Honda builds a jet
- Thread starter Maggot
- Start date
I walked around a mockup of this plane at Oshkosh...10 years ago.
They've taken their sweet time with it and had plenty of setbacks along the way, no doubt underestimating the process of getting a clean-sheet design certified.
Be interesting to see what it REALLY does, but there are plane buyers who will order on Honda's name alone.
They've taken their sweet time with it and had plenty of setbacks along the way, no doubt underestimating the process of getting a clean-sheet design certified.
Be interesting to see what it REALLY does, but there are plane buyers who will order on Honda's name alone.
Having the engines on pods would make me just a bit uncomfortable. Seems it would create more torque and thus more stress. Over a long period of time it could lead to catastrophic failure. I think Ill keep my engines on the fuselage or wing, thanks.
That said, what ever Ive seen Honda build is high quality.
That said, what ever Ive seen Honda build is high quality.
Indeed.
In conversations with Japanese businessmen, my boss has had the HondaJet come up and the universal feeling from the Japanese is Honda will NOT start delivering airplanes until they meet *their* standard without compromise, and that has contributed to the lengthy delay in certification.
After seeing recent "never buy the A model of anything" issues from Cessna, Embraer, Boeing and Airbus...Honda's take is a pretty compelling model.
"Another unconventional element of the configuration is the engine location above the wing trailing edge. Over-wing nacelles have long been avoided in aircraft design because of adverse transonic interference with the wing, but careful optimization by Honda of the engine location on the HondaJet has given the configuration new credibility.
Lockheed studied cruise interference drag with engines mounted in several locations—under and over the wing leading edge, over the trailing edge and on the aft fuselage—and generated more than 15,000 Navier-Stokes CFD solutions. The results showed that mounting the nacelles over the inboard trailing edge improved lift-to-drag ratio, regardless of engine type, for an aerodynamic benefit of up to 5% over a conventional under-wing location. "
Lockheed Martin Refines Hybrid Wing-Body Airlifter Concept | AWIN content from Aviation Week
The citation X has had great success, as well as the MD10 and MD11 with the engines in that location. Nothing wrong with it at all. The real question is going to be what do they bring to the table for that price tag.
All these SJ's are going to get a lot of wealthy people killed. Just because you can afford it, doesn't mean you should. I've seen way too many people who think that just because they have an instrument rating they can go fly in the clouds.
These will become the new doctor killers, replacing the legendary beech Bonanza.
Posted via Tapatalk HD for iPad
The engines that you are comfortable with on the fuselage or the winds are also on a similar pod support, just might look a bit different and a different location.
Not to mention torque isn't really an issue with jet engines, more of a turboprop/prop issue. Otherwise the 777 would have serious problems with up to 120,000 lbs of thrust on each side.
Posted via Tapatalk HD for iPad
The X's engines are mounted on the rear fuselage, not overwing pylons ala VFW 614.
The Hondajet is larger than a Phenom 100...and despite fainting couches full of doubters, there has not been a rash of EclipseJets, Phenoms, Mustangs and CJs falling from the skies.
The Hondajet is larger than a Phenom 100...and despite fainting couches full of doubters, there has not been a rash of EclipseJets, Phenoms, Mustangs and CJs falling from the skies.
I didn't see it mentioned yet, but the honda jet will be built in Greensboro, nc. It seems they are doing a good job of training local people to work in the plant.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Similar threads
