I co-manage a Hondajet. it's cool, high tech but I can't say it's my favorite airplane. The big winglets tend to push it sideways in any kind of crosswind so it's a different technique, once you land you keep steering it like a car. The wheels are small with big anti-skid brakes and no thrust reverse with relatively high ref speed... so we chew through expensive tires at a brisk pace. It's hard to get more than 2700 lbs of fuel in it, unless you're extremely patient, or park it at just the right slant then the last 200 lbs will take you half a day to upload. So legs are pretty short. TAS is around 420 kts and fuel flows get down around 700 lbs /hr if you go up to 41,000. Cabin is pretty small, and a big aft section is reserved for a full lav, which seems a waste of space to me on such a small plane with short legs. We've had some expensive issues that were covered under warranty, but still resulted in downtime. Depreciation has been pretty brutal. Bought new around 5.2, now you can find last years model with < 200 hrs for 4m... on the plus side it’s the quietest airplane I’ve ever been in, so quiet you don’t know the engine started until you look at the gauges.

I just flew right seat in a HondaJet on an 1000-nm trip from Florida to Houston. I’m a lowly piston pilot but enjoyed this trip with a pro pilot (it was not a demo). The G3000 systems and integration are superior - the pilot says it has lots of “big jet features.” 400 knots plus TAS at FL430. Cockpit requires a little wiggling to get into but not too bad. Seats were not comfortable - I would use sheepskin or a pad. Visibility is excellent. ATC brought us down early and we were vectored through some red at 4000’ so things got pretty sporty for a bit but the plane handled it very well. Seemed to handle the cross wind easily on landing. This was the initial version of the jet - pilot says the Elite adds range and saves a bit on fuel consumption but not as much as the marketing suggests. Basically makes what would be a tight trip in the initial version an easy trip in the new version. We landed with just over 500 lbs but I can’t swear we were full on departure. We had 60 on the nose all the way back.

Flew in the back to Florida and found the seats comfortable and fully articulating. Lav is nice but it’s not that tall a cabin so you’re definitely bending over! Super super quiet. No headsets needed for pax and no vibration to speak of. The new version puts the range in between the Phenom and M2 (closer to the M2).

Definitely worth a demo ride. But I would probably prefer a TBM 930 if I had lottery money as an owner-pilot. The pro Pilot however thought the bleed air and the de-ice capability to be one of the best features. He simply doesn’t worry about ice in that plane. And we picked up some on the winglets - she just plows through it without any performance decrease. He mentioned that the braking issue and that it can hydroplane on a very wet runway so that’s something to consider. Overall I really liked the Jet and learned a lot from the experience.

These jets all have exactly the same problem - range. When is someone gonna produce a VLJ that has either 2000nm range or can carry a lot of people? I don't need both at the same time, just one or the other. I don't get it. Empty yanks don't weigh a thing.

I need to fly from Chicago to Naples 10-12 times a year. TBM damn near always makes the trip nonstop. Once I hit 100 knot headwinds coming home and had to stop for fuel.
The extra speed doesn’t help if you need to stop. Flying into the 40’s would help with weather sometimes.

Exactly. The plane doesn't need to go just as fast. But if they could give it a good 4.5 or 5 hours in the tank, it would change things. Probably still be doing 300 something.

Way it is now to jump up in range, the price of the plane really goes up. Hence the TBM and PC12s popularity. The get it done non stop.

You want more altitude for more range versus more fuel.

Getting up to between FL410 and above the headwinds usually die out and you have standard ISA once you get to the Troposhere.

Headwinds and +ISA are a range killer.

Michael,
I see 58kts headwind today which is 4:09 in mine at FL280. Wouldn’t risk that into Chicago airspace if IMC or perhaps VMC. Assumed KLOT for reference. Do you have a hangar in Naples?

Michael,
I see 58kts headwind today which is 4:09 in mine at FL280. Wouldn’t risk that into Chicago airspace if IMC or perhaps VMC. Assumed KLOT for reference. Do you have a hangar in Naples?

Charles,

There are choice of altitudes, OAT and power chosen that affect fuel burn and thus range as you know. Today on Fltpln is attached. There is a maximum of 292 gallons useable in the 850, my useful full fuel and all seats is ~840lbs. Unless I’m trying for range, seldom, I’m cruising at MCT less 10 degrees usually. This flight with normal FL routing and NO Chicago vectoring added leaves only 55 gallons. No Star included.

60 gallons is my minimum VMC, perhaps IMC, around home with little traffic, lots of airports close and easy weather. Chicago no way IMC. I’d want 100 gallons down low up there in IMC.

Yes I could pull power back to cruise slower for this trip and higher altitude would help consumption too. Using those techniques speed decreases but landing with desired fuel increases trip time too perhaps 4:30. MC can look his fuel #’s up on that trip and give exact.

MCT minimizes trip time and overall costs when engine/airframe/fuel costs are all added. I’m not JC so that’s not a desired trip time on a regular run for me. I’d rather plan stop usually. Probably why Michael is dreaming about a more efficient plane, just as fast, to get him to Chicago.

Compromises.... everything’s a compromise..

No hangar at Naples. Park outside at FBO

Thanks Chuck. These SETP's are some good deal when it comes to range payload flexibility. I keep looking at the light jets, but what it takes in acquisition and operating costs, to get the range, payload, high hot and short capability of the SETP is pretty breath-taking. Aviation is certainly about compromises. The M2 seems to be the most capable of the light jets discussed here.

My Florida trip back are usually around 1200 nm & I can do it non stop in under 4.5 hrs if the headwinds are under 50 kts and ATC does not keep me low too long in FL.

Yes.... one engine climb out is the problem. I spoke with the pilots last night and still don't understand their rationale. Plenty of room to turn around and land back at the airport is they lost one. But they did say they are flying "by the book".

Their "by the book" made a 3.5 hour Pilatus flight into a 7 hour jet flight.

2 fuel stops going West..... just fly commercial.

Yes.... one engine climb out is the problem. I spoke with the pilots last night and still don't understand their rationale. Plenty of room to turn around and land back at the airport is they lost one. But they did say they are flying "by the book".

Their "by the book" made a 3.5 hour Pilatus flight into a 7 hour jet flight.