Here is a bit of news for the new HondaJet.I really hope that the engines, placed where they are, make it quiteter on the inside, because it looks so unnatural. :)Overall though, it looks pretty cool.Check out the video too, it loads automatically.http://world.honda.com/news/2003/c031216_2.htmlAlex.

huh, it kinda looks like the cross between a lear and an old Fokker VFW614. Very interesting, i wonder how much it'll cost...

>I really hope that the engines, placed where they are, make it>quiteter on the inside, because it looks so unnatural. :)Yes, I wonder what they were trying to achieve by mounting those engines the way they did. Very strange.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Their site claims it adds more room in the cabin, but it looks strange and it makes me wonder how those wings cope with high G loads...I also cannot tell by looking at the site whether the Hondajet will be produced, or whether it's just a technology demonstrator. But it was an interesting link and I certainly appreciate the thread...-John

Nice looking jet, but its max speed seems a little high for a small jet...

Small jets generally are fast Jason. :-)[table][tr][td]http://www.iol.ie/~shamrockstudios/Signature.jpg[/td][/tr][tr][td]

| [link:www.iol.ie/~shamrockstudios]Shamrock Studios]

[/td][/tr][/table

Let me rephrase myself, I meant "Micro-Jets" - they go around 250-300kts... not sure if the HondaJet is a "Micro-Jet" or not...

Jason,What is a Micro-jet? All the other jets are expecting 330-340 knots, where'd you get the 250-300 knot figure? And there's nothing little about these jets.

Alex,A Micro-Jet is the terminology used for the new brand of smaller, personal, jets. Such as the Mustang, Eclipse 500, etc. They use new, high-tec, micro chips, thus getting the name, "Micro-Jet.".. unless my magazines have misinformed me...About the speeds, I was thinking about something else of the time- not sure what but that margin popped into my mind and just kind of typed it out...>And there's nothing little about these jets.Did I ever accuse something of being little? Please highlight the areas I did... but being friends I can give you a smarta$$ reply... OF COURSE THERE IS! Slap it next to a 747, It'll look like a new-born laying down next to Michael Jordan... :+ Puny little things, great aircraft, though :D Can't wait till' I start seeing them :DJason :-wave

"Micro" jets like Eclipse, Citation Mustang (will) make about 340-370 kts, not the range you gave 250-300 kts.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Jason, I had always thought micro in aviation was another word for ultra (as in microlight/ultralight). I have never heard micro-jet used. It's always personal jet or minijet. You're right about the little jet thing. I miss quoted you. You said small jet, not little aircraft. You are right they are little, for a jet.

Michal,>"Micro" jets like Eclipse, Citation Mustang (will) make about 340-370 kts, not the range you gave 250-300 kts.I know, I already stated I typed out he wrong thing, no need to reinstate what I just admitted to and hour later...

Honda appears to be cautiously approaching the aircraft biz. Although both the aircraft and the engine project were fairly widely known and reported for a couple of years, Honda execs (and their partners) were extremely tight-lipped about their plans.Even if the aircraft itself never sees production, there are other rumors about possible applications for the engine on another plane. Although Eclipse and Cessna have announced their engine choices for their small jets, their are a number of other players who might be swayed by the Honda engine.Honda has also been working with Teledyne-Continental on prototyping a water-cooled piston aircraft engine for GA light aircraft applications. (see http://world.honda.com/news/2003/c030304.html)And of course let's not forget the competition. Toyota successfully test flew a concept aircraft last year with a little consulting help from non other that Burt Rutan.

Given the short length of the aircraft, mounting those engines on the wings helps with it's center of gravity to keep it from being tail heavy. I would guess that the main reason though is that since the pressurized fuselage is made of composite it would have a been a structural nightmare to mount and plumb. Putting the engines on the wings saves a lot of structural/systems weight and complexity plus the engines are mounted on the strongest part of the aircraft, the main wing spar.Skully:-wave