"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
07/30/2014 at 12:41 • Filed to: planelopnik
12
20|
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
07/30/2014 at 12:41 • Filed to: planelopnik | 12
| 20 |
The Honda HA-420 HondaJet had been featured in !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! in !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , and I wouldn't be surprised if there's more. Reading the comments it's clear people aren't familiar with the competition, which is leading to the HA-420 being put on a bit of a pedestal. I figured I'd take a few minutes to put the HondaJet into perspective and give a breakdown of its competitors, and possibly highlight why it's really honestly not all that special, and probably not the best purchase in its category
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
So, first of all, what is the HondaJet?
The HondaJet is a light jet from Honda Aircraft Company. It's in the 10,000 lb class of light aircraft. Some people have mistaken it for a VLJ (like the Eclipse 500), but it's not, it's too large and expensive to fit in the VLJ category with the Eclipse 500 and Citation Mustang.
Honda has been working on jets for a long time. They did some research back in the late 80s and early 90s, going !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
The HondaJet first flew in 2003, it was announced for production in 2006, and the first production HondaJet made its first flight this year. That doesn't mean it's ready for delivery, the jet still needs to complete the FAA certification process to become a FAR 23 certified aircraft. I believe Honda anticipates certification soon, at least by the end of the year.
So what about some specs? To save time, I'm ripping this straight from Wikipedia
General characteristics
Crew: 1-2 crew members
Capacity: 5 - 6 passengers (useful load 635 kg (1,400 lb))
Length: 12.99 m (42 ft 7 in)
Wingspan: 12.12 m (39 ft 9 in)
Height: 4.54 m (14 ft 11 in)
Max takeoff weight: 4,173 kg (9,200 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! turbofan engines, 9.12 kN (2,050 lbf) thrust each (Bypass Ratio= 2.9)
Performance
Maximum speed: 778 km/h; 483 mph (420 kn) TAS
Cruise speed: 778 km/h; 483 mph (420 kn) TAS at FL300 !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
Range: 2,185 km (1,358 mi; 1,180 nmi) NBAA IFR (4 occupants)
Service ceiling: 13,106 m (42,999 ft)
Rate of climb: 20.27 m/s (3,990 ft/min)
How much does it cost? $4.5 million. Not bad, right?
Well, lets look at it's two competitors:
Embraer Phenom 100
First up we have the last aircraft to be a newcomer to the light jet market, the Embraer Phenom 100. Embraer is a Brazilian aircraft manufacturer well known for their ERJ series of regional jets. If you've flown a regional jet, you've probably flown on an Embraer. Back in the early 2000's Embraer entered the bizjet market with the Legacy 600, a gussied up ERJ-135.
In 2005, Embraer announced they would enter the light jet market with a pair of airplanes, the Phenom 100 and Phenom 300. Those of you with the ability to distinguish numbers would see that the Phenom 100 was announced after the HondaJet had already made its first flight. Unlike the HondaJet though, Embraer didn't take 11 years to produce a single jet, first flight was in July of 2007 with certification awarded in December of 2008. Deliveries started shortly thereafter, with over 300 jets delivered to date.
So how does it perform? Here's the wikipedia info:
General characteristics
Crew: 1 or 2 pilots
Capacity: 4 passengers standard (6 maximum)
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 595 kg (1,312 lb)
Length: 12.80 m (42 ft 1 in)
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 12.30 m (40 ft 4 in)
Height: 4.4 m (14 ft 3 in)
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 3,235 kg (7,132 lb)
Useful load: 1,535 kg (3,384 lb)
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 4,750 kg (10,472 lb)
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 2 × !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! turbofans, 7.2 kN (1,695 lbf) each
Performance
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 722 km/h,449 mp/h (390 !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! )
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 2,182 km ( !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! IFR reserves, 4 occupants) (1,178 !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! )
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 12,500 m (41,000 ft)
Avionics
Embraer "Prodigy" Flight Deck 100 (based on !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! )
Suddenly the HondaJet isn't the standout performer it seems to be. The HondaJet is slightly faster (Mach 0.72 compared to Mach 0.70), ever so slightly larger on the inside. According to Business and Commercial Aviation, a magazine that publishes data on business jets, the Phenom actually flys 1 nm further than the HA-420 with full fuel. How much is the Phenom? $4.161 million. So it's a bit cheaper, ever so slightly smaller and slower, but it's a proven design (in service for 5+ years) from a well respected aviation company. No brainer right? Well, lets not forget who the Phenom 100 really was created to compete with...
Cessna Citation M2
If Boeing is the name to trust with regards to commercial aviation, Cessna Citation is the name to trust in the light jet world. Cessna has been making Citation's for the last 50 years, with the small CitationJet series of jets dominating the light jet market since their introduction in the early 90s.
The CJ1 was introduced in 1998, with deliveries beginning in 2000. The design was improved and announced as the CJ1+ at the 2004 NBAA convention, and entered service a year later.
At NBAA 2011, Cessna announced the Citation M2: an upgraded CJ1+ featuring an all new interior, Garmin 3000 avionics, upgraded engines, and the cutest winglets in history.
In December of last year, the M2 received FAA certification and entered service, joining the more than 6000 existing Citations built over the last 50+ years.
Specs for the M2:
General characteristics
Crew: 2 (Single Pilot Certified)
Capacity: six passengers
Length: 42.58 ft (12.98 m)
Wingspan: 46.59 ft (14.20 m)
Powerplant: 2 × !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! -1AP-21 turbofan
Performance
Cruising speed: 460 mph; 741 km/h (400 kn)
Range: 1,496 mi; 2,408 km (1,300 nmi)
Service ceiling: 41,000 ft (12,497 m)
Avionics
Garmin G3000 system
Some information is missing here, I'll show the CJ1+ specs to fill some gaps:
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Capacity: 3-9 passengers
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 615 lb (279 kg)
Length: 42 ft 7 in (12.98 m)
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 46 ft 11 in (14.30 m)
Height: (4.19 m)
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 6,765 lb (3,069 kg)
Useful load: 3,835 lb (1,740 kg)
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 10,700 lb (4,853 kg)
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 2 × !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! -1AP turbofan, 1,965 lb (8.74 kN) each
Performance
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 389 kts (720 km/h)
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 83 kts (153 km/h)
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 1,300 nm (2,408 km)
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 41,000 ft (12,497 m)
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! : 3,290 ft/min (1,003 m/min)
So compared to the Phenom the cabin of the M2 is about the same size, but it can fly quite a bit further at a max fuel range of 1300 nm while slotting in between the HondaJet and Phenom with a max speed of Mach 0.71.
The M2 is the most expensive of the 3 with a typical equipped prices of $4.655 million, but that price is backed up by Cessna's industry leading service center network (something Honda certainly lacks and Embraer doesn't quite match) and slightly better overall performance.
Hopefully all this puts the HondaJet into perspective. While it's certainly not going to be a bad product by any means, behind the fancy exterior and all it's 'innovations' you really just have another competitor in a market with two well established manufacturers that really doesn't offer all that much greater performance or value. Another thing I'd like to point out is the development time, not to discredit Honda, but comments defending their development cycle are moot when you consider the development time of the clean-sheet Phenom 100 (and 300), and the fact that in the time that Honda has been playing with two airplanes (the MH02 and the HA420), Cessna has certified at least 8 different aircraft.
I wish Honda all the best of luck with their jet, and again I'd like to state that this wasn't meant as a criticism of the HondaJet as much as it was a clarification of where it stands in relation to its competitors. Honda may have an impressive background in the automotive industry, but they are certainly new comers to the aviation business with some seriously tough competition.
Brian Silvestro
> Jayhawk Jake
07/30/2014 at 12:51 |
|
Which one would YOU get?
cabarne4
> Jayhawk Jake
07/30/2014 at 12:53 |
|
The Honda jet is pretty, and I love the clean lines of the cockpit, but to me the citation is the standard for personal jets. It does everything right, is backed by a proven company, and is so common that any jet mechanic knows how to service it (because yes, even jets need the occasional service).
Because it's been in service for years, there's an ample used market. So that $4.6 million could be cut in half if you're willing to accept that you're not the first person to fart in the seats.
Source: our business partner owns a citation and a king air.
Racescort666
> Jayhawk Jake
07/30/2014 at 12:59 |
|
Excellent, excellent write up. Thank you so much for sharing.
MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner
> Jayhawk Jake
07/30/2014 at 12:59 |
|
If the FP was truly being unbiased with it's coverage of the HondaJet I think this should be shared/promoted to the FP.
It would be good for everyone going crazy about the HondaJet to know a bit about the industry it's going to compete in.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> Brian Silvestro
07/30/2014 at 13:05 |
|
I'm biased, but the Cessna. Even though it's more money it's a more proven design with a fantastic support network (Cessna typically only comes second to Gulfstream when customers are surveyed about service and support)
Unless I really needed the range, speed, or cabin size I'd actually save some money and get a Mustang
|
Jayhawk Jake
> cabarne4
07/30/2014 at 13:06 |
|
There's an ample used market for the Phenom as well, the M2 is too new for there to be jets on the used market, and if you went for a CJ1+ it'll cost slightly more to run and won't have the fancy Garmin flight deck.
|
Brian Silvestro
> Jayhawk Jake
07/30/2014 at 13:07 |
|
Interesting. As someone with little plane knowledge, I'd probably just get a HondaJet. But now, I'm not so sure.
This needs to be FP'd.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner
07/30/2014 at 13:08 |
|
There's a lot of misunderstanding by the part of FP commentors, which isn't surprising because most people don't know anything about private jets. I just wanted to try to show that just as you wouldn't compare the practicality of an F-150 to the practicality of a Fiat 500 Abarth, you shouldn't compare the performance of a HondaJet to a Gulfstream 450
|
MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner
> Jayhawk Jake
07/30/2014 at 13:11 |
|
I'm glad you did, it was a great write up btw.
I wouldn't (and didn't) know anything about this segment. I think most people might just be thinking "OMG a car company is building A JET"
|
Racescort666
> Brian Silvestro
07/30/2014 at 13:15 |
|
Yes, it needs to be FP'd. I worry about Honda's reliability*.
*Reliability is not "airplane falls out of the sky" it's "I've got a light on and I'm not allowed to fly." As stated, Cessna has an awesome support network so you won't be waiting for days/weeks to get a part in to leave wherever you're at.
Will Honda have turnaround like that? We won't know until there are aircraft in customers' hands.
Same goes for dispatch rate. How often will you have that light on where you can't leave? You can minimize that in the design but it's just like when a new car comes out, you could have a lot of warranty work but you don't really know until people start having vehicles on hand.
|
cabarne4
> Jayhawk Jake
07/30/2014 at 13:22 |
|
Our partner's is an older Citation. I'm not a fan of glass cockpits — sure they look shiny, but I'd rather have a sea of gauges and gyroscopes that work regardless of power.
As for price, you can pick up an older citation for well under a million. Here's a '73 on aerotrader for $450,000. Sure, you don't have the latest toys, but with the $4.15 million you save over buying a new one, you can upgrade the avionics, do an interior overhaul, add in-flight WiFi, and buy a hell of a lot of fuel.
|
Brian Silvestro
> Racescort666
07/30/2014 at 13:26 |
|
This makes all the sense.
Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
> Jayhawk Jake
07/30/2014 at 13:27 |
|
Wow, I love that Cessna. Everything about it just looks higher class.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> cabarne4
07/30/2014 at 13:31 |
|
That's a silly statement.
The chances of all 3 displays failing are very low. If the primary display fails you can have the secondary (the one in the middle) display what the primary should. If you did lose all power to the avionics, there is a backup (the little square HSI above the primary display). It is fully self contained.
As far as buying used, yes it's cheaper, but the maintenance and running costs will be significantly higher.
|
cabarne4
> Jayhawk Jake
07/30/2014 at 13:36 |
|
Yeah, definitely a silly fear... I just don't like it though. Glass displays are pretty, but I at least want some analogue backups. Give me air speed, altitude, and artificial horizon at least. And if you've got the money to own and operate a private jet, maintenance isn't too big of a concern. Besides, planes undergo their annual inspection every year, regardless of how new. Sure, older planes will have parts wearing out and needing replacement, but the cost probably isn't significantly greater. If you buy a 70's jet and upgrade all the avionics, you'll have new antennas, radios, transponder, etc — so all the big ticket items will be new. Turbine engines are incredibly reliable, and with an annual inspection you shouldn't have any major problems sneak up on you. Depreciation on private jets is just too crazy to consider buying new, unless you've got more money than sense and REALLY want to be the first person to fart in the seats.
Redd, the RX-7 that could
> Jayhawk Jake
07/30/2014 at 14:54 |
|
Nice write up, but where are the stats that we Jalops all know and love? No 0-400mph time? And let's not forget about the industry-standard 0-10,000-0 ft. altitude test that you felt wasn't worth including. You even left out the crucial 'Will it Baby?" test. I'm all for supporting developing authors, but try to be more thorough next time. There's no place for these half-baked articles on Oppo.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> Redd, the RX-7 that could
07/30/2014 at 15:09 |
|
Time to climb isn't published for the HA-420 AFAIK, but the Embraer takes 24 minutes to reach 37000 feet while the M2 takes only 18.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> cabarne4
07/30/2014 at 15:12 |
|
The backup HSI isn't analogue, but it's a self contained backup. What's the problem with that?
Maintenance sure as heck is a big concern if it's going to cost you a half a million a year to maintain. I also thing you are grossly underestimating the cost of all this new stuff you want to add to a plane.
When you consider life-limited items on an airframe and the cost of upgrades, you might as well buy new. Unless you're buying an airplane less than 5 or 10 years old, the benefit of buying an old airplane starts to wear off fast.
LongTravel
> Jayhawk Jake
07/30/2014 at 15:26 |
|
While the plane itself isn't world beating and it's development time hasn't been spectacular the fact that we're seeing the first new player enter the market in a long time is. Sure the Embraier and the Cessna are solid products with tons of support behind them but that's expected. What's impressive to me is that Honda has stepped up to produce a product that stands on it's own pretty well in the face of industry stalwarts. You're totally justified in bringing the coverage down a notch but I still feel like Honda gets a pat on the back for sticking it out and taking what was essentially a just-for-fun side project in the 90's to what we're seeing on the tarmac today. Should we idolize it? Nope. Should we throw it a "respekt" and move on? Sure, why not.
|
cabarne4
> Jayhawk Jake
07/30/2014 at 21:16 |
|
I equate it to automakers throwing screens on everything. Seems a bit excessive to me.
As far as upgrades, yes avionics are expensive but I still doubt you'll spend $4.15m on upgrades. I know it's Apple's to oranges, but my dad's '78 Grumman Tiger cost him $30k to purchase. He had the avionics overhauled, the plane re-painted, the interior upgraded, engine overhauled, and more for under $30k. People think the plane is brand new (a new one goes for around $150k), and he's spent less than $60k (not including fuel and running costs, which would've cost about the same on a new one as well).
Our partner got the older citation for the same reason. Full maintenance records and a perfectly decent plane for 1/10th the cost. Even after maintenance costs (which, no big ticket items have needed replacement), he's still coming out ahead.