HondaJet begins FAA certification process

The Hondajet has always seemed overpriced to me. Not to mention ugly. And, I think the benefits of the wing engine pylons are overrated. The decreased cabin width for a conventional engine pylon design is not much of a loss considering a potty and/or baggage don't need full cabin width. Plus I like the engines behind the cabin in the event of a rotor burst. I don't know about the benefits of induced lift over the wings, but I do know the additional asymentric thrust in an EIO event isn't an advantage.

 

Well, I'd say if they scrub the project. That's the determining factor and the issue all along.

It might not sell, but it's a bit premature to make that statement, IMO.

I think it has a strong shot because they are that much closer to getting their TC.

I'm still waiting to see the final numbers and up close to form an opinion.

 

I'm gonna back out of the bet while I'm ahead. I can't be in a bet with no end date. Yes, I realize That was the original agreement but 4 years later I feel since we have no resolution that I'll back out and let it go. I can't win after all. I'll be dead before the bet ends.

 

Jason, I accept you backing out. No harm.....

I merely believe they will follow through. Like a fighter, you can't predict the end. It's only an end when he/she gives up. I was always of the opinion they would continue the fight.

My guess would be TC by the end of the year. But, you know in aviation, you can't predict...

Keep an open mind and let's see if Honda can do something positive here.

Aloha

 

Maybe it will be like their Acura... build a few then quit.

At least it makes the Acura look attractive.

 

Anyone else think it would be strange to fly a plane that would pitch nose down when you add power? Imagine being on short final and you're behind in the jet and get slow or have a low level windshear so you have to really push the power up and the airplane tries to pitch down.

 

Don't know that will pitch down with power any more than conventional biz jet, the thrust line is not appreciably higher than if the engines were mounted on the tail like a conventional jet. It is going to depend on the thrust angle too, and if you look at a lot of conventional tail mounted engines, they have the engine installed at an angle to minimize drag at high speed and that probably creates more pitch moment than just the height of the thrust line above the CG.

One bad aspect of pitch up on increased power is that if you are close to stall and add power, before you can gain airspeed you can encounter stall. If the nose pitches down on power one could argue that such a response is actually safer since adding power would reduce pitch and while it might sink a bit, at least you wouldn't stall.

Just some thoughts... Also if the pitch change is small it isn't going to make much difference either way. And I would suspect that flap or gear changes would make more of an impact on pitch than thrust from a small jet.

 

Most jets pitch down slightly when power is added for the stall reason posted by solofast.

 

I guess my experience with the jets with under wing engines is they pitch up when power is added (KC-135, 737, 757, 767). My only experience with fuselage mounted engines is the A-10 and it was pretty pitch neutral with power changes. I will have to admit I was assuming engines attatched to the top of the wings would cause a pitch down when power was applied.

 

I am a huge Honda fan. Bikes, quads, generators, suv's, pressure washers, mowers, ect...

I don't know if this Hondajet is affiliated with the other motor divisions, but imo, the generators, suv's are now under engineered. The quality and performance does suck on the new equipment. I have sworn off any new vehicle from Honda for ever.

Our 03 Pilot suv had drivetrain problems which was replaced via the lemon law, with an 04 Pilot which (out of warranty) developed the same issues all over again.
Our 2000 CRV (incredible vehicle) was totaled last year and replaced with a new 13' CRV. This new CRV went in for its first service in which a vibration in the drivetrain that happens around 55-60mph, Honda came back with, we don't feel anything out of the ordinary, it's a characteristic of the car, and they have never heard of that before- all "BS" answers, same as 10 years earlier with the 03' Pilot.
My 20+ year old liquid cooled, 6500 watt generator that I figured I would replace with a brand new 6500watt machine was a mistake. The new generator barely keeps up with demand where the old machine just cruised along(same loads). Water cooled twin vs air cooled single is a factor, but my thinking was age was against the water cooled and in a time of need I wanted an air cooled bullet proof reliable machine. Both the same 6500 watt generator, but the new stuff doesn't perform like the old stuff did.

I'm guessing there has been a 'changing of the guard' somewhere high up and the decisions to save money and go cheap have made their way to the consumer. It's a shame, that quality has suffered everywhere.

Sorry for being so far off track. I wanted to add a view from an incredibly loyal Honda customer. Times have changed.

 

I feel it's that way with everything.

 

I'm doing some work at the greensboro airport and they have been flying one of the planes. It's ugly.

 

havent they been trying to build this for 28 years?,and isnt 4mil cheap for a jet?,rush limbaughs ''g550'' was 48mil,and his new ''g650' is something like 70mil+,,or is this thing real small?

 

Totally different beasts. A HondaJet is about the size of a limousine inside (maybe a little larger), while a Gulfstream is similar to a tour bus or a very large RV.

Plus, the Gulfstream has the range to go anywhere in the world with at most one stop (US west coast to Europe nonstop, easily, for instance), while the HondaJet will be lucky to get from LA to Wichita.

 

They brought out another plane. One blue and one red. They sure are tiny.

 

They've had six up and flying so far - two blue, one yellow, one red, one silver and the first production N420EX is Emerald Green.

First aircraft (blue) N420HA is already retired.

1. N420HA Blue (retired) https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8008/7690314626_8bfb7975ae_b.jpg
2. N420HJ Silver http://e1.photos.flightcdn.com/photos/retriever/a898ce7c0bb26ab53c586bd79a267f2d904601e6
3. N420HM Red https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3745/9396261771_b68e932be4_b.jpg
4. N420AH Yellow https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3675/12935206804_34ca989f89_b.jpg
5. N420NC Blue http://hondajet.honda.com/images/homepage-hero-f4.jpg
6. N420EX Emerald Green http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/786ceb383ac0df8420d501ae68f83746/200340046/hondajet-flight.jpg

 

A conglomeration of bumps and bulges and things unrelated.

 

With that long pointy nose does it have WX radar?

 

Been watching them from across the runway all day.

 

Not exactly a thing of beauty...

 

...and upside-down motors.

I think that will really hurt sales... awkward looking thing.

 

I have a feeling that the designers lack a sense of air flow and drag. The bulging fuselage nose just ahead of the wing to body fairing is a horribly dirty flow and looks like a good drag producer. The engine / strut configuration is another ugly configuration and reeks of interference drag. The struts must be a product of engine location and look too thick and clumsy but I guess are necessarily that way to resist thrust and torque loads. The wing performance is compromised with all that junk on the upper surface, too. Also interference drag between the engine, strut, and fuselage. Turbulence between the fuselage and strut stuff in a cross flow . Lower half of the engine inlets might produce lip stall at high AOA and perhaps they should be raked a bit. I ain't no expert in aerodynamics but I worked on a lot of things that were changed to operate better in the airflow environment. To me, this airplane is a mess.

 

ok,but dont you think honda spent 1000's-10,000's of hours in a wind tunnel?

 

Yes, I realize that they probably did a lot of wind tunnel work and know what's going on. These are just observations that it doesn't look right or efficient at anything but lower speeds. The rapid changes in cross sectional areas and abrupt changes in surface continuity simply don't look right. It is a jumble of lumps and bumps and the entire thing is clumsy looking. Flight tests will expose some things that the wind tunnel can't and it happened on everything that I worked on from 1954 to the 777. Like the old saw, " If it doesn't look right, it won't fly right." It flies, yes, but I feel that there is a better answer.