Honda Piston Aircraft Engine

[Jconard]

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Air cooling is not outdated, it is just difficult for it to meet the packaging requirements of a car, on the other hand, water cooling does not easily meet the packaging demands of an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

[the_other_dougreeves]

Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot

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

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.

[RV505]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

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

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

[Paul Thomas]

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

[bumblebee]

Originally Posted by RV505

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

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

[Baja_Traveler]

Originally Posted by Jconard

Air cooling is not outdated, it is just difficult for it to meet the packaging requirements of a car, on the other hand, water cooling does not easily meet the packaging demands of an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

.

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...

[bumblebee]

Originally Posted by Paul Thomas

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

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.

[rv6ejguy]

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.

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by the_other_dougreeves

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.

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.

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by G-force

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

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:

The laws of physics are the same as always

Engine technology has not really changed, a 4-cycle Otto cycle.

The NEEDED quality and specs for an airplane engine are the same today as they where 50 years ago or a 100 years ago. Light weight, reliability, simplicity and low drag. A lyc does that beautifully. They just got it right.

A low RPM engine does not need overhead cams or the extra width or height or complexity of a cam belt.

Fancy electronic fuel injection will not make an engine much more efficient for airplane use. We have FADEC for Lycs and TCM's today. It is good for what, 4%, 5% better fuel economy? Of course that comes at the expense of cost and more complexity.

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)