HondaJet begins FAA certification process

Eclipse, Swearingen and Mitsubishi all got to market, though-- even if not successful eventually.

 

Here is a payload/range chart that I put together some time ago. I make no claims as to the accuracy of some of the points because many of the manufacturers make a conscious effort to disguise or distort their data so that it is impossible to produce an apples-to-apples comparison. The usual caveats apply, your mileage may vary....

For example, I doubt that a Honda Jet could ever go 400 miles with a full cabin. There are only 644 pounds of fuel available (less than 100 gallons) and at cruise they burn 92 gph, so that number is probably not realistic considering that you have to climb and descend. I needed a point to anchor the full cabin curve so 400 miles looked as high as possible, giving them the benefit of the doubt. As noted earlier, most light jets can’t carry much with full fuel or don’t go very far with a full cabin. There is very little published data on the performance of the HondaJet. That is probably also by design since they probably don’t compare favorably with the competition. If they were going to be better, they would be publishing a lot more. Since they aren’t you can assume that it isn’t pretty.

The HondaJet is pretty much worthless with a full cabin. If you want to go from New York to Boston with a full cabin you could do it, but any kind of trip where the speed of a jet is going to pay off, you are going to have to start to unload people.

As noted, the Premier is a lot more airplane. The HondaJet is very similar to a Mustang. I don’t think that many people are going to be willing to spend an extra million dollars to buy the HondaJet if it has about the same real world performance as the Mustang. That's a 33% premium to have the name Honda on your airplane, and most people buying airplanes in this price class are pretty savy. They will do their homework and a higher payload in the cabin won't sway them if it was just a marketing number that isn't realistic.

All of that said, the HondaJet will probably reach production. I’d take that $100 bet too, not because it is ever going to be successful, more likely that it will muddle along for a while and then be put to rest, but you have to take into consideration the Japanese honor thing and appreciate that they have taken it this far and spent a boat load of money to this point. They would rather recoup some of that sunk cost than write it all off as a bad dream before it gets to production. The NSX was a money loser for them from the get-go, but they hung on to it for a loooooooong time because they didn’t want to admit that they had missed the market. That's just part of their culture, and this is a strategic thing. They are thinking long term here and are willing to subsidize the program for the learning that they get out of it. They are learning a lot from the GE partnership as to how to make gas turbine engines, and this ordeal with certifying an aircraft is also being chalked up to gaining experience. Again, it is a culture thing and not a rational business decision. If it was a rational business decision they would have walked away from this whole deal a long time ago. The HondaJet is a "halo product" but it will never be a money maker.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

You can buy one of these for the same price. I know its used but an 7-8 year old plane is still consider pretty new. http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/HAWKER-800XP/2002-HAWKER-800XP/1184117.htm. If the Honda was a 1-2 million dollar plane than I would say they have a shot.

 

Could you liken buying a plane to the scenario of buying an exotic car?

I understand buying a HondaJet is not going to be as simple as buying a Honda Accord, but surely there are parallels with researching the history, design, and maintenance of an exotic car. I'm sure most Ferrari buyers don't leap into the prospect completely blindly.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

And your point is...?

You can buy a used 430 for a fraction of the cost of a new 458 too-- so why does anyone ever buy a new anything?

The person who is looking to buy new is most likely not interested in buying used, and vice versa. That's why it is not a fair comparison.

 

Nice chart solofast...

RE Bet: We'll just have to see. I'm in no hurry to collect.

 

Based upon my feeble memory, ever new market entry with the possible exception of lawn mowers, Honda has made was a turd. The wisest CEO for whom I've ever worked said, "You have to be in the business to be in the business." Honda doesn't need a highly disruptive and hugely successful first product to become a market force decades later.

 

Excellent post. I am hoping our G250 will be here again to see in person. i think its going to fit its market target very well. I work on the G650, so I am not up on all the G250's specs. very competitive this market is. I am very fortunate to be in a small part of it.


Found some G250 data: http://www.gulfstream.com/products/g250/


G250 Overview
Long-Range Cruise Speed Mach 0.80

MMO (Maximum Operating Mach Number) Mach 0.85

Range at Long-Range Cruise Speed 3,400 nm / 6,297 km

Typical Passenger Payload 4 passengers

 

Exactly. They can easily move upmarket and be a force to recon with. Look what they did to cars in the early 70's, the American barges on the roads versus the economical Hondas changed things forever. Wake up America, its happening again.

 

Yeah, but they ultimately collapsed, with exception of the Beechjet. It will be interesting to watch. If anyone can make a break into this industry with something new, Honda would have one of the best chances to do it based on their track record.

Timing is everything, look at the old Beech Starship. Carbon fiber, cutting edge avionics, efficient, and relatively cheap to operate. everyone thought it was too radical of a design and the Rutan's were demoted back to making Long Eze's and Very Eze's. Fast forward a decade and the Piaggio Avanti, relatively the same design is the best thing since sliced bread.

I'm still chomping at the bit for a SSBJ though. I'm thinking the G750 when it comes out will be that machine, or a Citation 11

 

Although, it hardly does their reputation any good to start out badly. Perhaps it'll have redeeming features about it? It's certainly an aesthetically pleasing-looking plane... so someone is bound to buy it.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

Aesthetically pleasing?

Oh, I thought we were still talking about the HondaJet; guess we're not...

 

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised to read what appears to be attitude in this thread. I think it's great when there is new innovation in the industry. If nothing else Honda will add some much needed design dollars. They are capable of designing and producing highly efficient engines. They have quality engineers.... Most startups in the industry don't have the funds or skill to be viable. I believe they do.

I feel like we've taken a step back in aviation with the loss of Concorde. I don't see major changes in advancement unless there is something motivating the industry to push a bit harder. Do you not feel other manufactures are watching this carefully?

 

Based on that statement, I don't think that you know or understand much about gas turbines or the aviation industry. All of the quality engineers and money in the world is worthless without the experience that comes from building and learning the hard lessons of and what happens when you do it wrong is what it takes to make an aircraft of a turbine engine.

Honda didn't understand that either. They severely underestimated what it would take to get into aviation. Reciprocating engines aren't gas turbines and the design requirements, material limitations, stress, themal fatigue and design techniques are in a totally different world that they had no experience in. For example, other than the exhaust valves and the headers, nothing in a reciprocating engine ever gets much hotter than 400 degrees. In a gas turbine there are large parts running at very high stress and the temperature can be over 1500 degrees over large areas and as hot as 2000 degrees in some areas. It is a completely different world, and if you don't know what is important and what isn't, you will spend months picking fly specs from pepper, only to be bitten by a huge problem in another area that you didn't perform adequate analysis on because you didn't understand the transient thermal stress in that area.

The teaming arrangement with GE provided the technical skill and knowledge to produce a good engine. Honda didn't have that knowledge and after dinking around with their gas turbine effort for over 10 years they finally went to the experts and got the help they needed to do the job. The problem is that Honda went to GE for help, and GE only knew how to make big engines. Big engines cost a lot and small engines don't have to, but GE helped Honda make a small big engine, and the costs aren't ever going to be competitive with what a company experienced with small engines could have done. It will be realiable, safe, and expensive to make and maintain.

I have seen the work done by Japanese and while they understood the thermodynamics (which most any engineering student could), they didn't understand the fundamental tradeoffs necessary to produce a real engine. They were looking at the theoretical and weren't understanding how it worked in the real world. The design practices and ability to understand what held it all together simply were not there.

Honda has deep pockets that alone will insure that they will be around after other aviation startups are long gone, but that doesn't mean the product is worth a darn.

 

I think your argument could be said about any business coming into a technical field. So, I ask, how do you get experience? I guess by your statement no business should start, it's pointless. In fact, I struggle understanding your logic as you imply Honda hasn't employed qualified engineers.

I don't know of another company that is better poised to enter the market. Would you prefer a company with less resources? Maybe you would prefer if no one else tried to enter the market? Maybe you want a few less players? Personally, I fail to see how they do anything negative by entering into the industry.

 

Actually, an example of a company which was much better poised to enter the business jet market was Embraer. And so far, they look to be pretty successful.

 

I agree, it's much easier for an aviation company become an aviation company.

 

Your statement was that they had "quality" engineers. Perhaps that struck a raw nerver since I had one corporate level VP make the statement in response to an engineering shortage, "engineers are like oranges, when I want some I'll buy a dozen". What he didn't understand it that there is a substantial difference between quality engineers (ones that will do a good job) and EXPERIENCED and engineers who know what to do and how to do it. Honda didn't realize the difference either, and they muddled along until they got GE involved with the program. My point is that if you are going to go into any highly technical field you need to find people who have experience in that field or you will spend time and money to re-learn all of the expensive and time consuming lessons that the people with experience learned the hard way.

Honda was no more poised to enter the market than any large company that had enough money to provide staying power to bring the product to market. In the end, Microsoft could have done it just as well if they had the patience to stick it out. The only thing that may have been in Honda's favor was that they understood that doing engineering properly and safely takes some time and money. The disciplines that they had in house were unrelated to what it takes to design, develop and market an aircraft. The only question that remains is will they stick it out with a product that isn't a market leader and wallow around with egg on their face until they improve the product or replace it with a competitive product, or will they cut and run after a half a dozen years in the market place.

I'm all for a free market, but if the market won't support more players it can kill all of them if too many try to jump in. It's kind of like a lifeboat. If you try to cram too many people in it, they all die when it sinks. If you have too many players in a market usually the strongest player wins, but that could be because he has the capability to lose money for longer period of time than it is a reflection on the quality of his product. There have been a lot of very excellent airplanes that have failed as a business, while lesser aircraft that were better financed are still for sale. Usually, even though they may have a good idea, companies tend not to enter saturated markets because they understand that unless they develop a clear market leader, they will simply fracture the market and they won't make much money. You have to have enough of the market to make money on your product, or you will eventually fail, and if the market becomes fractured and too small, nobody wins.

 

Yes, I thought I might have hit a nerve, but didn't understand why. It appears Honda has done exactly what you suggested.

I disagree that a transportation manufacturer, in as many different verticals as Honda, isn't poised better than a software developer to enter the market.

Time will tell

To me, it seems this is the real concern in your statements and I don't understand why. Did I strike another nerve? Maybe you would prefer them fail and you have a reason you would like to share?

For the record, I'm not trying to strike any nerves. I think Gulfstream makes the best bird out there. I think the 7x is cool. I like some Bombardier... I think Embraer has done a great job... and I could keep going.

I just wouldn't discount Honda. They could be game changer.

 

If I were Honda, I'd have bought an aircraft manufacturer as opposed to "reinventing the wheel" with the HondaJet. It' have cost them a lot less.

Honda's effort is not producing a more efficient design. Just the opposite. $4.5 million for a small jet is Rolls Royce pricing.

 

not that it matters...

but that is a really ugly ugly ugly plane in my opinion.

I was on the side of the hondajet... but this thing is terrible looking and jason has made some excellent points.

I don't agree that it will be a complete flop. But I do agree that this will not be a sales success

 

So you were not referring to the business jet market, but rather aviation in general?

Embraer was not in the business jet market 10 years ago.

 

Jason, I don't log into Fchat as much as I used to, but I haven't forgotten about our wager. I'll happily pay up if she falls through. Though it's been a slow process I still think it has a strong shot.

Funny thing, I remembered the bet as $1, but now reviewing the thread I see it was a Ben Franklin. Haha.... I guess my memory is fading a bit.

 

Agree... UGLY.

I don't think that the novelty of those 'pods' on the upper wings (why so tall?) will overcome the sheer unattractiveness of them. Guessing that they mainly did that to be 'different'.

I would not even look at a Hondajet were I in the market... I don't buy ugly cars either, no matter what other attributes they have. Ever.


Even worse, it looks like it will be both terminally ugly AND terminally expensive.

Done.

 

So here we are almost 4 years later. At what point do you "lose the bet"?

Once Cirrus get their new jet to market it's gonna put a serious dent in Hondajet's ability to compete. Honda has missed their window. There's no benefit to their jet. It does nothing that many, many other jets currently on the market don't already do.

The Phenom 100 and 300 are already here. All the new Cessna products are coming out with Garmin avionics. The M2 will be incredible. Eclipse seems to be getting its act together. Pilatus will have the PC24 out in 2017 and that's an amazing machine.

Even if Honda launched their jet, it won't sell. They've missed their window. Nobody with a brain in their head will buy a one off airplane from a non aviation company. You'll be stuck with it. Honda is too smart to have a "failed product".

Tell me why you think it has a "strong shot".