Where the foot wells were previously, they can now add a fuel tank. And it still can't make NY to LA nonstop? Or Hawaii?

That HondaJet 2600 is gonna smoke this fool.

If it can stay on the runway.

BTW, those are "ROFFL" emojis - rolling on the flat floor.

And Chip, I am offended that Textron did not listen to me and add an SP option to a jet I didn't know existed and can't afford. My panties have been bunched.

As JC would say, "It's a cartoon".

Dave

HJ will fix the problem in the 2600. Simple POH limitation that limits the jet to 12,000 foot dry paved runways, during day VMC. Problem solved.

This is basically the only question that matters for new mid-range biz jets. If Honda pulls this off single pilot insurably in the 2600, things will get interesting.

-J

HJ will fix the problem in the 2600. Simple POH limitation that limits the jet to 12,000 foot dry paved runways, during day VMC. Problem solved.

For sure Something kind of interesting has happened though. With the M600. Piper released a bunch of SB's. Things like fill the tires to spec as required by the POH, keep the steering linkages in spec as per the service manuals, adhere to proper landing techniques, properly tow the plane so you don't break the front gear... and the excursions have essentially stopped. Wonder if Honda needs to do something similar, mainly get the pilots to fly the plane correctly.

As a veteran of the Lancair/Columbia experiment, I got excited when Textron bought that product line for pennies on the dollar. It made a ton of sense to me at the time, thinking Cessna could skip many steps ahead in their languishing NGP (Next Gen Piston) efforts and skip their traditional and tiny incremental improvements, and leap right into a competitive product line. They would have the money, stature and patience to stand up a production line and do it well, so I thought. Instead, they made some bad strategic decisions IMO and fell on their face in the execution of the plan, and didn't care to try to fix anything in earnest, or market it aggressively against Cirrus. Then they just gave up. I think the bosses at the time didn't want anything to do with pistons or even propellers, and that's a shame. Their lack of improvement or action with the Bo and Baron lines since the HBC acquisition supports that theory too. (I had heard rumors that HBC had an updated Bo ready to unveil before their bankruptcy, and Textron killed the project after the acquisition.)

This new Citation variant doesn't sound like too much of an improvement, but I don't live in that world and can't comment intelligently on it.

A retractable, pressurized 400 with a chute in Cirrus pricing would have been a killer seller, I think.

Nailed it... why pay $16.75mm for a plane when you can pay $10mm-$12mm for a plane that has just as good, if not better performance.

Only advantage for the Ascend is 1-2 pax more.

560 series is not SP. You need an SPE (Single Pilot Exemption) to fly it SP in the US. But that is an FAA thing and not recognized internationally. I believe that only 501 (Citation I) and 551 (Citation II) are SP on their type certificate (maybe the Bravo as well?).

A retractable, pressurized 400 with a chute in Cirrus pricing would have been a killer seller, I think.

Not possible to build such a thing at that price, but that alone, would have made it killer.

Honestly, had they not totally screwed up, Textron could have had a good thing in the 400/Corvallis/Ttx. All they managed to do was re-name it 2-times, get manufacturing halted by the FAA for over a year after moving composite wing assembly to Mexico and screwed up so bad they delaminated a test article wing in flight, and otherwise, just messed up.

Textron ain't interested in piston anything. They extracted everything of value out of the Cessna name (jet and turboprop) and left all the piston business and parts behind.

No one in Textron considers moving into piston aviation as a career-improving move. They'd rather move into the golf cart division. (yes, they have one).

Not possible to build such a thing at that price, but that alone, would have made it killer.

Honestly, had they not totally screwed up, Textron could have had a good thing in the 400/Corvallis/Ttx. All they managed to do was re-name it 2-times, get manufacturing halted by the FAA for over a year after moving composite wing assembly to Mexico and screwed up so bad they delaminated a test article wing in flight, and otherwise, just messed up.

Textron ain't interested in piston anything. They extracted everything of value out of the Cessna name (jet and turboprop) and left all the piston business and parts behind.

No one in Textron considers moving into piston aviation as a career-improving move. They'd rather move into the golf cart division. (yes, they have one).