Coming soon to a Honda Dealer near you...
- Thread starter Ponytail
- Start date
Interesting engine support system. I wonder how much rotational stress that puts on the wing spars and whether thrust changes cause wing angle incidence changes.
Ponytail
New Member
2ndAmendment said:
That close to the wing root/fuselage, It'd be easy to support it, especially with composites, so that the rotational stress on the wing would be nill. I wouldn't be surprised if the wing spar started at the outboard side of the engine, and everything inboard of the engines was an oversized torque box.
I'd like to see the skeleton either way. Looks like it could be interesting.
<--- me 
PJumper
New Member
Ponytail said:
Would be great if it performs like any other honda products out there. Watch out Boeing!
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
I wonder if it can reach 80mph in less than a mile?
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
I wonder what advantage the plane has in putting the engines like that or if it was done just to look cool.
Ponytail
New Member
dustin said:
Cabin Noise reduction as well as making more room in the cabin for storage, APU, facilities...whatever.
It takes less (lighter) structure to support a weight from the bottom of the weight, that it does to cantilever it. Less fatigue
Also, with that short of a fuselage, having the engines in the back, creates a helluva moment. It would need more weight or downforce up front to balance the plane in flight. Having them on the wing puts them closer to the natural center of gravity.
Last edited:
I guess the engine geometry would also force the nose down if the CG got aft of center which could be an advantage.
I brought up the wing spar thing, because I had a plane that suffered from a fatigue crack due to the design of a landing gear attachment bracket of all things. It was designed so that the hydraulic actuator for the mains caused a rotational moment on the spar. Nor only that, it was multiplicative. The gear had a 500 psi actuator that was applied all the time while gear was up. That was a safe arrangement, because to drop the gear in a no hydraulic power situation, all you had to was release the pressure on the system and the gear would drop. The actuator pressure on the bracket cause about a 4 to 1 rotational moment. That would micro flex the spar at the attachment point because of the 2000+ lb torsion. A year and a half grounded and $6000 later after the manufacturer came up with a much larger bracket to divide the load so the the 500 became about 100 and I was good to fly again.
I brought up the wing spar thing, because I had a plane that suffered from a fatigue crack due to the design of a landing gear attachment bracket of all things. It was designed so that the hydraulic actuator for the mains caused a rotational moment on the spar. Nor only that, it was multiplicative. The gear had a 500 psi actuator that was applied all the time while gear was up. That was a safe arrangement, because to drop the gear in a no hydraulic power situation, all you had to was release the pressure on the system and the gear would drop. The actuator pressure on the bracket cause about a 4 to 1 rotational moment. That would micro flex the spar at the attachment point because of the 2000+ lb torsion. A year and a half grounded and $6000 later after the manufacturer came up with a much larger bracket to divide the load so the the 500 became about 100 and I was good to fly again.
Rockwell Commander 112 and 114. I had a 114.Ponytail said:
<img src="http://www.acf.clara.net/scale/scale-pics-1/low-wing/rockwell-114/com-11.jpg" />
Mine was a 1976 and red, burgundy on white. Sweet flier; normal cruise 145 knots; service ceiling 16,500 ft. It had been a corporate plane so it had some upgrades and things others of the same model year did not have: double pane Plexiglass side windows, door locks for the 1977 model, custom interior, more insulation for sound and temperature. It was really neat. Wish I could have kept it.
dustin
UAIOE
Affordable to who? I don't have a spare 2 -3 Mil lying around.
