Honda Piston Aircraft Engine
 

Was there ever any official word from Honda or TCM on the disposition of this project? In 2003 they announced that they were collaborating on the project, and there were some really pretty pictures floating around... then nothing.

In a recent news report regarding their VLJ, there was an offhand comment that Honda had also designed a piston engine for aviation... but nothing further.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/...s/hondajet.php

Sure is a nice thought though... but I am sure that it would be just as expensive as anything else that is stamped "for aircraft use"!

Not viable business market?
 

May be some one can call Honda and ask? My guess is they where testing the waters and it does not make economic sense. How many engines will they sell? How many Civics do they sell. I think it was water cooled. I just posted a rant about how water cooling is not ideal for small airframes, unless some one takes a blank sheet airframe that is designed for a water cooled engine. When you take any plane designed for a Lyc and try and stuff a water cooling engine in it, it becomes a compromise.

I am sure Honda wanted a lot of money for there engine. Plus with their deep pockets I bet they needed lots of liability to cover there assets. Their competition is Lyc/TCM/ECI/Superior. It would be hard to make a new engine for what we pay for new Lycs. If they where going for a certified market, which is most likely they would need to find an airframe and pony up the BIG BUCKS to certify it.

I know Bombardier has a new engine they are suppose to certify, but it is a BIG engine, suited for a large single or twin. Also the cost is way past what most homebuilders would pay. If a little Rotax 73 cu-inch 115 hp can cost $30,000, you can imagine what Bombardier and Honda might want.

Honda is an "Engine Builder"
 

Years ago while in engineering school I did a research paper on Honda. The biggest discovery I made was that Honda considers itself an engine builder. Cars, string trimmers, generators, motorcycles, etc. are just a means to sell engines.

With that in mind, Honda just might introduce and airplane engine, certified or not. One can only hope anyway.

Maybe I am not looking at the whole picture, but I dont understand why a huge Japanese company like Honda, Toyota, Kawasaki Heavy industy, Mitubushi, etc dont get into the lite aircraft industry. With their technology, engineering, and global networks, I dont see why they cant do to GA what they have done with the compact auto or motorcycle markets: dominate it with highquality product at a low price. The pool of aircraft for us average working joes is drying up as the 30-50year old cessnas and pipers and such are loss through natural attrition. The current day replacements start at $200k, well out of our reach. I cant believe Honda or Toyota or whoever can't build a 172'ish highwing plane with a modern motor that goes 3000 TBO for $50-75k.

Build and Experiemental, may be?
 

Yea I don't think you are looking at the whole picture. I like your premise, a new $60K plane with a 3000 hour engine. Supposedly the LSA market is going to bring us a new Cessna "well south of $100K."

Now experimental is a different thing; to build a RV is at least $40K with 2000 hours of labor and one heck of a bargain hunter. That is day VFR, no paint fixed prop and H2AD. There ain't nut-in wrong with going 190 MPH. Are you NOT a builder? Of course it takes sweat equity. Engine wise, you can round up a good used Lyc for $10,000 to $15,000, if you are ok with a H2AD or a 150 HP conical mount engine. RV's fly great on 150 HP.

The turn the key $60K plane you talk about will be a compromise in every respect and not do anything more than a 40 year old Cessna, may be less.

Engine wise? There is nothing new under the sun and its hard to beat a Lycoming, even with HONDA technology. Besides Honda, Toyota looked into aircraft engines, they folded.

Aviation has never been for the poor. It is expensive; I can sympathise. There are less expensive ways to fly, not cheap but less expensive. Join an aero club, partners, gluider club, ultralights and so on.

However once you get into certified anything, its going to cost, despite the purchase price. Cost of gas, annuals, hangers, insurance is still the same. I agree $200K for a new Cessna that does little more than an old $40k cessna, except have pretty glass panel is a waste. I am totally not impressed with a $60,000 panel, at least in a single engine VFR plane. I think all SE planes are VFR planes or "fair-weather" IFR. I don't like poking around thunderstorms or ice in a typical GA single. Those panels are great, but not for me, at least in my personal little plane. At work as an airline pilot its a great tool. When I fly for fun, I like to look out the window and see the country side. A $700 GPS is pretty cool. You can get a pretty good panel for way less than $10,000.

Tell it like it is George. Your are my kind of guy

George: I respect your opinion, but to suggest that there is "nothing under the sun" new in engine technology, I gotta disagree. Aircooled, carburated, fixed timing, non-counterbalanced, mag fired pushrod motors are at least 50 years out of date. The Japanese have been building injected engines with half the displacement, same horsepower that easly go 3000 tbo (I'm estemating about 200,000 miles in a car) and are smooth as silk from 500 to 5000 RPM for 20 years. For about $4-8k a unit! With todays high precision metal fabrication and joining processes, Honda or Toyota or whoever could easly build a 172 copy out of aluminum for a fraction of the cost or time it took Cessna 50 years ago, probaly without a single rivet to boot. From computerised stampings, robotic welding, EB welding, friction stir welding, precision CNC stamping/shearing/punching, etc the tools for Honda to spit out a 172 frame every 2 minutes already exists. And it would probaly be lighter, smoother, and faster. I come from a manufacturing background, and I know it can be physicaly done. I guess my hangup is not factoring in the $100k per plane for the lawyers, lawsuits, and government bureaucracys :)
Whats everyone elses opinions? I doubt anyone would gloat over an aircooled motor the put out .6 horsepower per cubic inch in their 2006 Corvette...why is it "the hot ticket" for a performance aircraft? I see parallels between this topic and Harleys and Japanese motorcyles: Harley motors , up untill the the last few years, are similar designs as 50 years ago. Every Japanese bike engine can do the same job lighter, faster, cheaper, and longer. I don't think thats a bad thing :D

What about that Desiel Engine that they put in the American Flyers C-172? I have been holding off building my Fuel tanks untill ( The JET A nozzle holes are bigger) I find something positive.. I Talked to the lycoming reps and they said it would take a major commitment by a manufacturer to go forward with their desiel engine... is anyone else watching this?

NEW ENGINE DESIGNS
Honda: DOA
Bombardier: DOA
SMA Diesel: almost dead
Lycoming Diesel: DOA
DeltaHawk Diesel: heading for DOA
Thielert: successful so far; best chance of long-term success but not suited for RV's
Innodyne: DOA

Lawsuits
 

You got it Mike.......lawsuits,
I sold a bunch of Cessna Agwagons/Trucks in the seventies for around $35,000 new, with a brand new 300 HP IO-520 Conti. By the eighties, the airplanes were up to $100,000 and according to a Cessna engineer, 30% of that figure was for product liability insurance!! :eek: Go figure.

As for Honda producing airplane engines, we get back to the old water-cooled engine weight/drag/complexity/gearbox problems again. If anyone could do it, it would probably be the Japanese. Our suit-prone system and Union wages are a great big deterrent for American manufacturers to produce an engine/airplane in the price range you, me and everyone else would buy, so we roll our own. ;)

BTW, Harley engines still shake, they now have big, fat motor mounts to disguise their problems......inherent imbalance. :)
Regards,