I've flown a M2 for a couple years now. Haven't flown the P100 or HondaJet (yet--may be getting typed in the HondaJet...) but have demoed the P300E.

Things I like about the M2:

Runway performance is great (when it's dry...but any jet in this category without thrust reversers will have poor contaminated runway performance). I landed at Santa Monica's 3500' runway yesterday and turned off at the last intersection without much braking effort. I was able to takeoff at around 500 lbs under maximum structural takeoff weight.

Cruise performance consistently beats book numbers. I can get 400KTAS at FL410 almost always.

Aircraft has been very reliable--in 500 hours it's had a handful of unscheduled mx events and only one AOG.

It's easy to fly--the cockpit is well laid out and it handles nicely. Airspeed is very sensitive compared to the P300E and easy to get fast or slow. Don't know how it compares to the other SP jets.

Things I don't like:

Windshield bleed air. C'mon, join every other jet in this category with an electric windshield!

Climb performance with wing anti-ice on is...not good.

Cessna's lack of product updates--while Embraer's come up with the P100E and P100EV and Honda's come up with the Elite, a M2 fresh off of the production line has the same performance and specifications as the first one built. Certifying it to FL450, updating the G3000 with some of the cool stuff in the HondaJet, or increasing gross weight would all be very welcome. I'm sure a lot of existing owners would either upgrade at a service center or buy a new airplane!

Cockpit is pretty cramped--but having sat in the other jets in this category, they're all about the same. Oddly, the Mustang is actually pretty good in comparison.

I don't know how fast the honda jet is, but the M2 sees 400TAS at 410 on pretty much every day. It's a very easy airplane to fly, and I think it's control feel is actually really good.

Some other qualities of the citation are very dated. Plastic windscreen/rain door all that nonsense is ridiculous.

Our company operates several M2's and I know what you mean about climb w/wing anti ice. To help overcome this we climb at slower than book speeds with wing A/I on. 170~IAS and it does help. Min ice penetration speed on the M2 is 160, 180 on the other CJ's.

Our company operates several M2's and I know what you mean about climb w/wing anti ice. To help overcome this we climb at slower than book speeds with wing A/I on. 170~IAS and it does help. Min ice penetration speed on the M2 is 160, 180 on the other CJ's.

That is basically the rate I expect in the Phenom 100 with all the stuff on and say in the teens.

That is basically the rate I expect in the Phenom 100 with all the stuff on and say in the teens.

"500 fpm climb in the teens" are you serious? I'm losing interest real quick. What's the limitation on the climb?

The normal climb up to the high 20s is 1500-2000 FPM at 200 IAS depending on ISA temp. Once into the low 30s the climb slows to 1000 FPM. That isn't exactly Lear Jet speed but you are still actually accelerating with TAS in the 300s even though IAS is constant.

What he is referring to is climb rate with all of the anti-ice protection running. Turning on the engine heat cuts into the Phenom climb rate pretty significantly. Fortunately, you typically don't need the engine heat in the climb very often and when you do it is only required for a few thousand feet.

In the TBM 850 with the separator on and the hi bleed on climb rate is terrible. If you were in significant icing under thise conditions your ability to climb would be seriously anemic.

Michael,

What ITT are you climbing at? Push it up to 830-840C you will see a big difference.

Never as bad as 500 FPM as the baby jets that Im reading here.

I have spent some time looking at the P100 and M2. Have demoed the M2. They are both great airplanes but it looks to me like the M2 has an edge in performance, range and certainly service network.

But after carefully considering what I would get for a lot more operating expense I decided that staying with the TBM or moving to larger jet like a a CJ2 or 3 made more sense. The small jets have engine redundancy, climb rate and a small increase in trip time on short trips but the cost to get there wasn't worth it to me. For less than the cost of either of these plans new, or even the used M2's, you can have a lot more capability with similar or slightly higher operating costs in a slightly larger aircraft.

Im on a 1000nm trip in a friends 2 pilot jet. I offered to fly the Pilatus but they wanted to take the jet. I’m sitting in the back. We’re too heavy to take on enough fuel to fly back home non stop (we don’t have the climb numbers to out climb terrain). So now we have to stop for fuel halfway back.

Also, the long runway at the home airport is closed for MX so we need to land at the airport across town and Uber home. We should’ve take the Pilatus. Would’ve made it non stop both ways.

At this point we should’ve just flown commercial.

we don’t have the climb numbers to out climb terrain ... OEI or on two engines?

Did you depart into IMC or VMC? You don’t say what jet it is.

Your PC-12 can’t out climb terrain OEI either.

But he can glide back to the airport for landing, and if he does have an off-field landing with the strength of the cabin and the slow stall speed, off field landing survivability is extremely high

Im on a 1000nm trip in a friends 2 pilot jet. I offered to fly the Pilatus but they wanted to take the jet. I’m sitting in the back. We’re too heavy to take on enough fuel to fly back home non stop (we don’t have the climb numbers to out climb terrain). So now we have to stop for fuel halfway back.

Also, the long runway at the home airport is closed for MX so we need to land at the airport across town and Uber home. We should’ve take the Pilatus. Would’ve made it non stop both ways.

At this point we should’ve just flown commercial.