Talk:Honda HA-420 HondaJet

Cruise Speed
I know the cruise speed has a source link, but I wonder how accurate it is. The only speed Honda lists on their website is the "maximum cruise speed," which the wiki lists as the "maximum speed". I have a hard time believing that the max speed is 420 knots and then drops all the way to 261 knots for cruise. That seems awfully low and is slower than the listed cruise speed for a Pilatus PC-12. I feel like the cruise speed should be removed from the article until there is a more solid confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.160.68 (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * With airplanes you need to include the altitude in the Air Speed calculation. For example 261 kt at 30,000' is faster than 420kt at sea level. Any speed value in aviation must be qualified with temperature, pressure, altitude, etc. So you're correct to question the numbers. Santamoly (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Honda HA-420 HondaJet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140730014158/http://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/eaa-airventure-news-and-multimedia/eaa-airventure-news/eaa-airventure-oshkosh/2014-07-28-hondajet-makes-another-oshkosh-first to http://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/eaa-airventure-news-and-multimedia/eaa-airventure-news/eaa-airventure-oshkosh/2014-07-28-hondajet-makes-another-oshkosh-first

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Honda HA-420 HondaJet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402133436/http://www.fly-corporate.com/article/oem-brokerage/first-production-hondajet-takes to http://www.fly-corporate.com/article/oem-brokerage/first-production-hondajet-takes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Repeated additions of Fokker 614
Recently, an editor started to push a wikilink to VFW-Fokker 614 into different places of the article (and without any justification too). Is it just me not seeing why exactly Fokker 614 is suddenly relevant to HJ, or it should be removed? Ipsign (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, two editors are involved here, as I'm only the second one. I only restored it by putting it in the "See also" parameter, as it's not comparable in era. While I can't speak for the other editor, I readded it because it also has overwing-mounted engines. - BilCat (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (and apologies for confusion about the same editor). I added some prose referring to Fokker 614 in the article - and a clarification in "See Also" too. Hope it is ok. Ipsign (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Operational History
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I removed the “brake issues” and “other accidents” sections as all content listed there should be considered “non-prominent” according to Wikipedia’s criteria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents

None of these incidents involved the “death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia,” or injury whatsoever. And while the previous version seemed to suggest that the April 15 and 17 incidents were related to an FAA AD, this was not the case. The text of the citation from AIN reads: “The AD was published on March 29, before these incidents [on April 15 and 17] occurred, and became effective on April 13.” In any case, these were both irrelevant incidents, as no one was injured, and they appear to have had no relevance to the aircraft design. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2018-04-19/faa-ad-targets-hondajet-brake-system

"Honda"
In section History, "Honda began to study small sized business jets in the late 1980s, using engines from other manufacturers." It is unclear: is this referring to the person who founded Honda, or the company? Needs clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerald Waldo Luis (talk • contribs)

Seems pretty clear from the context that it is talking about the company. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Reuters citation
The Reuters citation (Chang-Ran Kim (30 January 2012). "Honda out to shake up market with first jet next year". Reuters.) should not be removed: it's still valid and Reuters is a WP:Reliable source. If the supported text is misleading, it could be fixed.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Even if a source is reliable, that does not mean it is being used properly. Here is the problem:
 * 1) The Reuters article is being used to assert that Honda currently claims that its aircraft has a specific advantage in fuel economy, but
 * 2) The figure of 20% comes from 2006 (From the article: "Honda received more than 100 orders for the seven-seater jet in three days when it began taking orders in 2006, promising a quieter engine, 20 percent better fuel economy over competing models and operational costs of two-thirds or less."). This is before the HondaJet was type certified, and well-before the current generation of aircraft, e.g. the HJ Elite, the Phenom 100EV, and Citation M2.
 * 3) Furthermore, Reuters did not provide a quote from a company spokesperson. Thus, the most we can say with this source is that "Reuters reported that, in 2006, Honda once claimed its aircraft would have 20% better fuel economy." Yosoemon (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Precision added. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Fuel consumption
Keeping the figures direct from BCa ("Purchase Planning Handbook" (PDF). Business & Commercial Aviation. Aviation Week Network. June 2019.) make them easier to WP:verify, along with explicit calculations. The main point is to compare between comparable airplanes, not with cars.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what this issue is here. The numbers I reported in NM/lbs are directly from the BCA report. See the "Specific Range/Altitude" numbers under "Max Fuel," "Four Passengers, and "Ferry" of the NBAA IFR Ranges section. The same report explains how Specific Range is calculated. My second correction put these numbers - again, directly taken from the report - first, then gave the MPG in parentheses. I added the MPG because this is a measurement that more people are familiar with, and this page is not only for those interested in aviation. Yosoemon (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Your calculations should be explicit, not implicit. Either state them directly in the wikitext, using #expr, or put your calculation between comment brackets. The MPG is a measure for cars, maybe for passengers, but not for entire airplanes. Using the full fuel/ferry fuel burn is too variable, prefer a mission of the same length for good comparisons. The current statements are the result of a consensus by successive edits (long range cruise efficiency, then per-mission numbers, then longest mission only).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The fuel economy of light jets is, by its nature, highly variable; this is confirmed by the Wikipedia page on "Fuel economy in aircraft," which uses a range for business aircraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Business_aircraft). I followed this page for my edits. Now, 1000 NM mission is a poor metric of comparison in this case for two reasons: 1) most light business jets travel for much shorter distances than 1000 NM, and 2) the speed at which the aircraft travel (and thus fuel burn) during the 1000 NM mission vary between the aircraft. In contrast, the long-range mission data I provided allows for a more consistent comparison of fuel economy between different aircraft. The consensus you referred to were just a few edits made last month, so I see no reason why another user should not be able to edit them, especially if the data are accurate. As for the calculations, please keep in mind that learning all of the Wikipedia commands takes time. More importantly, however, the NM/lbs figures I provided were not a calculation, but taken directly from the report. Yosoemon (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed fuel burn is eminently variable (I did add the Business_aircraft section of Fuel_economy_in_aircraft). If 1,000 nmi is too long (any ref for the average mission?), the max fuel/ferry is even longer, and variations in speed and range are even more widespread. You are welcome to be WP:BOLD but remember if another editor disagree, you have to gain consensus in talk. The missing calculation was the MPG. Cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * FWIW (as someone involved in those edits and supposed consensus) - I'd still prefer to have the BCA numbers for 300nmi missions in the article, as they have two-fold value: first, they illustrate the range of possible fuel savings (that's why it should be 300nmi and 1000nmi, omitting 600 nmi), and second, 18-19% number plays well to illustrate that Honda claim of 20% mentioned in the previous sentence wasn't too bold. Unfortunately, I still didn't find a way to keep both numbers without the paragraph to look too ugly :-( . Ipsign (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I tried to re-introduce different missions (with the rationale being, as noted above, two-fold: (a) to provide the range of possible gains per BCA, and (b) to show that Honda's claim is not that much different from reality); hope the wording is sufficiently clear and not _that_ ugly. Comments are very welcome. Ipsign (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Having two mission points looks a bit overkill for me (WP:UNDUE), 600nmi would be a good compromise. For the interested reader, the ref is linked and offers all the points. Note that there is no need to maximize them to match Honda's claims, the improvement is within the 0-20% range given.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input Ipsign (hope I typed that right). I guess the issue is, it strikes me as problematic to a juxtapose a quote that uses a certain number (20%) with very different figures (3-8%), and not mention that there are other ways of calculating fuel efficiency. No need to imply that Honda is wildly exaggerating if the data backs them up. Perhaps something like "Data from the 2019 BCA reports that the HondaJet is anywhere from 3-19% more fuel efficient than similar aircraft, depending on mission length, flight speed, and carrying weight?" That would also avoid dragging Embraer and Cessna into a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosoemon (talk • contribs) 19:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Exploring Honda's claim is a valid point. We should then show the best and worst cases. If we make it in a table:


 * The 300 and 1000 nmi missions give the widest range (+3..18%) but two points seems a bit overkill to me, retaining only the 600 nmi mission gives a similar +4..15% which should be enough.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @Yosoemon: unfortunately, wording "reports that the HondaJet is anywhere from 3-19% more fuel efficient than similar aircraft" is not _directly_ supported by the BCA ref; it is WE (not BCA) who calculated this 3-19% range, and - IMO much worse - it is WE (not BCA!) who decided which aircraft are "similar"; the latter means that with such wording, we'd be engaging in prohibited WP:OR. Ipsign (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your clear explanation @Ipsign. I take your point, but this brings up another problem: if we privilege one form of calculating fuel efficiency over another, would this not also constitute WP:OR? To me, it seems that fixating on proving or disproving Honda’s claim (see my later reply for that) is taking us down an unnecessary path. Rather than listing all the different BCA data, why not simply state something like: “aspects of the plane were designed to improve fuel efficiency,” and not make an evaluation on the actual efficiency one way or the other? That strikes me as more encyclopedic. It was also the advice of MilborneOne below. The intent with my previous edit was to combine his suggestion with the BCA data, but as you pointed out, the second half of that was problematic. Yosoemon (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * We do not really "privilege" one way of calculating fuel efficiency to another one (and, as I understand, "your" method would give very similar results anyway - arguing about "up to 19%" vs giving numbers illustrating 3 to 18%, is not that different for a reader). As for WP:OR, the requirement reads "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source"; current wording _is_ not just attributable, but attributed to the information _directly_ contained in BCA (which is supposedly reliable enough). If there are multiple sources with substantially different data, we have to resort to WP:WEIGHT, but I don't feel that it is the case here. Ipsign (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * We dont normally do comparisons between types, not the job of an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * While doing comparisons "out of blue" is indeed not a good idea, I concur with Marc Lacoste in that finding reliable data to confirm (or to expose as fake) Honda's claim, is a valid point. Ipsign (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * We have already have confirmed Honda’s claims (keeping in mind that these claims are based on one salesman and one fourteen-year old indirect quote). Depending on how fuel efficiency is calculated, the claim of “up to 20%” is off by only one percentage point (calculated by SR). And this is just BCA’s data. Absent a clear scientific consensus on the best method for calculating fuel efficiency in light jets, I see no reason to privilege 1000 NM trips (or long-range missions, for that matter) over another metric. This is why, in my previous edit, I said “up to 19%,” and not “19% under all conditions.” I also made sure to avoid mention of other aircraft. It seems that the relevant points are: 1) The aircraft construction was designed to reduce drag; 2) The effects of the design were published in a respectable journal; and 3) An independent analysis confirms that the design improves fuel efficiency. Yosoemon (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * See my comment above re. WP:OR in "up to 19%" wording (especially with regards of determining which aircraft qualify as "similar"). Also, re. Honda's claim - to be precise, it was not "salesman", but "Sales Demonstration pilot", and the same claim (in addition to 2 links in the article) is mentioned in - more than enough to justify the inclusion of the claim into the article. Ipsign (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we are trying to establish the company's claims, but none of the links you provided has a direct quote from a company spokesperson. It also looks like we’re seeing a possible feedback loop between Wikipedia and other outlets. For example, the wording of the SMH article is nearly identical to the Reuters article. Are direct quotations not preferable for establishing someone's claim? I just did a Google search for “honda aircraft press releases fuel efficiency,” and nothing I could find gave a specific number for fuel efficiency. Instead, they claim that their plane is the “most fuel efficient” or the “most efficient in its class.” This link is one of the first results, and seems pretty representative: Is there a policy I'm missing? I would imagine that direct quotes are preferable to indirect quotes when reporting a person/organization's position. Evaluating them is of course a different matter. Yosoemon (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "none of the links you provided has a direct quote from a company spokesperson" - it is not required. WP:SECONDARY (when a reputable 3rd-party organization - such as Reuters or any industry journal/magazine - says it did happen) is perfectly fine, and is generally preferred: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources". It means that while Wikipedia does NOT allow original research, referring to secondary sources which did their own original research, is a Good Thing(tm). Ipsign (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * We seem to be talking past one another. First, the Reuters article is not a secondary source, it is a primary source. A secondary source “provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.” At no point in the Reuters article is there anything close to this description. Reuters did not conduct their own research into Honda’s claims, they reported them.
 * More importantly, and from WP:SECONDARY: “Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.” Now, we have no secondary sources that provide an independent analysis of light aircraft fuel efficiency. BCA is just reporting the hard data, not analyzing it. This raises the question, why are we conducting an independent analysis of the fuel efficiency of different aircraft? To restate my current position, as an encyclopedia, we should only be reporting that the aircraft was designed to reduce drag and improve fuel efficiency, and leave the analysis to someone else.
 * How about this: “Aspects of the HondaJet’s design, such as the natural-laminar flow and over-wing engine placement, were designed to decrease drag and increase fuel efficiency. Since the commercialization of the HondaJet was announced in 2006, Honda has variously described its aircraft as ‘the most fuel efficient in its class’ or ‘up to 20% more fuel efficient than similar aircraft.’ Each year, Business and Commercial Aviation provides a report listing the specific range (distance an aircraft travels per unit of fuel consumed) of general aviation aircraft using a number of different metrics, which includes figures for the HondaJet Elite.” Yosoemon (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The wording seems fine right now. Reuters is indeed a reliable secondary source here, the primary source would be Honda itself. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt Reuters reliability; but it is not being used as a secondary source here (second-hand, yes). A secondary source: "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The article in question has no analysis, it merely reports Honda's claim from 2006. Yosoemon (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Even if you consider Reuters as a primary source (which would make honda a zero-level source), It does not matter, reliable primary sources can be used too.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Friend, I am truly not trying to be difficult, and I would like to understand your position. Here is my issue: 1) Reuters may be a reliable source, but that does not mean it is forever relevant. It is being used to report a company's claim, not verify the truth of that claim. Things have changed since 2006. Are we to assume that Honda's claims are, and forever will be, as Reuters reported them to be in 2012, simply because Reuters is a reliable source? It is a fact that Honda has made other, more recent claims, which are printed in both company statements and journalistic outlets. On what basis are those being set aside? But more importantly: 2) Why are we conducting an independent analysis of aircraft fuel efficiency at all? This was also the position taken by MilborneOne below. Absent an independent scientific study, it would seem all we can state is that the plane was designed to improve fuel efficiency; whether it did or not is up to others to investigate. Yosoemon (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) If you have a newer statement with a ref, feel free to add it, but it does not allow to remove the previous one. 2) You stirred up this discussion, it is indeed way too bloated now.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m afraid I don’t take your meaning. But as it appears that neither of us is making any progress, let's end this for now and try again another day. Thank you. Yosoemon (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In that case, would it be best to eliminate the comparisons between other aircraft and simply note that "the HondaJet's design improves fuel efficiency?" The BCA link would be there for those interested in the specifics. Yosoemon (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. I just made the edit and tried to incorporate some earlier language. What do other editors think? Yosoemon (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree, the "HondaJet is more efficient" gimmick is more marketing fluff than real innovation. Even in the same page of the BCA handbook, you can see the high speed cruise of the Honda is 419 kn at a 0.419 nm/lb specific range, while the heavier, longer range Syberjet SJ30 is slightly faster in long range cruise at 436 kn while being much more efficient at .637 lb/nm (+%) with a similar cabin. Not bad for an aircraft designed in the 80s.


 * That's exactly why it is important to stick to real numbers and to avoid WP:OR in deciding which aircraft qualify as "similar" (and also it illustrates that high-speed cruise numbers are really pointless). FWIW, per BCA SJ30 still loses to HJ420 fuel-wise on each and every mission, which doesn't make SJ30 less ingenious BTW. Also, given the numbers I'd rather say that for HJ it is 420kts which is a marketing gimmick, not lower fuel consumption - but again, it is my personal opinion which doesn't belong to encyclopedia. Ipsign (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * My friend, please read the Syberjet SJ30 article. The aircraft is still in development (only 8 have ever been produced), meaning it can hardly be compared to the Phenom 100, M2, or Honda’s airplane. Let’s keep things neutral here. Yosoemon (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No, the SJ30 is not in development: initial development ended with type certification in 2005. The program has problems of investment and serial production, but not technology.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * My apologies for being unclear, I was referring to the SJ30i which "made its maiden flight on 9 October 2019 from San Antonio, Texas, starting an 18-month certification test program." Yosoemon (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The SJ30i is exactly the same as the certified SJ30, only with updated avionics and interior. Fuel efficiency won't change.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right, and I should have been more thorough before my original post. In any case, my point was that you cannot compare fuel efficiency if one aircraft has only 8 planes in operation, and another has 300. The amount of data you can collect from 8 SyberJets, along with their environmental impact, is simply at another level from 350 Phenom 100s. But this is getting us quickly off topic. Yosoemon (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, the numbers operating does not change anything for one type's fuel efficiency.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Handling Echelon
With the introduction of the bigger and longer range HA-480 Echelon, should the focus of this page shift to covering the entire HondaJet program, or should the Echelon get its own page? I could go either way, but the current layout is confusing. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)