Honda Piston Aircraft Engine

[frankh]

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 Aircooled, carburated, fixed timing, non-counterbalanced, mag fired pushrod motors are at least 50 years out of date.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

[gmcjetpilot]

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

[flynwx]

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.

[frankh]

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


__________________

[Russ McCutcheon]

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.

[Mike S]

Originally Posted by frankh

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


Frank

Jabairu.

Mike

[rv6ejguy]

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.

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by Mike S

Jabairu.

Mike

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.

[cobra]

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.

[rv6ejguy]

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.