Anyone have good data on the real world runway performance of the HondaJets? Honda’s marketing material is kind of vague, I get the sense they are being intentionally obscure about it. Anyone have a snapshot or two of the takeoff and landing data pages in the manual (or an entire PDF copy of the manual)?

If you might have such a thing, PM me for my email address.

Thanks!

Perfect! Thanks so much Zack!

ISA, 0 MSL, max weights, zero wind, level runway:

Honda HA-420:

Takeoff (10,700 lbs): 3491 feet
Landing (9,960 lbs): 3528 feet
Thrust to weight ratio: 0.381

Citation V:

Takeoff (15,900 lbs): 3160 feet
Landing (15,200 lbs): 2870 feet
Thrust to weight ratio: 0.365

Basically, they are not impressive numbers given the thrust to weight ratio is better for the Honda.

Could be the brakes are weak. That will lengthen both takeoff and landing distances despite the higher thrust to weight ratio.

Could also be high levels of residual thrust at idle, usually not an issue for FADEC controlled engines, however.

Seeing a Honda Jet at KSQL should be rare, indeed. I can definitely operate at a reasonable weight where my V can go to KSQL, however.

Mike C.

Agreed. I think the Honda's skinny/short wing is designed to minimize cruise drag, but suffers on runway performance. Further evidence:
HA120: V1 = 104 kts
C-V: V1 = 96 kts

Vr for the Honda isn't given in the tables above, but I suspect it's similarly higher.

Maybe they need full-span fowler flaps?


Yes, I haven't seen one. I don't really think it's do-able. But... hope springs eternal!

That's the fantastic part of the Citation V wing.

It both lowered V1/Vr/Vref speeds, AND it decreased drag in cruise. It wins at both ends of the flight envelope.

A Citation V will use less runway than a Citation I or II, and then cruise a lot faster at altitude. I have been amazed at how little runway it uses.

Mike C.

A Honda with soft brakes? Say it ain't so.

Loved my '78 CVCC Civic. Drove it until it literally fell apart. I kid you not, I was rounding a corner and the CV joints literally shattered with parts scattering all over the street.

But seriously, I think there is something in Japanese culture that considers powerful brakes a bit rude.

T/O and landing distance notwithstanding, max is going to be 12,500

T/O and landing distance notwithstanding, max is going to be 12,500

I think I recall looking into that once and coming to the conclusion that it was 12,500 per wheel (i.e. it's the single wheel limit). But I can't quickly find the reference at the moment, so I could be wrong. Anyone have the reference at hand?

So from what I read in that attachment the runway weight limits are not based on certified MTOW but on what the plane actually weighs at the moment?

At 12,500 lbs, I have 3,250 lbs useful load. That would be 2,750 lbs fuel and two people plus luggage easily, enough for a 500-600 nm flight.

0 MSL, 30 C (warmish), no wind, flat runway, at 12,500 lbs:

Takeoff: 2370 feet, V1 85, Vr 92
Landing: 2460 feet, Vref 96

Yup, the book says you can do it. There are good margins in the numbers, too, takeoff is with engine failure, landing is 50 foot threshold crossing height.

I'm not ready to try it, but maybe someday.

Mike C.

Yeah, I was using the word max in the context of the maximum allowed for the runway, not the maximum for the aircraft

I have a HondaJet based at KEMT, so 4200ft rwy. He busts out of there easily fully loaded on hot days, seems to have room to spare.

Yes, that’s interesting. But how much “room to spare”? In the performance table posted it shoud be at 50’ or a hair better by the end of that runway at gross on a 35C day.

It’d be interesting to have ground roll data, but it seems they don’t give that info anymore.

Sadly, 2600’ is not as much as 4200’…