much handle anything, so why bother with a what is pretty much a "useless" airplane. I call it useless because: it has no useful load (so you cannot load wife, 2.5 kids, dogs, bikes, skis), it simply will not depart Aspen/Telluride/Jackson Hole with any fuel onboard (that's the reason why most people own private jets, vacation homes).

I agree with you on the second point completely, but the owner flown dynamics are a bit different. Most owner flown jet aircraft are purchased with after-tax money, hence are most likely bought used after 5 years of depreciation and tax benefits have taken its course. All jet aircraft need to make business sense in order to eventually end up being  owner flown. There is almost no market for owner flown jet aircraft to begin with (as Eclipse and Cessna found out with Mustang). Once you start adding up the running costs of owning a jet plus time commitment (remember that if you can afford it, your time is worth well in excess of $5000 an hour or more), even a small one (I did calculations on a Mustang thru CJ3), crew becomes another drop in the bucket. All and all, it costs almost the same to fly a brand new Mustang as it does to fly a CJ3 per nm basis, think a minimum of $300K a year before capital costs. It will cost you that much whether it's flying or sitting on the ground due to program costs and program minimums (usually 150 hours a year on smaller jets, 250 a year once you move past the CJ range). And that's why small jet market flounders and never really took off to begin with, as an owner pilot you're much better off with a PC12, TBM or M600, even a King Air 200. If you've got the money to own/operate a jet, you most likely don't have time to train properly and another $5 million to move on up to real cabin and real hot/high performance is a drop in the bucket for you. You really need to look at the performance numbers to realize how useless these aircraft are when it's warm outside and you're not at sea level. It's not a gradual decline like a piston single. Many will simply not be able to depart with temperatures much over standard with the same cargo you brought in. You see this all the time in Aspen, where the next stop is KAPA to pick up fuel.

27 minutes ago, carusoam said:

The big design feature of the engines mounted over the wing.... Is there any real advantage?

• Weight is better distributed over the wheels than traditional fuselage mounts.  Great for taxiing over rough surfaces. 
• stones are not ingested by the engines mounted up there.
• pilots can see they are flying a jet.
• ?

Best regards,

-a-

Never heard of a rock ingested on a tail mounted engine either. Intakes are usually right over the wings anyway. Supposedly it's more quiet and the fuselage does not need to taper towards the back so the cabin is larger. But it makes no sense on the HondaJet as the only thing you're sticking in that cabin are blowup dolls with a full fuel useful load of 400lb. However you slice it, it was an exercise in engineering for no apparent advantage.

Edited October 6, 2016 by AndyFromCB

[AndyFromCB]

Just now, rogerl said:

avoid ice ingestion

Not an issue with a hot wing, not an issue with most small jets due to engine position anyway, look at the M2. That ice would have to move 2 feet up in 10 foot length from the leading edge in order to enter the engine.

[1964-M20E]

The engine position is so that the plane can ultimately replace the A-10 as a close ground support aircraft.

Now we just need to figure out where to put the 30mm cannon.

 

 

[Mcstealth]

On October 6, 2016 at 8:01 AM, AndyFromCB said:

 

 However you slice it, it was an exercise in engineering for no apparent advantage.

Andy, tell us how you really feel

 

[Mooneymite]

You want a personal jet?  I have an acquaintance from high school who has been a NetJets share owner for almost 15 years.  While fractional ownership (he just bought into a new Cessna Latitude) is not for everyone, what makes his share unique is that he flies it as pilot.  He does the same training (to part 135 standards) that every NetJets pilot does, including company recurrents at Flight Safety twice a year.

A fractional share allows an owner to up-grade/downgrade from Globals to Phenom 300's to match aircraft type to trip requirements.  No muss, no fuss with mainteanace issues.  One is simply buying "occupied hours", but with the tax advantages of ownership.  Warren Buffet is a share owner...as well as owning the company.

While NetJets is not for the financially challenged, it is a model that might be adapted to smaller, cheaper aircraft.

[1964-M20E]

Just some quick numbers i threw together from a spread sheet I made up years ago to determine the cost of airplane ownership.  I later abandoned it and I just close my eyes and put fuel in the plane and go flying.

 

New Mooney Ultra $750k

6 shares for owners each flying an average of 6 hours per month tha this a little over 400 hours per year total.  So at 5 to 6 years you would be at recommended TBO but if engine is running good and everyone taking care of ti maybe you could go longer.

each owner initial investment $60k finance remainder of aircraft cost for 15 years. (TBO reached before plane is completely paid for)

generous amount for hangar, annual, and engine TBO included in $200 hourly fee and monthly dues

you are looking at $600 per month in dues or fees to each member and $200 per hour wet.  So the average owner in this scenario would be putting out about $2,000 a month minus his original investment.

 

Obviously you could play with the number of owners initial investment etc this is just one example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FoxMike]

Seems like a great idea.  The challenge is finding 6 compatible pilots who have the skills to handle the airplane properly and are willing to train to maintain their skills.  Over the years this idea has been tried many times and usually fails.

[XXX]

31 minutes ago, Hyett6420 said:

Its Derek the Dolphin! 

LOL