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/2006/07/25/business/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?

G-force said:

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 high quality product at a low price. The pool of aircraft for us average working joes is drying up as the 30-50year old Cessna's 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 high wing plane with a modern motor that goes 3000 TBO for $50-75k.

Click to expand...

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

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!! 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,

If you look at the congressional findings behind the General Aviation Revitalization Act...which limited nfg liability, you will find that at the time, when 172's were selling for $182K, the actual price to build and sell would have been in the neighborhood of $85K, and that the additional $100K represented the cost of liability.

As to carb, fixed timing, etc...in an engine with an operating range of 300 rpm, fixed timing works great, and there are only small gains to be made.

Air cooling is not outdated, it is just difficult for it to meet the packaging requirements of a car, on the other hand, water cooling does not easily meet the packaging demands of an airplane....match the tech to the application.

Finally, none of those cars go 200,000 miles at 75% output. If you ran them that way, you would see many more failures. By the way, the O-320's tend to go 2500-3000 hours if flown regularly, and maintained.

The car engine would also not last if you only drove it once per week, for an hour or two.

The prototype Honda designed looked an awful lot like a lycoming.

gmcjetpilot said:

f a little Rotax 73 cu-inch 115 hp can cost $30,000, you can imagine what Bombardier and Honda might want.

Click to expand...

The 100Hp 912S is running 14k to 15k. The turbo, 115 HP 914F is running about 24k. However, you the turbo motor is very different from the non-turbo motor. You need to compare it to other turbo motors due to performance at altitude.

The 912S (and similarly-priced Jabiru 3300) would, IMHO sell much better at $10k. That would be the magic price for making the $60k LSA a reality.

bumblebee said:

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

Click to expand...

Isn't Thielert going to make a bigger engine?:

I thought Lycoming is making a new Diesel engine (as announced at OSH)

RV505 said:

Isn't Thielert going to make a bigger engine?:

Click to expand...

too big for RV's except maybe the -10. It probably will be too heavy for the -10 though.

Jconard said:

Air cooling is not outdated, it is just difficult for it to meet the packaging requirements of a car, on the other hand, water cooling does not easily meet the packaging demands of an airplane....match the tech to the application.

.

Click to expand...

As a long time 911 owner - I believe Porsche has done an excellent job of packaging that boxer for the past 40 years. The problem came in the 90's, when an air cooled engine could no longer meet tightening emissions standards. So now my beloved boxer engine is complicated by cooling and emissions garbage to the point that the actual engine can no longer be seen.
Heaven help us the day that some politician decides we need to start smogging our aircraft engines...

Paul Thomas said:

I thought Lycoming is making a new Diesel engine (as announced at OSH)

Click to expand...

Lycoming has been "announcing" a diesel for nearly 10 years. Notice the distinct lack of fanfare re the diesel. The display at OSH was not remotely close to being a production engine. That's not to say Lycoming won't eventually produce a diesel, but the odds are long and low you'll see a workable diesel from them in this lifetime.

The irony is that Lycoming has no experience in clean-sheet development. The other diesel mfrs are light-years ahead of Lycoming, even if their engines aren't commercially viable. And Lycoming has to convince Textron (corporate parent) to shell out at least $40 million to achieve a certified engine. That's big $$ even for Lycoming.

With the sole exception of the DeltaHawk, the flying diesels (SMA, Thielert & DeltaHawk) are best suited for larger airframes (Maule, 182, twins, etc.) due to weight and cooling requirements. Anything Lycoming develops will most likely be too heavy/bulky/slow for any RV application.

Nothing about the Lycoming diesel suggests it would be a quantum leap over the others. Given the time and money it took to get the others where they are today, the Lycoming diesel is essentially DOA.

Honda or Toyota could produce an aircraft engine superior to the current offerings but this would not be a great way to make serious money for them. Revenue for these companies is made via mass production and the small quantities used in the aircraft industry don't qualify on their scale (millions of engines per year). If they did this at all it would be to demonstrate their engineering and technical capabilities and to diversify. Honda might be more apt to do this as they produce many different engines types for many different products. In the end though, product liability costs might make the whole thing just not worth it. Although I suspect they have lawsuits with regards to all of their motorized products (foot cut off with lawnmower etc.) already so who is to say.

I have to say this again when anyone brings up the point about automotive type engines not lasting at high rpm and power levels- SHOW ME THE PROOF. In Europe, cars are often cruised at power levels from 75-100% and they are going 200,000 to 400,000 km without overhaul most of the time. The OEs conduct full thottle torture testing on most of their engines today lasting between 250 and 1600 hours depending on the type of data they are seeking. There is more proof to the contrary of this outdated notion.

Because we drive along at 25% power or less in North America has no relation to what modern engines are tested to nor capable of. With the close tolerances (.0002 typically in Japanese and German engines on bearing fit and cylinder walls, 2-3 grams on reciprocating parts) in modern liquid cooled engines, thin multigrade, synthetic oils and the latest design technology, wear rates are extremely low.

Finally the cost issue. With Subaru and Chevrolet selling longblocks at around $5000 retail, manufactured in numbers of hundreds of thousands of units per year, it is not unreasonable to think that aircraft units made in tens of thousands could be profitably sold for something in the $15,000 range.

Honda and Toyota in particular are funny companies in some respects when it comes to engineering exercises and marketing. Many projects are undertaken strictly to advance knowledge and will never see production.

It is naive for anyone truly knowledgable in engines, design, production and testing to think that Honda or Toyota cannot build a better engine than Lycoming or Continental for aircraft. The technology, funding and experience they have at their disposal dwarfs anything the aircraft engine companies have. The big question is just- will they ever do it?

Continental has steadily moved towards similar technologies as what the Japanese pioneered over two decades ago. They now have quite modern production machinery and have adopted Six Sigma type programs. They are modernizing their designs new and old. Lycoming has recently begun similar work. Better quality and performance should be the result. They are way behind what the latest auto facilities are doing today with design, robotics and dark factories however.

Good to know, I'll call if I need a rotax

the_other_dougreeves said:

The 100Hp 912S is running 14k to 15k. The turbo, 115 HP 914F is running about 24k. However, you the turbo motor is very different from the non-turbo motor. You need to compare it to other turbo motors due to performance at altitude.

The 912S (and similarly-priced Jabiru 3300) would, IMHO sell much better at $10k. That would be the magic price for making the $60k LSA a reality.

Click to expand...

Thanks I think you have better prices, I got the prices (CND) here:

912 UL - 4 cyl. 81 hp-$16,100 or $22,200 (hyd prop)
http://www.ultralightnews.ca/rotaxengineprices/4.html

912 ULS - 4 cyl. 100-$18,400 or $23,600 (hyd prop)
http://www.ultralightnews.ca/rotaxengineprices/5.html

914 UL - 4 Cyl. Turbo 115 hp-$26,800 or $33,500 (hyd prop)
http://www.ultralightnews.ca/rotaxengineprices/6.html

Exchange rate today: 1.00 USD = 1.11113 CAD

I think I was quoting the turbo with prop = $30,150, The reason why I quoted that was apples and apples, but lets compare a NEW Continental IO-240-125HP ($19,175) or Lycoming O-235-118HP ($22,500), they cost less than a Rotax, so modern engine and all myth a side, engines cost a lot and continental and lycoming are priced fairly.

I also think Rotax service centers are few and far between and the water cooling is a pain in the back side. Other than that they cost more for less hp. My point is not a Rotax attack, but the idea of a CHEAP NEW AIRPLANE made by a Japanese company. The ROTAX is not cheap and will not last 3000 hours. The current engines Lyc/Cont are pretty good. ALso the aircooling thing is an advantage on a plane, going for light weight and low drag. Just my opinion.

I wish it where so, I want it too but........

G-force said:

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 estimating 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 easily build a 172 copy out of aluminum for a fraction of the cost or time it took Cessna 50 years ago, probably 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 probably be lighter, smoother, and faster. I come from a manufacturing background, and I know it can be physically 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

Click to expand...

I like that name G-force, my girlfriend calls me Geeeeee.

I got an easy response, prove it could work ($5k engines, manufacturing processes) in planes.

Yea I know about smooth engines. My airport car is a 1988 acura legend with 225,000 miles. That V-6 is awesome, in a car, desaster in a plane. I get some valve noise when cold, but overall it is still tight. What people don't understand is automobiles and planes are quite different, and I am not being sarcastic, it is just a fact. Again if car engines are so good, subaru, suzuki, mazda than why are they not setting the aviation world on fire?

I can't believe people don't worship the beauty of the air-cooled Lyc. I understand its human nature to want something new. The sad part its all the rhetoric has achieved nothing as good as the Lyc. The idea of a Lexus engine and airplane is nice but than reality sets in. Hard to believe a 50 YEAR OLD direct drive air cooled technology still rules. Hey the wheel is still round; they have not improved that old technology.

TCM is good also, their IO-240 (based on the venerable O-200, used on the ubiquitous C-150) is a good engine, but TCM product line is geared more for large 6-cylinders. Lyc with their 235, 320, 360, 390 and even the 540 is a great line of proven, reliable technology.

I dislike antique furniture and homes. I love modern, but when it comes to my engine, antique technology as people imply, is still as current and valid today as it was in WWII or even pre WWII. The idea of cams, valves, rods, pistons, piston rings, cranks, rocker arms, springs and all the machine elements is still the same. Yes, Lyc as made improvements in some materials or finishes and design details, like roller cams, which should eliminate any early cam wear issues. Look at the new cylinder materials and ring coatings. It just does not get any better.

The perceive HI-TEC of a Honda comes from water cooling, which equals lower noise and tighter clearances (piston/cyl) and even longevity due to lower valve temps. However water cooling is heavy and hard to fit. The engine may be great BUT IT HAS TO FIT THE AIRFRAME.

Air cooled engines, no matter how much you wish it was not so, are well suited, better suited for light planes. It is just physics, aerodynamics and engineering. It is just a good match. Yes it has draw backs, but it still is the best choice.

BTW, except for electronics, water cooling, overhead cams, multi multi valves per cylinder, turbos, superchargers are not new, they where around the 20's, 30's and 40's. A 2,700 rpm one power setting 99% of the time cruise, does not need electronics, fuel injection or water cooling. This stuff is great for emissions and lower sound, but comes at cost of weight, a killer on an airplane and drag. My comment, there is nothing new under the sun is a correct statement in my opinion:


You admire the Japanese, me to, but you overestimate their abilities. First in modern times Japan has developed a few planes. Frankly they where mostly failures or marginal aircraft. Their modern all japan commercial aircraft history is spotty at best. (Nippon YS-11, Mitsubishi MU turbo prop, GA planes, one cessna clone, one piper clone, none that great.)

As far as motorcycles, the No. 1 NHRA points leader, Andrew Hines is on a Harley. I had a Suzuki GS1100, great bike. There all good. Again engines made for the application. I like the BMW R1100RT "Air head" Horz twin.


The next myth is manufacturing can reduce cost so much it will make cheap planes. May be if there was volumn. The volume is not there. Also aluminum or composites are NOT cheap. Look at Cirrus and Lancair Columbia, that is the reality, a $250,000 airplane, but they're desirable planes. People have to WANT to buy them. The bar is pretty high. A nice ultra light cost $30,000. A Rotax can be more than a Lyc.

Rotax charges $30,000 for a little 115 hp turbo engine, so forget a $5,000 name brand Honda. My Honda Lawnmower cost $800. For Honda to make an engine suitable, it would be an all new engine. With low volumn, development and tooling, I see $60,000. It still will not go faster or burn significantly less fuel than a Lycoming?

An all Honda airplane will need materials, labor, overhead, insurance and of course liability and leagle defense dept cost money. A home builder puts at least $60,000 into a nice RV, using free labor and arguably one of the best bargains in kit planes on the market, Van's RV. You can do the math. Paying skilled labor to build it, in a heated cooled factory will be expensive. I think you put too much faith into manufacturing process and digital machine tools. CNC or what ever is not going to change the cost structure. First those things cost $$. You still need rivets for aluminum, which is labor intensive, as is composites. Aluminum is NOT cheap. The eclipse Bizz jet reported to use friction stir welding, originally used in missile construction. I think it was a nightmare to get certified. I don't know if they ended up not using it. It remains to be seen if it meets the markets needs and is successful. If no one buys it, it does not matter how cool it is.

The solution is go out and make more money, build or restore a plane or TLC an old bird. We need to take care of those old Birds.

I appreciate the Debate G-Force (love that handle), good stuff and a pleasure. I am not saying it will not happen, just not today or in the foreseeable future.

Cheers G-man (not as good sounding G-Force)

Just one thing

To quote below

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.


Yes it can be physically done, but actually it can't. If I go back to my MBA manufacturing theory classes I find that manufacturing costs go down by 35% everytime production is doubled.

I.e the unit cost per engine when making 20,000 a month is 35% less than when making 10,000 units a month.

Herein lies the problem....If you make car engines by the hundreds of thousands they become very cheap indeed. There is no high volume manufacturer in the world that would tool up to make the miniscule amount of engines we consume, because each engine would cost more than the entire airplane.

Add to that the costs of certification and I think we are dreaming if we think the robot controlled CNC quality is coming our way anytime soon.

The Honda airplane engine (who's basic layout looks a lot like a Lycoming...Wonder how that happened?.....) is a case in point...No volume, not worth the capital investment.

Frank

Excellent insight

Frank, good points, and appreciate your MBA insight. Yea so you are saying a $.25M Cirrus or Lancair could cost $160 grand with better manufacturing. I would say with great respect, MBA professors may not know the aerospace industry. If you read the sport aviation article on manufacture of cirrus it is amazing how tedious it is to make the airframe. May be injection molded planes in the future?

However because these are vehicles carrying people aloft, a mile or miles above the earth, planes are just complex and made with very high quality and very expensive parts, so that 35% may be off from say making, refrigerators, ovens or toasters. Just my totally non MBA perspective and could be wrong. You did say theory. Thanks George

Good points made by all. I feel guilty for wishing my aircraft engine responded automatically to changes in altitude and temperature as well as my Dodge Dakota. I think the common thread is "tiny market." If we all held hands and agreed to each buy one of (name your 180HP engine of choice), we collectively couldn't make a dent compared to massive industries such as automotive. That's why GA is the whipping boy for the homeland security issue. (Topic for another thread, huh.) Still, guilt or no, I will cling to the idea that, as home builders, we can step outside the box of normal and practical. As an engineer, I recognize the basic truth of the KISS principle. But, there is beauty in the elegant solution that steps out an inch further from the crowd. I'll keep watching DeltaHawk and FADEC technologies as I build toward that engine decision point. Let's keep discussing the possibilities.

To George

I quote

However because these are vehicles carrying people aloft, a mile or miles above the earth. Planes are just complex and made with very high quality and very expensive parts, that 35% may be off from say making, refrigerators, ovens or toasters. Just my totally non MBA perspective and could be wrong. You did say theory. Thanks George


Indeed, and I was refering primarily to he idea that CNC manufacturing technology could be applied to engines...I.e spitting them out like donuts like the automotive guys do.

In this high volume environment you build the quality in at the component manufacturing level...it is how the Japanese whooped our collective butts when making cars...Demming and all that good stuff.

I was not saying it would work for airframes...as you say airframe tend to be hand built by the very nature of their size.

An engine hoever is a set of tigthly fitting componets that whizz around and they all do the same job and and they are small compared to a 747 airframe...So I stand by my position that IF you could sell enough of them then it would be worth tooling up to make really high quality components and the price would then come tumbling down. Its intersting how European manufacturers are now sharing engines...I.e much cheaper to make a lot of one type of engine than half as many of two types...Hey Just like the RR Merlin engine in the P51 Mustang...what comes around goes around...

Not sure how it would work for very low volumes, I'm sure you would get some discounts but the formula I presented may not fit I grant you.

Frank


__________________

Hi frank I think your theory is correct for the engines and maybe even the airframes to a point, the problem is not that it cant be done on the supply side but rather it cant be done because there is no demand. My Lycoming rep buddy told me they just celebrated there 250,000th engine or something like that and that?s sense 1928 so you can see a manufacture cant go building 100,000 units per year, airplanes or engines. Even if you had the buyers there are no airports to store these new airplanes, or airplanes to put these new engines in. I think everybody hear including you and I know where screwed and will never see any thing new or cheap in our life time, airplanes or engines. My angle valve IO-360 cost more then the wife?s loaded 02 Honda accord, but it sure does run great for its mission, I?m happy with what it is, to bad we will never see it cost less. Ok we might see somthing new but it will cost just as much or more then the stuff we have now.

frankh said:

and I think we are dreaming if we think the robot controlled CNC quality is coming our way anytime soon.


Frank

Click to expand...

Jabairu.

Mike

I suppose that despite the fact that modern production techniques are now in place at Lycoming and Continental and production costs should be down, the only way we'll ever see a reduction in their prices in when another serious player brings an equal or better engine to the market at a lower price. The clones have already forced Lyco to respond to some degree and that is good for all I think.

I know if Honda actually started selling their engine for $15,000 complete, I'd be signed up.

Weight

Mike S said:

Jabairu.

Mike

Click to expand...

Heavy, hogging out aluminum blocks to make cases and heads is pretty but heavy. Precision structural sand castings may not give that satisfying aluminum machined finish, but they are lighter. This does point to the true Joy and advantage of CNC, you can go from computer to part and hog out a block of aluminum. To make castings and tooling is a true art and expensive. I see beauty in the rough casting finish of my Lyc case and head. I don't know much about the Jabairu, but did look at their web site. Looks cool, all the best to them. May be that is how Honda would make an engine, however weights critical to a plane much more than a car.


RV6ejguy I would also sign up for that $15K Honda, if it bolts into a Lyc spot, puts at least puts out the same power on the same or less fuel. Honda has a tall order getting something like that out. Haaaa but we can dream.

Frank you might be able to address this or find this business plan interesting, the Japanese make plans based on not one quarter or even one or two years down the road but 100 years down the road. They tested the thing not far from my house. Honda JET

It looks like they are more focused on getting into the small jet market, than the GA market. This is more in line with the 100 year plan. (if you have high speed web click this for video, takes a little time to load.) The engines on the wing pylons just looks wrong to me. I love the est price of $900,000 - $2,700,000. That's a range. Per my previous post Japans post war solo commercial planes have not been a big successes, in fact some like the YS-11 where just dangerous. The MU-2 turbo prop has a bit of a sour reputation, but mostly its from being under valued so private pilots get a hold of them, who should not be flying them. In the hands of professionally trained and experience pilots they are fine.


There is no doubt in my mind japan wants to over take Boeing or Airbus in their long range plans, not cessna or piper. I worked at Boeing in the early 80's for a time. We had Japanese engineers work in the US side by side at Boeing because they manufacture many parts for Boeing, so it was thought that it would be good to have their people see the design and analysis process. No offense but they copied and basically stole every design manual that was not nailed down. I was shocked. Years later after I left, Japan is now a risk taking partner on the B777. It cost so much to develop a large jet one company can't shoulder the cost. The B747 almost put Boeing under for good in the early 70's. So now Japan as a partner wanted to make the wing, since they know how to make fuselage sections. Boeing controls the wing design and manufacture closely and said no. Fuselage making is not where the technology is. I have no doubt Japan wants to learn as much as they can to make large jets, but that may be 100 years from now. The Honda Jet uses engines they worked on with GE, no doubt they are learning more and going to make jet engines as well at some point.


P.S., yes frank volumn is key and agree the manufacturing process effect on cost is more applicable to the engine. Again excellent points.

I cannot imagine that Honda or any other auto engine builder could improve significantly over the existing Subaru motor setup in aircraft, with the very notable exception of the Mazda rotary design. To me the decision comes to five points, in the approximate order of importance (to me...):
1. Safety/Reliablity
2. Power to weight
3. Air vs Water cooling
4. Lifetime costs (initial + maintenance +rebuild costs)
5. Operation characteristics, i.e., vibration (rotary vs reciprocating, stroke length), noise, efficiency, prop availability, ease of installation...

I just might add that most of the systems around are quite similiar on most of these points, some might be significantly better than others in one or two of the items, but the relative ordering of importance depends on your situation.

I wouldn't say the Sube is optimal for aircraft. It just happens to be opposed, relatively light and reliable. It works pretty well but could stand to be lighter and have the flatter torque curves which is not hard to do with cam and manifold changes. The big weight savings would come with an integrated redrive. Properly designed, I think it could be 20-25 lbs. lighter than the current bolt on offerings.

With regards to the Honda, this was developed in conjunction with TCM after a 3 year study by Honda on all types of aero engines and had the spin off of launching the way for Honda's HF118 jet engine (developed with GE) and aircraft which they now plan to sell. Compared to the TCM and Lyco engines available, the Honda piston engine was proported to be lighter, more fuel efficient, quieter, have lower vibration and be able to run on unleaded fuel. Honda shoots pretty straight and I doubt they would study the whole thing so carefully with TCM to build an engine that was inferior to the current offerings. That's not Honda's way. Honda applied motorcycle and automotive experience to TCMs to come up with the design and it made a lot of sense to me.

With most engines still using aluminum primarily, even higher weight savings could be realized using magnesium or matrix composites. BMW has some production parts built from this material now.

It is silly to think that a modern, clean sheet, liquid cooled design could not weigh less and get lower fuel flows than a O-360. The basic 2006 Subaru EJ25 is now rated at 175hp and weighs about 210 lbs. (long block and intake). With a 35 lb. redrive, rads and coolant, weight would be very close to an O-360. The EJ25 is hardly a clean sheet design for aircraft useage. Certainly the Rotax 912-914 engines are substantially lighter than an O-200 or O-235. Honda also apparently did it all- we just can't buy one.

There is already an automotive Lyco 0360 equavalent- the Mazda Renesis engine. Same installed weight as the 320 with extremely reliable 0540 class output.

IMHO, a little more difficult installation, but all else equavalent or slightly superior, at 1/3 the cost. iInstalled weight 325-350 lbs (bare motor abt 200 lbs), 200-250hp peak naturally aspirated, ~$8,000. Only two strong rotors and a short "cam" shaft rotate in a continuous circular direction, no valves to fail or overheat, extremely smooth operation.

cobra said:

Only two strong rotors and a short "cam" shaft rotate in a continuous circular direction, .

Click to expand...

Sorry to deflate your balloon, but the last thing the rotors do is have acircular motion.

The rotors orbit arount the eccentric shaft at 1/2 speed ( If I remember correctly), and they are essentialy tringular in shape. They move inside a chamber that is like a short fat figure 8---called a trochoid-----and each of the rotor tips follow the chamber walls, one at a time.

The path, and the vibration procuced is complex enough to give a Cray computer heartburn. Luckily, the mass is moving through a very short moment arm, so the forces are small.

That said, the Wankel engine is a wonderfuly simple unit, amazing power produced for a compact volume of engine.

Early attempts to use Wankel------Mazda------engines in AC had some truly amazing failures of the PSRUs-----vibration and harmonics being the culprets there.

Mike

Mike,
I certainly dont disagree with you, if fact, I used to think the same way you do, but if you look at the rotor itself, it rotates in a continuous circle around a stationary central gear- look at either the rotor midpoint. The trichoid lobes do have a motion that appears to be wobbling around the case, but the rotors do not. The crankshaft has no wobble at all. BTW, the rotors move at 1/3 the cranshaft rpm. In addition, the two rotors offset each other's motion, beautifully balanced.

Just ask yourself, which of the designs has less internal stress to balance and related vibration, a 4 or 6 piston large bore/long stroke reciprocating engine or a 2 rotor wankel? The wankel has no problems with high rpm up to 10,000 or so, peak power generated around 7500 rpm. Aircraft operations are generally within the 4000-6000 range. 6000 rpm is ideal, the centrifugal and power pulses cancel each other w/very little wear to the bearings. 6000 rpm generates abt 180 hp in the Renesis motor at sea level. Need more power for climbout or whatever- just hit the throttle, adjust prop, and hold on w/another 20-50hp in reserve.


http://www.rotaryengineillustrated.com/wankel-engine-animations/2-rotors-in-motion-2.html

Yes, and no

Mike thanks, couldnt remember is it was 1/2, or 1/3 crank speed, been a long time since I had my last Mazda, RX-7, prior a Rx4. Rx-7 was a bit enhanced with Racing Beat goodies, and a 13b.

I also helped a buddy with a half 13b powered Dragonfly. When the prop sheft broke, the prop was just slowing back down from runup, prior to takeoff. Pretty good timeing there. I also did a lot of research on PSRU drives for this application---------Ross had the best going then, apx 20 years ago.

Hopefully the current batch of folks doing these conversions have figured out the stresses involved. There ARE strange things going on in there, in the vibration/harmonic world. And then when you couple that to a high disc load such as a spinning prop, instead of a load found in a car, you open a whole new can of worms.

I am not against either Mazda/Wankel engines, or their use in AC, in fact I REALLY hope that those working on these conversions are sucessful, I would love to put one on my -10.

It is just that, like the cooling drag issue on another thread, it is not as easy as it seems, and intitution isnt always gonna work.

Mike

NO

cobra said:

Mike,
but if you look at the rotor itself, it rotates in a continuous circle around a stationary central gear- l[/url]

Click to expand...

Sorry, but again I have to take issue with you on that.

The rotor in NOT in a continous CONCENTRIC circle. It is in an orbit that is controled by the position of the eccentric shaft----equivelent of the crankshaft in a recip engine----coupled with the stationary gear. At any instant, the rotor's mass can be at ANY point of the compass 360 degrees off center form the eccentric shaft.

The rotors center of mass describes a set of points that all lie on a circle arround the eccentric shafts center, but the rotors mass is NEVER concentric with the shaft.

Mike

IMHO either the 3 rotor 20B or a turbocharged 2 rotor would be ideal in a 10, provided you can work out the cg issues with the lighter motor.

The harmonic issues have been worked out- all it takes is a rubber dampener between the flywheel and the redrive. Early on, direct linkage setups wrecked havoc on dynometers; those issues are easily solved.

Tracy Crook sells several very strong planetary dampened redrives along with a very useful programmable fuel/ignition system that allows leaning the mixture during flight. http://www.rotaryaviation.com/

Mike, thanks for the link, interesting reading.

As I stated before, I had looked into the Ross about 20 years ago---------nice to see that the same problems I noticed then have now been solved by Tracy.

The Wankel is a wonderful engine, it seems that of the at least 5 manufactures who have produced them in the past, only Mazda has ben able to keep it going---even through a few start/stop production cycles.

As I have said, they do produce viberation, which is greatly different from most other recips, they are not viberation free, or "turbine like", luckily folks like Tracy have held in there long enough to overcome.

Mike

P.S., the 5 I know of are OMC, Norton, OS, Mazda, and Moller

cobra said:

I cannot imagine that Honda or any other auto engine builder could improve significantly over the existing Subaru motor setup in aircraft, with the very notable exception of the Mazda rotary design. To me the decision comes to five points, in the approximate order of importance (to me...):
1. Safety/Reliablity
2. Power to weight
3. Air vs Water cooling
4. Lifetime costs (initial + maintenance +rebuild costs)
5. Operation characteristics, i.e., vibration (rotary vs reciprocating, stroke length), noise, efficiency, prop availability, ease of installation...

I just might add that most of the systems around are quite similiar on most of these points, some might be significantly better than others in one or two of the items, but the relative ordering of importance depends on your situation.

Click to expand...

I might offer the:

the Toyota D-4D [used in europe in Lexus and Toyotas]

Clean Power, aluminum head and block, 160 kg, 180HP

as a possibly better auto conversion.

would allow for single lever fuel control, direct drive, tons of torque, JetA fuel...

I have to believe this has a lot of potential...

ymmv

John

2.2 D-4D 180 (2,231cc) chain-cam 4-cylinder: 130kW (177PS) at 3,600 rpm; 400Nm (295 lb ft) torque at 2,000 ? 2,600 rpm.

Direct drive on the D-4D???

More Info

Is there a reference or website that will twll us about the Toyota Diesel? I have looked and cannot find much. How much does it weigh?

Little jets.

ww2planes said:

Is there a reference or website that will twll us about the Toyota Diesel? I have looked and cannot find much. How much does it weigh?

Click to expand...

I am starting to think diesels are great for larger planes, but not small ones. The nasty weight deal. Unfortunately they are running into the new mini jets like the eclipse, for just a measly 1.5-1.8 mil. I think those little jet engines are awesome. A new single engine jet may be, something practical unlike the BD-5.

Cobra,

Tracy Crooks website says that the installations are heavier. Second, there is no circular motion, and infact that is why the "crank" has an ofset. True, much of the stress is taken by the chamber walls, but as for the rest, it is not a consentric circle.

Fuel burn?

I found nearly a dozen times where you have inserted into posts of all different topics your comments, usually sounding like "Hey, why not put in an ultra reliable, lightweight, low cost, low fuel burn rotary"

PLEASE show me a single, available, installed: lightweight, high power, low fuel burn, low cost installation....oh yes, and if it could do all that at the same speed, it would be great.


You simply assert that the different installation and vibration environments have been solved...for which engines and which props? Even tracy would tell you that his experience is more limited than your assertions...no offense, but other than alot of surfing, I am not sure I understand the basis for your assertions, but at this point it seems not to be supported by any first hand experience as an engineer, installer, or pilot. The rotary engines run great...until they don't, and it can be spectacular. My experience is based on 13 years of road racing with 5 starts in a rotary powered formula car, and 2 years of working with a buddy on a C-Mod rotary powered car, and 2 starts in a rotary c-sports racer.

So, please put your cards on the table.

If you don't want a rotary engine, don't put one in your plane. Let him put one in his. Hang whatever kind of motor you want on your plane. I'm going with a Superior XP-360. A friend of my is going with a Subaru. Both engines are EXPERIMENTAL which is what we are. It's all good.

Bickering about it is pointless.

Jconard said:

Cobra,

Tracy Crooks website says that the installations are heavier. Second, there is no circular motion, and infact that is why the "crank" has an ofset. True, much of the stress is taken by the chamber walls, but as for the rest, it is not a consentric circle.

Fuel burn?

I found nearly a dozen times where you have inserted into posts of all different topics your comments, usually sounding like "Hey, why not put in an ultra reliable, lightweight, low cost, low fuel burn rotary"

PLEASE show me a single, available, installed: lightweight, high power, low fuel burn, low cost installation....oh yes, and if it could do all that at the same speed, it would be great.


You simply assert that the different installation and vibration environments have been solved...for which engines and which props? Even tracy would tell you that his experience is more limited than your assertions...no offense, but other than alot of surfing, I am not sure I understand the basis for your assertions, but at this point it seems not to be supported by any first hand experience as an engineer, installer, or pilot. The rotary engines run great...until they don't, and it can be spectacular. My experience is based on 13 years of road racing with 5 starts in a rotary powered formula car, and 2 years of working with a buddy on a C-Mod rotary powered car, and 2 starts in a rotary c-sports racer.

So, please put your cards on the table.

Click to expand...

J,
The rotary, the most misunderstood engine out there. The rotor ORBITS the output/excentric shaft. The motion IS a concentric circle to the output of the excentric shaft. The rotor can therefore be perfectly dynamically ballanced. There is absolutely NO reciprocting motion of the rotor. The torque pulses need to be controlled for tortional vibration like any I.C.E. BTW Mistral has an EXCELLENT and light weight PSRU which will run any C/S prop. The 6 planet, planetary reduction now used by Tracy has shown excellent results with every thing from a IVO 3 blade to a 76" wood prop to a Electric C/S MT. A wide range of props. Any actual rotary engine failures you see in cars are at sureal RPMs and usually Blown or Nos. I'm a rotary believer, and as we will limit our engines to a MAXIMUM rpm of 7500 or less mechanical failures will be very rare. I only need 6000 to make enough power for my RV-10. (I'm running a 3 rotor 20B) And oh, I am a mechanical engineer.
But enough of the thread Hijack getting back to the HONDA question; Can HONDA build a better AIRCRAFT engine than Lycoming does now? The short answer? Absolutely positively YES. And no knock on the Lycoming engineers either because they can build a better engine than they do now TOO! The REAL question is will they take the risk in such a litigious soceity? Unfortunately probably NO. Dispatch all the lawers and do serious judicial reform and you will see LOTS of new products.
I would love to see the good engineers at Honda, Lycoming, Continental, Mazda, Chevrolet, Ford, Bambadier, Renault, John Deere, Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Beachcraft, Boeing, Lockheed, you name it turned loose to make better products without looking over their shoulder all the time due to our assinine tort laws. Rant over.

Bill Jepson

Rotary10-RV said:

J,

Can HONDA build a better AIRCRAFT engine than Lycoming does now? The short answer? Absolutely positively YES. And no knock on the Lycoming engineers either because they can build a better engine than they do now TOO!

Bill Jepson

Click to expand...

I agree 100% with Bill here. Any of the experienced engine manufacturers could build something better than what we have today. To think that the current crop of engines can't be improved on is myopic. There are very few mechanical devices which I can think of which have not been replaced by improved products in the last 50 years. I hope for instance that Lyco actually does produce a version of their Diesel recently unveiled.

Really, I am all ears

What would be better? WHAT IS BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lyc has continuously improved there engines and still, Roller Cam?


I would love to know what U-All's dream engine would look like? Please Please Please tell me. Oh yes it must be as light, powerful and cost no more than a Lyc.

Bring it ON.... Remember its for an airplane not a formula 1 or indy car.

Stop

Brother George,
This alternative engine puppy has been beaten to death already.

I just go out and enjoy the fact that my 'Lycosaurus' is going to get me and my family safely to wherever I decide to go and there isn't another engine that I'd rather have up front. They have come and gone but the simplicity and reliability are forgone conclusions. I wanna fly, not experiment, so I'm done with this particular thread........it's getting to be a waste of time.

What are the high compression (180+HP) Lyc guys going to do when 100LL is no longer available? Will detuning your engines work, running rich maybe, or is an overhaul with new pistons and/or low compression heads the only remedy?

I have to think the current automotive motors might have some operating advantages when mogas or diesel are the only future fuel choices at airports.

I truely believe that it's going to be a long, long, LONG, time before leaded avgas goes away. In the grand scheme of things 100LL accounts for so little that I think it'll be exempted for a long while, just like racing fuels. I've heard folks talk about leaded fuel going away for over ten years now and it's just not happening. Obviously I could be wrong, but I think I'm right.

cobra said:

What are the high compression (180+HP) Lyc guys going to do when 100LL is no longer available? Will detuning your engines work, running rich maybe, or is an overhaul with new pistons and/or low compression heads the only remedy?

I have to think the current automotive motors might have some operating advantages when mogas or diesel are the only future fuel choices at airports.

Click to expand...

I agree, I don't see 100LL disappearing in the near future. Bug FWIW, the 180HP O-360 can run on 91/96 already, and by the time we have a problem with 100LL disappearing, I think we'll have electronics capable of handling anti-knock tasks in lycomings. I don't see "alternative" engines being the silver bullet for the GA fleet.