Honda Jet

Watched it fly at OSH.

The least noisy twin jet I've ever seen. Noise abatement is becoming a serious issue.
 
First gear, its all right
Second gear, lean right
Third gear, hang on tight
Faster
 
Am I the only one not that excited about the Honda Jet? The person that can afford it can afford any other low end biz jet. The Cirrus Vision is closer to being priced for the GA market.

Closer, still not there.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Am I the only one not that excited about the Honda Jet? The person that can afford it can afford any other low end biz jet. The Cirrus Vision is closer to being priced for the GA market.
Click to expand...

Sheesh - a brand new 172 is too steep for me. If I'm gonna talk about toys I can't afford, I might as well go big! :)
 
Sac Arrow said:
Am I the only one not that excited about the Honda Jet? The person that can afford it can afford any other low end biz jet. The Cirrus Vision is closer to being priced for the GA market.

Closer, still not there.
Click to expand...

I like it because they really took engineering for maximum efficiency seriously.

Neither this nor the Cirrus is in a common man's market. You won't work a job and afford either.
 
3393RP said:
The odd bulge of the cockpit roofline area is strange. I have yet to read an explanation of its purpose (that's assuming it has one).
Click to expand...

This airplane design first flew in 1962. Far as I know the bulge is nothing more that a fairing due to the large amount of disturbed air above the cockpit skin made it overly noisy in it.

 
petrolero said:
I've read about the supposed advantages but I still don't get it. Can anyone explain what advantages (aero and otherwise) the wing pylons confer?
Click to expand...

The wing does all the lifting. They have to lift themselves, the fuselage, its contents and anything attached to it (like engines). This puts a lot of stress at the wing root(s). If you carry the engine on the wing instead of the fuselage, that means less weight and stress the wing root has to support; so the spar can be lighter.

Once you decide to carry the engines on the wing, we know that it is more efficient to put the engines on a pylon separated from the wing surface. You can hang the engine below the wing, but then you need tall gear for ground clearance, and a tall air stair to get into the plane. Alternately, you can mount the engine on a pylon above the wing, which is what Honda did. Shorter, lighter gear that takes up less space when retracted. There are some technical papers about the design available from the company website.

Efficiencies aside, putting the engines above the wing makes the plane visually distinctive, which has its marketing advantages.
 
Speaking of a woman with a cute face and big ass plenty of guys like myself prefer women shaped that way! Brazilian women and Russian women come to mind.
 
Speaking of a woman with a cute face and big ass plenty of guys like myself prefer women shaped that way! Brazilian women and Russian women come to mind.
Click to expand...

That was some segue!
 
Personally, I like the way it looks. It's a small jet, but will have its niche.
 
LDJones said:
Personally, I like the way it looks. It's a small jet, but will have its niche.
Click to expand...

If it's as efficient as it looks, I think it will be a success. Anyone know the range on it? I love the SJ-30 for those long legs. If they gave the Hondajet 2500nm range, it would be a thing of beauty.
 
According Honda's website the range with 4 pax is just under 1200nm
 
Only gives range with 4 pax on the specs page.
 
oregonboy109 said:
Only gives range with 4 pax on the specs page.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was hoping someone was following more closely/had some inside. The website isn't very informative. If it holds more fuel, it's viable transatlantic. You really want 1100 to avoid Greenland, and west bound head winds make 1200 too shy.
 
frfly172 said:
Comes from a company with great stats on whatever they get into. Should fit a certain buyers mission. If nothing else ,it's one good looking jet.
Click to expand...

Not always. They got into the PWC (Jet ski) market and flamed out quickly. Entered 2003 and done by 2009.
 
The bulge can't be for headroom. Take a peek at the picture.
 

Attachments

  • first-flight-may.jpg
    first-flight-may.jpg
    56.9 KB · Views: 62
Personally I don't think its much of a "bulge", because it doesn't seem to get any taller than the overall fuselage. What it does do is discontinuously taper down to the nose cone in roughly two sections.
 
DJTorrente said:
Personally I don't think its much of a "bulge", because it doesn't seem to get any taller than the overall fuselage. What it does do is discontinuously taper down to the nose cone in roughly two sections.
Click to expand...

Area rule, maybe?
 
I read a few years back when this jet was first shown to the public, the speak then was that the "bulge" was part of this plane's aerodynamic secret sauce. Supposed to create some sort of efficiency. We'll see. The real world and the numbers don't ever lie. The sales brochure, the website, the owners, even the POH might lie, but pilots won't.
 
arnoha said:
The bulge can't be for headroom. Take a peek at the picture.
Click to expand...

No no, it's an aerodynamic feature to keep the flow disruption, and the resultant drag, to a minimum. Just like the top of the wing produces a low pressure zone behind the thickest chord, this produces a low pressure zone just behind the bow wave which pulls it in and stretches it into the low pressure flow into the engine and behind the wing, both reducing the bow wave resistance, and the scope of influence of disturbed fluid. When you look at the rest of the nose geometry, anyone with a background in Naval Architecture will go, "Isn't that interesting, they put a bulbous bow on a mini jet." The nose is my favorite part of the plane because they really got a damned good shape to it for reducing drag.
 
Last edited:
arnoha said:
Area rule, maybe?
Click to expand...

That's a trans/supersonic rule. Trans Mach creates new rules with regards to compressibility. Similar principle though in what it does to the airflow, but for different reasons and modality.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
That's a trans/supersonic rule. Trans Mach creates new rules with regards to compressibility. Similar principle though in what it does to the airflow, but for different reasons and modality.
Click to expand...

Hmm...could still play. Area rule doesn't really start to matter until 0.75 Mach or so. The Honda Jet is a 0.72 Mach aircraft.

Engines on the wing would help with area rule, too, if it's actually in play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top