Honda Jet...GSO?

[dav8or]

I picked up "The Southern Aviator" in the FBO yesterday and there was a brief mention of a Honda Jet being built in GSO. A new light jet powered by thier own engine. The artical said they had flown the engine on one side of a lear and the flew the wing on a T-33. Flight testing was to begin this year. Anyone know anything else?

 

[WrightAvia]

Try this link to a story in AIN. Looks like the jet will have the engines mounted on top of the wings.
http://www.ainonline.com/Features/newbusinessaircraft02/nba_hondajet.html

 

[WrightAvia]

here's an artist's concept of the Honda Jet...
http://www.marcpoole.com/art/aviation/honda.jpg

 

[dav8or]

Wow with the engines up high I wonder if you could get a seaplane mod?

I'm going to be watching for this thing now in GSO

 

[crash-proof]

I've seen about 100 different configurations floating around for that thing over the last couple years.

Only time will tell what they decide to adopt next.

 

[414Flyer]

Toyota supposedly has a project too going on in California, but I have heard a lot less about it..Another one of those hush hush programs

 

[bart]

Hell yes!

A jet powered MU2!

Where do I sign up?

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

Toyota is working on a 4-place, SE recip fixed-gear. The engine and plane are a 100% Toyota design. It will have a FADEC engine (a single lever control for the engine, with computer control-no mixture or prop controls).

Their plan is to do for the airplane what Ford did with the Model-T for cars. They want to build a car that will be easy to use and affordable. The Model-T made the car a possibility for the masses, and Toyota wants to re-create that concept.

In the last month or so, a guy I work with was jumpseating on a flight, and struck up a conversation with his seatmate. The guy said he worked for an organization (he would not name it) that was working on building a brand-new aircraft on an assembly line that would be much better and much cheaper than designs currently available. I'm almost 100% sure he worked for Toyota, from the information my co-worker told me.

I am hopeful that in the future I will be able to afford a modern aircraft. It will be much simpler to operate than the 50-year old Piper/Cessna/Mooney designs, and will sell as new for a simliar price as a luxury automobile.

Cliff
DTW

 

[sstearns2]

Toyota spent a ton of money on Ph.D.'s and contract engineers down in Torrance and seems to have come up with something that can't outperform a grumman tiger. This is toyota's second light airplane. I watched the first get cut up a couple years ago.

I wish Toyota and Honda would forget about airframes and focus on making us a modern, affordable light airplane engine. For those who don't know, Honda is the largest manufacturer of piston engines in the world. Aviation is the only area involving piston engines where they are not a major player. They are doing something with continental. I hope it is a lot of Honda and a little continental...

Scott

 

[crash-proof]

Their plan is to do for the airplane what Ford did with the Model-T for cars. They want to build a car that will be easy to use and affordable. The Model-T made the car a possibility for the masses, and Toyota wants to re-create that concept.

Didn't Cessna do that already? I think it was called....hmmm, let's see... Cessna 172?

 

[dav8or]

I would not look for a revolution from Toyota. Have you priced a Toyota car lately? 46K for the big SUV and I drive a Nissan truck because it was 2500 less than the Toyota. If they make a plane it will sell in the 300k range that you see for most new entry planes.

As a home builder I too would like to see a better cheaper engine. Check out the V220 bombardier is making. It has an AC pump

http://www.vaircraftengine.com/.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

Yeah, there is a 172, which costs about $250K, which is pretty expensive for a 1940s airplane. Imagine how many Fords they would sell if the sold a 1946 model today brand new for about $100K. It wouldn't be competitve.

The idea is, Toyota will sell a plane that is easier to fly than the 172 and costs something like $60-80K, which is similarly priced with a high-end car.

I hope they succeed.

CLiff
DTW

 

[601Pilot]

HondaJet

We worked on this airplane for Honda back in the
late 80s and early 90s at Miss. State. Not sure
if they have decided on modifying the old airframe
to a new design, but here are the pictures from
the first prototype. These are probably `92 or `93.

HondaJet (Miss. State)

601Pilot

 

[fLYbUDDY]

Where is the Chevy jet?

 

[cessna_driver2]

Where is the Chevy jet?

Right behind the ford jet

 

[fLYbUDDY]

Right behind the ford jet

Yeah giving the APU a jump start

 

[Airpiraterob]

SAAB's been building aircraft for YEARS......and their cars still turn out funky. even their engines. what makes you think Honda can build a plane and have it not turn out too small for us tall round-eyes?

 

[fLYbUDDY]

SAAB's been building aircraft for YEARS......and their cars still turn out funky. even their engines. what makes you think Honda can build a plane and have it not turn out too small for us tall round-eyes?

It seems like they have the aerodynamics figured out pretty well. I mean look at how practically every Honda Civic out there has a wing that is about the size of a 747's elevator. Come on is that really necessary with a 4 banger?

 

[dav8or]

When you are getting 100hp per liter your doing something right. Most a/c engines haven't changed much in 40 years. Even if they mack cheap power the price of the plane is not going to come down much due to overpriced radios. My neighbor has a SR22 with the Garmin stack, (2) 430's, S mode transponder and audio panel. That right there costs as much as my BMW Z3.

 

[sstearns2]

"Most a/c engines haven't changed much in 40 years. "

Actually they have. Check out www.xp360.com

Electronic ignition, digital engine control, port fuel injection, light weight composite oil sump and intake, light wieght starters and alternators, improved materials and manufacturing methods.....

It's like say boeing airplanes havn't changed much becasue a 777-200 looks basically like a 737-200 from a distance.

Scott

 

[NJA Capt]

Electronic ignition, digital engine control, port fuel injection, light weight composite oil sump and intake, light wieght starters and alternators, improved materials

All those things are accessories. The engines themselves are still horizontally opposed air cooled boat anchors.

Most of the enhancements you mentioned, to my knowledge, are not PMA/STC'd for earlier certificated airframes. I know they are useable on homebuilts though.

 

[sstearns2]

......

"All those things are accessories. The engines themselves are still horizontally opposed air cooled boat anchors.

Most of the enhancements you mentioned, to my knowledge, are not PMA/STC'd for earlier certificated airframes. I know they are useable on homebuilts though."

and homebuilts constitute almost 1/2 of the piston engined airplanes 'produced' in the US.

The light weight starters and alternators are all FAA certified. The Continental FADEC (digital engine control with high pressure car style fuel injection and electronic ignition) was certified 2 years ago. The Superior Air Parts O-360 clone is supposed to be certified by early next year with a host of improvments over lycomings core engine.

Horizontally opposed engines are a very good match for the geometry of most airplanes. Liquid cooling would just add weight and complexity.

Scott

 

[crash-proof]

liquid cooling

I beg to differ...recheck that link on bombardier's V6, it's got the displacement and weight of a continental O200 and puts out 300hp.

And look into that radial diesel 2-stroke engine made in Germany, it's been kinda hush hush over the years but man it's small, low RPM and looks very promising as well. (Think it's called...Zoche?)

I do think however it will be maaaany years till we hear traditional 4 and 6 bangers replaced by alternative engines.

 

[dav8or]

Re: liquid cooling

I beg to differ...recheck that link on bombardier's V6, it's got the displacement and weight of a continental O200 and puts out 300hp.

I do like the Bombardier V6 the problem with it is going to be price. Seach the web site and you will only find that "it will be competitively priced" Meaning it will cost 60k+ while an auto engine of the same technology cost 5-10k. I think someone already had a diesil engine out, the STC into a 182 costs 100k.

If you want to bring the price of aviation down it takes more than just fuel/cost/performance savings. Someone needs to mass produce an alternate/modern engine with better performance at a substantial savings.

Even the new light jets comming out have a cost average of 2mil. That is way outside what I'll ever be able to spend on an ac

 

[sstearns2]

I beg to differ...recheck that link on bombardier's V6, it's got the displacement and weight of a continental O200 and puts out 300hp.

And look into that radial diesel 2-stroke engine made in Germany, it's been kinda hush hush over the years but man it's small, low RPM and looks very promising as well. (Think it's called...Zoche?)


Zoche has been promising a revolutionary diesel aircraft engine for more than 10 years now and has never made an engine commercially available. I know thier webpage looks great, but unless you can actually buy and take delivery of an engine it really doesn't count.

Do you have a link for bombardier's V-6? Does the weight include the gear reduction drive and the starter?

Scott



Scott

 

[dav8or]

www.vaircraftengine.com

 

[sstearns2]

Thanks for the link.

The best way to compare engines is specific fuel consumption and power to weight ratio. HP per displacement is not really important. If I can get a 200 HP engine that weighs 200 lbs and has good fuel consumption, it doesn't matter what the displacement is. Of course price is a major issue, but one cannot yet buy the Bombardier engine.

So, let compare the numbers

Bombardier V-220

Weight/HP = 418 Lb / 220 HP = 1.9 Lbs/HP

(The weight on the webpage is in kilograms. 1 Kg = 2.2 Lbs, 190 Kg = 418 Lbs)

Specific fuel consumption = 0.42 lb/hr-HP


Superior Airparts XP-360 (www.xp-360.com)

Weight/HP = 287 Lb/ 180 HP = 1.59 Lbs/HP

Specific fuel consuption = 0.43 lb/hr-HP (with mags)


Lycoming TIO-360 Turbocharged

Weight/HP = 348 Lbs/ 210 HP = 1.65 Lbs/HP

Specific fuel consumption = couldn't find it, but probably about 0.45 to 0.48 with mags


The numbers clearly show that Bombardier's 'modern' engine doesn't even come close to the weight per horsepower of the TIO-360 or the XP-360. The weight of the XP-360 can also be cut by about 20 more pounds with the lightweight composite intake and electronic ignition giving 1.48 lbs/HP (and they're selling them right now).

The V-220 has a better SFC than the TIO-360 and slightly better than the XP-360, but both of these engines have magnetos and carbs or old style fuel injection. Both engines are available with FADEC (real digital high pressure fuel injection and electronic ignition). I havn't seen numbers for the FADEC engines yet, but I would be surprised if they didn't match or better the Bombardier engine.

Conclusion - Bombardiers 'modern' engine can match the fuel consumption of the current engines, but they fail badly in weight. The V-300 has better numbers, but it is important to note that the V-220 and V-300 are not being sold and until they gets in the hands of an independent test cell you have to assume thier data to be a bit 'optimistic'.

I don't buy it until I can buy it.

Scott

 

[dav8or]

Did I mention it had Air conditioning?

 

[sstearns2]

A/C

You can easily get A/C compressors for any airplane engine. They weight 6 or 8 lbs on any engine. Most of the other components of an A/C system (condensor, evaporator, valve, ducting, controls, etc) are on the airframe anyhow, as is most of the weight.

I also forgot to mention that the wieghts in my previous posts are dry weights, no oil or coolant. All the engines hold about the same amount of oil, but the liquid cooled V-220 has an additional 2 or so gallons of water which adds another 12 pounds to it's weight.

Scott

 

[dtoften]

You are all wrong. Diesel engines will be the next great leap in GA. Significantly reduced gph, higher TBO, turbocharged for hp at altitude, higher torque, better reliablity, no mags, run on jet or diesel fuel, etc. Only downfalls is increase in weight but not much, and a higher initial cost. But that cost is due to R&D and new manufacturing. Once they are in the pipestream for awhile, cost will be reduced over time.

With a reduced operating cost albeit a higher intial cost, I wonder why Cessna and Piper are not trying to install these engines on their aircraft. But the bigger question is why Continental and Lycoming are not R&D these type of engines in order to stay competitive. I can only guess that the public in USA would be skeptical of a 'new' engine.

Anyone see any major disadvantage of diesel?

http://www.centurion-engines.com/

http://www.smaengines.com/en/index_en.shtml

There is also a two stroke aviation diesel engine but can' find their website right now.