Sun 'n Fun 2024: DeltaHawk Engine Update
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- With the current engine market experiencing big price increases and even bigger backorders, there's a real need for more choices with more modern tech. The industry has been watching Wisconsin-based DeltaHawk for years and with FAA certification in hand for its DHK 180-series liquid-cooled, Jet-A-fueled turbocharged engine, the company showed up at Sun 'n Fun 2024 with a new relationship with Piper. Aviation Consumer Editor in Chief Larry Anglisano caught up with DeltaHawk CEO Chris Ruud for an update.
Was one of the first to put down a $5K deposit back around 2001. Was building a TeamTango Tango-2 and really wanted this engine. Fabricated an engine mount using Deltahawk static engine mock-up and was ready to go. The original 2001 price was $18K for basic experimental engine. After waiting 10 years, I had had enough and was lucky enough to get my $5K back after the company was purchased by new owners. Finally installed an IO-360 in my Tango with a Whirlwind prop. Great plane! As stated by another poster, I don't see how they can be competetive with their pricing. Unless you have money to loose, I would be careful giving any money to these folks.
The 180hp version is priced at an EYE WATERING $110,000!!!! I have no idea how they expect to compete with a Lycoming at these prices.
IIRC, their website originally estimated about a $15K price tag for the 200hp version.
that's totally nuts!
None of the diesel or electric engines make any economic sense. The purchase price and TBO is just not sensible and i dont see any market comptetition with Lycoming or Continental. This is pie in the sky....😂😂😂
I'm considering buying one of these, so I've looked into the options. Everybody's situation is different, but here's my take...
You're quoting the upper estimate price of the engine plus the firewall forward kit. According to Kitplanes magazine, "[DeltaHawk] FWF packages are expected to cost around $100K-$110K including mounts, cooling system and, in some cases, the propeller as well".
For comparison, if you buy a YIO-360-M1B from Van's, you'll pay $42K for the engine and maybe $12K for the finishing kit, for a total of about $54K, not including the propeller.
So, while the DeltaHawk engine may initially seem pricey, it's essential to consider its unique features. These include turbo-normalization for enhanced power at altitude, significantly better fuel efficiency (40% better than comparable avgas engines), the flexibility to use cheaper and widely available Jet A fuel, reduced maintenance requirements (they claim), and a user-friendly single-level control system, i.e., no mixture control.
If you plan to fly behind your new engine for 20-30 years -- as I do -- then the DH engine will pay for itself over time, and the other benefits are just gravy.
Also, if SAF ever becomes real, DH is ready to use it immediately, so it's future-proof.
@@ssranon Lets not forget the weight factor. From what I've seen the DH engines are significantly heavier than a Lycoming,. No thanks.
It funny to think that an old Detroit Diesel - Allison engine design finds life as an aircraft engine.
we need to see the thrust bearings. 🚴♂
1:55
I was thinking the same thing.
This is not the same. The Detroit Diesel 2-strokes (the Series 71 and Series 92 are the best known) are a more sophisticated uniflow design, using cam-driven exhaust valves in the head instead of piston-controlled ports for both intake and exhaust.
White Truck experimented with a 2 stroke loop flow V4 in the 50’s or early 60’s. Looper diesels also used in Europe around the same time. Detroit Diesel built a few loopers (2 cylinder if I remember correctly). I can find little info on these. It is likely the loopers did not have the flat torque curve desirable in truck engines.
Considerations for the DH engine:
1. V4 2 stroke has 4 power pulses/rev versus 2 for an IO 360
2. The initial fuel mechanically injected into a diesel takes time to heat and ignite. Meanwhile more fuel is injected behind it. When the initial fuel ignites, the stuff behind does too and this gives a hard hit to the prop. (Electronic injected diesel cars have tamed this.)
3. Jet fuel (and in a pinch diesel) is ubiquitous worldwide whereas avgas isn’t;
4. A 4 cycle piston lifts off the wrist pin at TDC on the inlet stroke..not so on 2 stroke..this means later’s wrist pin is hard to lubricate and presumably solved by DH.
5. A liquid cooled V4 is a much stiffer engine than an air cooled O4. Stiffness considerably affects TBO. So initial $ on a DH, may be made back by longer TBO. To be seen.
6. A liquid cooling installation can be designed with less drag than air cooled (eg P51 Mustang) if the designer chooses to do so (many design trade offs involved)
Wish DH success as diesels and continuous high power go well together. New start ups have lots of issues besides design soundness to surmount. We should applaud DHs perseverance.
It's amusing that you refer to this engine as new. It's been in development for literally my entire adult life, and I turn 50 in less than 2 weeks.
Same. I'm 50 and I have been following this engine basically since going to university to study engineering back in '98.😂
Yeah and now totally overpriced
@@daszieher- 65 and saw it at Oshkosh, late 1980's if I recall correctly! Might have been the early 1990's!
Yep. Vaporware
@@daszieherSo what’s wrong with it? Is it the engineering, or the economics, or both?
Alot of talking but I didn't hear anything about the weight, fuel consumption, TBO or price.
Thank you! Your comment saved me from having to watch the video and realize that myself.
Sales first, stats later. Which I hate too
If you have to ask you cant afford it lol
It's a worse engine in general.
@@neon_Nomad wow. Presumptuous much?
Wow the deltahawk guys have been working gard for a long time. I offered a cost comparison in europe / UK 🇬🇧 maybe 18 or 20 years ago that was wuoted on their website. For the record the prices for petrol / avgas over here are still mad expensive compared to thr USA 🇺🇸 so the delta hawk still make crazy good sense in Europe. 😮
It's not "supercharged and turbocharged"; it has a mechanical scavenge blower (which is not a supercharger), and a turbocharger. That's a perfectly good configuration... it's just the description as "supercharged" which is misleading.
The biggest problem I have is that they certified it. The cost is now astronomical and awfully difficult for those of us building experimental to be able to afford.
I'd love to put a DH engine in, but I can't afford it.
Now that the design is done, they certainly should build a non-certified version and sell it at an AFFORDABLE price.
Every Aviation content creator who makes a video about engines or airplanes and insanely tries to avoid price will get a thumbs down! I think every one of us should do this. You make an aviation video without price, thumbs down. I'll stick with my io360 for the mooney. It's a shame all of you are like the mainstream media, completely avoiding the main subject of interest for us pilots.
Get a grip. who says we avoided price? We asked during the shoot and was told a price hasn’t been finalized yet so he didn’t state it. Read our recent coverage in the magazine, where we previously reported DeltaHawk was projecting around $110K for an STC mod kit.
@@aviationconsumermagazine450 you should have said this in the video, and given that estimate... But you purposely didn't... It's sad y'all virulently avoid discussing the most important thing to us.. PRICE
Almost expecting an aviation-related insurance ad to pop-up following this :-) I hope its awesome and busts-down the prices of the others. Innovation is good!
I have been running 2 cyc engines since 1960. C/L and then in 1976 R/C. As I got older I got into Lawn maintenance so I naturally got to the trimmers, blowers, mowers, and chainsaws. I'm a ENGINE guy. Several car engines built straight 6's and V8's.
Your DeltaHawk Engine and being Super/Turbo Charged, Altitude wouldn't be a problem plus being 40% more efficient receives big points.
Piston timed engines seem to simply work well.
With the higher torque at Lower RPM PROP Pitch is the question. Larger diameter more pitch. Thus would lower prop overall Rpm and reducing prop noise. A Ducted Fan would improve prop efficiency by another 23%.
Alcohol Fuel Glow Ignition Engines can be transformed to Diesel by a simple HEAD Change.
So, why not take a Aluminum block Steel Sleeved V6 Car engine and change the Heads add Mechanical Fuel Injection, Turbo Charging. Vola, a Home built Diesel Engine at a really LOW cost.
Just a idea.
How does the oil in system work
Good luck wth that! Cost, weight, availability of spares and who’s gunna service them, not to mention that Avtur is harder to get at many places.
So it uses a sleeve valve setup for intake and exhaust valves ....similar to the old British, Bristol radial engines?
Will the 6-cylinder use a different bank angle (60° or 120°) or split crankpins... or will it be irregular firing?
The certified aviation industry is unbelievably slow. I get the concern for safety, but seriously. Automotive diesel engines like the 4M41-T from Mitsubishi are 3.2L, turbocharged, intercooled, commonrail, make 200 hp and run for 500,000-1,000,000 km without any issues with bulletproof fuel system reliability even with substandard quality fuels. Yet for the aviation industry it's taken Deltahawk 20+ years and still isn't in a customer's aircraft means it'll still be 'new' and relatively untested in the real world when it finally does release and the specs will be 30 years behind what could have been. Rotax are the only ones pushing the envelope and actually delivering. When they release something 200hp+ I can't see the big two keeping up let alone Deltahawk who'll probably still be promising firewall forward kits without engines for aircraft in 2030.
So no plans for the Pipestrel Panthera? That sled would go 260 knots at 19,000 with your 235hp version.
What is process for STC into GA aircraft?
For small C172 or single engine Cherokee?
try a lancair instead
I have been following them for well over a decade (may be two). They got FAA approval. Not sure what STC or airframes it is approved for.... It is a 2-stroke diesel so it's not as efficient, but it is simpler. I have seen NO flight test data, speed, fuel burn A vs B comparisons to Lycoming. I suspect it will be slower and fuel savings small. Why? RADIATOR.... Most planes, certified, experimental use air-cooled (down draft) Lyc and Conti . They are DESIGNED for air cooled engines.... A radiator is an afterthought and more drag and weight. I have a kit plane, RV-7, and installing this engine vs the 180HP Lyc I have now, will not make a big difference and likely all the difference not positive, heavier, slower.... PRICE. I bought a good used Lyc and did a overhaul. I have $20,000 all in, electronic ignition, 4 into 1 exhaust..... Again the Delta Hawk has NO FLIGHT TEST DATA from independent TEST? Does it really make claimed HP. 40% more efficient? No that is theoretical.
"Not as efficient"... compared to what? The most efficient piston engines in the world are large 2-stroke diesels.
Was ready to install a Deltahawk in my Tango-2 a number of years ago, but they couldn't deliver; however, I spent a lot of time researching radiator cooling and there are designs that negate drag such that it is not an issue. There is considerable information available from old NACA research documents that I obtained (Kayes and London did a significant amount of research). There are a number of rotary and Subaru powered plane owners that have developed very efficient cooling systems for their planes and have published on their designs. The output of all the early NACA research led to the P-51 cooling system which was said to produce a net positive thrust (not drag) from hot radiator exhaust gases under nominal conditions. The Deltahawk, at the time, was cheaper than a Lycoming, is lighter than a Lycoming, has less moving parts, provides better horsepower at altitude unless you have a turbo Lycoming, has more take-off torque, reduced maintenance (no $50 spark plugs!), and is not slower than a Lycoming powered plane. The deltahawk should provide "significantly" better fuel economy than a gas powered engine as demonstrated by other diesels such as SMA, Thielert, and Continental engines. The only downside today is the inflated cost of any diesel.
@@davewilliams9569 the SMA, Thielert, and Continental engines are all four-stokes. The DeltaHawk is the least effective and efficient form of 2-stroke (piston-ported intake and exhaust). Fuel efficiency of the DeltaHawk can't reasonably be estimated based on dissimilar engines.
@@brianb-p6586I think this is direct-injection, so there is no fuel in the intake air during the time that the exhaust port and the transfer (intake) ports are both open. IOW, it does not push fresh fuel out the exhaust port.
@@backcountyrpilot It is a diesel (compression-ignition engine), so like all diesels it has injection directly into the cylinder, with no fuel in the intake mixture. Pushing raw fuel out the exhaust due to overlap is a problem in gasoline 2-strokes without direct fuel injection, but isn't a problem in diesels of any type... but there are a lot more factors affecting fuel consumption than that.
Is there any chance for a Glassair Sportsman 2+2 soon?
What's the TBO for this engine?
Why is it upside down?
"...the pilot can't screw it up" I love Pilot proof things. LOL!
Back to the future! The two stroke diesel design is 125 years old.
So is 4 stroke tech.
Wow... Let's hope soon FAA Certification on all their engines...
Speaking as someone who wants to see options other than typical avgas recips, why is this so hard to get right?
Yeah yeah, how many deliveries so far?
There was a Twin-Velocity last year at Oshkosh. Go be a cynical troll somewhere else...
@@edcew8236 is that the one that crashed?
@@FlyingNDriving Don't take my word, go look it up yourself.
@@edcew8236 That's not a customer aircraft, it belongs to Deltahawk. Edit: It looks like it hasn't flown since Oshkosh, either.
@@edcew8236a cynical troll, you say? 😂
Deltahawk have been promising for almost three decades. Their price point is a shot into the bushes, over 100k is just ridiculous.
I'd have gone for 50k.
I don't see it working.
Oof, every show I see these guys at, I shake my head and observe a moment of silence for their investors.
Most reactions here I assume are from people living in US, where prices for Jet Fuel and AvGas from what I've understood don't differ too much. AvGas in Europe can go up to over 16,00 USD per gallon, Jet Fuel is half of that.. SO: it's not just the buying of the engine that matters, if the weight is under control, they could have a HUGE market over in Europe.
Great Video, Great engine!
When can we expect to get a Starter/Generator/Motor(Hybrid Electric) to replace the separate starter and alternator?
Question: Can Crankcase Induction work with a 2 Stroke Diesel?
Was any testing done with Crankcase Induction?
Yes, crankcase induction can work with a 2-stoke diesel, but it prevents pressure-fed oil lubrication and requires oil injection into the intake air... which would obviously be undesirable.
@@brianb-p6586 I think the skidoo gas direct injection force feeds oil to the crank while the piston, rings and cylinder walls are lubricated by the resulting oil vapor, minimizing the amount of oil out to atmosphere...
@@captarmour that seems really unlikely to work; oil-injection gasoline 2-stokes spray the oil into the intake air.
FF retrofit for Cherokees will make you wealthy beyond your dreams if the TBO & life cycle is competitive with the IO-360's and TSIO-360's
It's not a twin charged engine. It's only altitude/power supplemented by the turbocharger. Since it's a 2-stroke diesel, it won't run without the supercharger as the supercharger is providing the airflow into the engine. If it didn't have the turbocharger, it would be a naturally aspirated 2-stroke diesel. This is the same operation as an old Detroit Diesel 2-stroke 6v71, 8v71, 12v71, 16v71.
I don't think those old Detroit had turbos feeding the supercharger, or at least our little 6v53 didn't.
@@atg197The 6-71NA I drove just had the normal Roots-type blower, or supercharger. Required for this 2-cycle engine. GM also sold 71 series with a turbocharger in series before the blower. Even the so-called naturally aspirated had a slight above atmosphere pressure charge. I think huge numbers of 6V-53’s were turbo’ed for military vehicle use. The 6-V92 and 8-V92’s certainly were available turbocharged. Again they all had the Roots-type supercharger.
Without more information I’d hesitate calling their mechanical supercharger naturally aspirated. GM chose to describe their slight charge this way. Maybe this manufacturer has a couple atmosphere directly off the supercharger. I don’t think there is a practical barrier to this except maybe need for a little more torque from the starter.
@atg197 it depended on whether it was ordered/spec'd as an naturally aspirated or turbocharged. I've worked on both varieties of them. Older heavy machinery would likely be non-turbo, whereas over the road trucks would most likely be turbocharged
huh? The fact that it needs the supercharger to run doesn't mean it isn't supercharged. If you took it up to 25k elevation, where it needs the turbocharger to run, is it no longer turbocharged?
@@vica153 The blower (supercharger) has the primary purpose of creating positive pressure, because the engine doesn't "suck" air in like a four stroke.. It is typically sized to pump the correct volume of air at a relatively low pressure. The turbo is used to increase the pressure into the blower inlet.
cost of a factory new, fully loaded io-360? $92,000. no turbo. cost of 100LL avgas? $7 a gallon. cost of offroad diesel? $2.80. even retail road taxed diesel is only $3.83.
Ya should make a DeltaHawk I6 inline engine. It would look super cool in a P51 kit or anything else with a long nose.
And sell how many? 5? 10?
What is the specific fuel consumption? It is perfectly reasonable for your potential customers to be quite skeptical until you publish and prove your specs. Weight, cost, specific fuel consumption, TBO, rebuilt cost, warranty, etc. Delta Hawk has been saying “very soon” for, literally, decades.
I hope your company is wildly successful. Truly. But it’s impossible to take it seriously without proven, repeatable, specs. If the price is actually into the 6 figures, you have to be demonstrably superior to the current engines and there does not appear to be evidence of that.
There are specifications on their website and in a sheet downloadable from that site.
This is what they say about fuel consumption:
"7.3 gal/hr (27.6 L/hr)at 135 HP Economy Cruise
10.8 gal/hr (40.9 L/hr) at 180 hp"
That's 0.054 to 0.06 USgal/hp-hr, 0.36 to 0.40 lb/hp-hr, or 220 to 240 kg/kWh
Unfortunately I don't see any indication of TBO or overhaul/rebuild cost, which are critical information.
Thats pretty awesome though, two stroke simplicity. Turbo/super (not sure why you need both, but I'm no engineer).
I have been following this engine for many years and as I understand it you need the supercharger to create the initial airflow throw the engine just to get it started. The turbocharger is for improved general engine performance once the engine is started and boost to give the ability to fly at higher altitudes.
You said a pilot can’t screw it up 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
GUYS the VAPORWARE 22 years in the making is back again!!!
A little more than 22 years.
It actually first ran already back in 1997. I think I remember the concept already mentioned in '96.
People have been born, graduated from high school and made a pilot's license in the time Deltahawk has been kicking around this idea.
Awesome!
You guys neet to get a 235 in the Cessna Skylane.
Sleeve valves? What a brave new world.
I thought it was just a simple port(s) opened and closed by the piston. Sleeve valves are a whole new nightmare of complication. See Typhoons(ww2). This does seem a very neat clean design externally. No TBO price weights fuel burn though.
i wonder how the 235hp version would work on a RV10
MCP will be way less than 235hp. Most RV-10s are powered by 540s making closer to 280-290 hp.
So if you're engin staying up side down could hydraulock if the oil rings allow it. I'm just saying maybe on cranking them would bust the rods or something and cause a serious issue in flight..... Grre how couldn't the faa miss that I mean with all the money they took.. so know that we know it's a faulty design and needs to. E installed upsidedown can I buy a few to help with liquidation lol 😂😂😂 jokes but for real?
Another one to bite the dust! LOL
Surprised that it's a two stroke but because it's a turbo that helps it breathe without an intake stroke? quite neat if it has no real drawbacks. of course turbofan jet is just vastly better.
will it have delusional price like other engines?
What they call a "supercharger" is actually a scavenge blower, which is what drives induction and exhaust with intake and exhaust piston strokes. The blower is the belt-driven device in the middle of the "V". The turbocharger just adds boost for more power especially at higher altitude - the engine runs fine without it. This is how large 2-stroke diesel engines typically work.
So 40% lower fuel consumption than an IO-360 running LOP?- That's .24 BSFC- better than the best large 4 stroke diesels. I call BS on that. 2 stroke small diesels have similar BSFCs as a Lycoming running LOP- even by their own numbers. 235 hp from 200 cubic inches- I predict they will be way de-rated for MCP, otherwise it won't last very long. Typically rings, ring lands take a beating here unless they have steel lands.
The aviation insurance industry has been the tail wagging the dog since 2008. They will consider this an experimental engine until there are a couple hundred thousand trouble-free and claims-free hours. Insurance rates will be horrendous if available at all.
I like to see a proven product! Wheres the beef?
Y'all must get the golf ball piston upgrade it helps suck air 😀. Anyone here gets turned on in the morning by engine 😂
Ok how does the turbo feed the supercharger? They never show it connected.
It would feed into the engine directly through the air valve/throttle body directly or through an intercooler and then into the throttle body and then the supercharger
@@tomg1807 yes they probably intercooler it. But there is no throttle body, because it is a two stroke diesel. So power is regulated by the fuel pump and boost level. I didn't see a waste gate, which also seems weird. And no apparent inlet to the supercharger, which woukd have a hose attachment if it were intercooled
It's all connected in the engine on the stand. The exhaust pipes from the ports to the turbocharger's turbine are obvious. The output of the turbocharger's compressor section goes through a very short pipe, directly into the end of the scavenge blower (which they call "supercharger") housing.
_Edit:_ the above is incorrect, as per the following discussion.
@tomg1807 There is no throttle in a diesel, and no intercooler shown on this engine.
@atg197 There is no intercooler on this engine - the turbo compressor is plumbed direct to the scavenge blower inlet.
_Edit:_ the above is incorrect, as per the following discussion.
With a small turbocharger it will likely be incapable of producing excessive boost for a diesel.
Why are prices so stinking expensive? make an experimental version for 10 K and I'm in 😂. Plus they look simple and lack of sophisticated technology.. Faa sucking the life out of aviation or is it they are sucking the money in aviation lol...
Two stroke diesel over engineered failure
And we put a man on the moon how long ago, or did we?!
It’s been around forever. Not new by no means.
Random but isn't a Wankel engine a perfect light or ultralight aircraft engine? Could you not have a super capable ultralight with 80 pound engine that makes 400 horsepower?
I imagine it would work, but Wankels are horrible fuel pigs in cars, can't imagine it would be any better in an aircraft. Outside of the fact they have poor longevity because they eat APEX seals, because of poor lubrication. Anyone I've ever known with a Wankel powered car typically adds a bit of oil to their fuel to help engine longevity
Poor longevity and the extra fuel Consumption offsets the weight savings
@@tomg1807a Wankel engine would be best without seals at all.
It would have to be run like a turbine and would be best directly coupled to a starter/generator that could bring to the high rpm necessary to idle without seals.
@daszieher Far as I know you can get apex seals made of different materials, not sure how much it would change the longevity of the unit.
Considering they're inherently fuel thirsty engines with apex seals, your idea of running it without apex seals I feel would exersabate the fuel consumption issue. I've personally never heard of one running without apex seals, since without them there isn't any way to build compression pressure in the combustion chamber. If you know of one the runs without the apex seals, I'd love to see the video of it running.
Have several buddies with rotaries. Two big issues: as stated elsewhere, very fuel inefficient, and they run very, very hot. You need a lot of radiator. But great HP to weight ratio!
I'm sorry but GA is all but dead. When a mid 1960's piper 140 cost over $60K...and a new Cirrus is north of $1M...I'm sorry, but why bother.
I want the china clone of that engine 😆 I know but who is got 90k for a new money to noise converts lol
know 90k lol converts a new! Who but is? The that clone know engine of money.
Decades of BS. Many engines have been certified and failed due to lack of interest. I’ll believe it when they deliver.
Will be interesting to see if they can pull it off. There is a market for sure.
@@atg197 For an extremely overweight, $100k, 180 hp engine? No.
@@PistonAvatarGuy they want 100k for it??
@@DanFrederiksen For a firewall forward package, apparently.
@@PistonAvatarGuy ridiculous
If it doesn’t say Lycoming or Continental or, maybe Rotax or Jabiru on the data plate, i ain’t gonna fly it.
I'd take my chances with this new engine in heartbeat before ever using a Jabiru. Friends don't let friends fly Jabirus.
all mechanical...you noticed we ar in 2024...typical US backwards pushrod and leafspring technology...welcome to yesterday..
Firewall forward, how does the 180hp engine compare in weight to a typical Lyc O-360 install?
What is the weight compared to Lycoming and Continental?
Shhhh. Sales pitches only include the good points.
These "Mom and Pop" companies are doing nothing to advance the GA industry. We need a major industry partner to produce a JET-A consuming piston internal combustion engine that rates up to 250HP. Its folks like Textron who are actively repressing innovation (and FAA not embracing innovation). Praise to Delta Hawk - but this will never happen in an economically viable product.
Yeah, I feel bad for this company and their investors. :(
The legacy engine manufacturers don't really do us any favors either. I remember when NASA gave away a grant for development of an aero-diesel engine... They ended up awarding the grant to Continental, who used it to "develop" an unworkable engine which they had no interest in ever bringing to market. The entire reason they went after the grant in the first place appeared to be keeping anybody else from getting it.
@@netpackrat Continental has 2 certified diesels with over 5,000 sold and 2.5 million flight hours, so your assumption is incorrect. SMA sold a number of certified engines, but went bankrupt due to high cost economics. However, they are all very expensive relative to a Lycoming! Even the Deltahak will be.
@@davewilliams9569 The current "Continental" diesel engines are actually the Thielert, which has been around for a long time, and which sold quite a few engines before Continental and their current Chinese masters came into the picture, and bought them out of bankruptcy. They are marketed as a Continental but that's only the name that the Chinese have slapped on it for now.
The engine I was referring to was the "GAP" powerplant. NASA awarded the grant to Continental to develop and produce it, and what they came up with was similar in some ways to the Deltahawk. It was ultimately not a good engine, and NASA eventually became very unhappy with Continental's performance and pulled the funding from the project. The point of the entire exercise from Continental's point of view seemed to be more about getting the funding, and especially keeping anybody else from using it to produce an engine that would be a threat to Continental's product line.
I was hoping to use the DeltaHawk in my one of a kind homebuilt. My airplane has been flying now for 23 years with a good old Lycoming O-360. I wish DeltaHawk the best but their development has been going on for ever.
Maybe on your 3rd overhaul you could swap it when they are ready for production
Modern pitfalls but you got to wish them the best at success in the world of Aircraft powerplants...
Yeah sometimes develop ments took lots of energy tike Did you ever heard about Adept Engines what Power ratio you are looking?
Is there a substantial price delta between experimental and certified applications?
Torsional resonance , that has always been the question for every diesel . What is the list of props excluded from use
Price, TBO, weight, single lever control, fuel burn?
Any diesel is "single lever" because there is no mixture adjustment.
what about a prop lever
@@phatboizbackyardkustomz9006 Sure... if you have manually controlled prop pitch you have another lever. Since the engine uses a simplistic fuel control, it doesn't have a way to do prop control as well - with a fixed-pitch or constant-speed prop, it's still single-lever.
@@brianb-p6586to be pedantic: it has no throttle and the single lever is a mixture control. 😅
whats the TBO?
Time before overhaul .How long it lasts .
@@jamesbarber2882 The TBO, not A TBO, jackass...
@@jamesbarber2882 That sounds like a line from "Airplane."
@@jamesbarber2882 XaviarJS is presumably asking how many hours the TBO is, not what "TBO" means.
I don't think there is a TBO... you likely replace the whole engine, and I could not find any mention of lifetime on the DeltaHawk website.
At the beginning of the video something reminded me of a film scene where the character interpreted by Tom Hanks demands, in some sort of menacing tone, that he wants: "something happy, something snappy".
And then the "...industry is wide open" sales pitch in the executive suite to make somebody not so smart to depart from his hard earned money.
But there's something else that draws my attention:
Why is everything mechanical in the fuel system?
How do they arrived to the conclusion that it is better to sacrifice efficiency, and even reliability by using exclusively mechanical systems?
Sure 80, 90, or 100 years ago the reliability of any electrical, and much more of electronic systems was really poor, but even then the magneto was used and made sufficiently reliable.
Today reliability of electrical and electronics parts and components is higher than the mechanical counterparts. And there's the added improvement in measurement, control, automation and recording at almost no cost.
Why the exclusive use of mechanical systems?
DeltaHawk? Whoever is funding this “business” must have very deep pockets and infinite patience. This is a never ending story. I’d be more inclined to see this as a long-running industry hoax instead of a product.
Ridiculous. $110,000 for 180HP. With no service history? Another failed “modern” replacement for Lycoming and Continental.
What I think I want is a BatHawk with a Rotax engine.... but thats just me.😁
What about being constant speed prop capable?
How about third-party test results instead of "... the market has never been more hungry for new engine technology..."
I hope they can survive the market. I think it is a design that will revolutionize GA, if they can survive.
With the price you must be out of your mind or not be in aviation.
Still too heavy for the power, but…jet fuel.
Any extra weight is offset by how much lighter your wallet
will be at $60k . LoL 😂
Turbocharged and supercharged for a flight school? Do you replace them the first of each month?
In the video, they mentioned that the water cooling takes care of turbo heat issues. I'm not sure if they also mentioned that the DH doesn't suffer from shock cooling. Hot starts and cold starts are no problem. And it has no mixture control. How is that bad for a flight school?
All 2-stroke engines need either crankcase induction (which is terrible for lubrication and emissions) or a scavenge blower, which is the "supercharger" that they mention. The blower adds complication, but there is no valvetrain.
Is it pressure fed bearing lubrication? Gugen pin life?
@@johanndork5364 Of course it has pressure-fed lubrication.
That should be a $10K engine, easily produced by the thousands! All the technology is simple and is already developped, they could be made in a large CNC shop at low cost, sold as a parts kit, so everybody finally has a chance at owning an affordable experimental engine but no, they decided to go the certified way and deal with the outrageously costly and never-ending FAA, and then try to sell just a couple engines a year at a disgustingly high price... Is this world becoming insane?
They spent hundreds of millions on R&D over 20 years, have to get ROI somehow so that now means over $100K per copy. We'll see how that works out for them.
@@rv6ejguy Here is a different and intelligent approach: Turbotech in France has developped a small 110HP turboprop and they're now selling them to owners (or even manufacturers) of small sport airplanes in europe and elsewhere. Those customers will gladly do the remaining of the real-life durability flight testing, "for free". This brings immediate revenues to the company so they can begin to pay back their investors and at the same time set-up a large production line. Turbotech has also announced that in 2 or 3 years, they will undertake certification of their engines. So you see how reversing the order of things can be beneficial for everyone involved, customer and manufacturer, by keeping the costs down and reducing the time necessary to bring the product out.
Way too much time to certify such an small engine. Adicionally, the price to cover years of work and development, will not justify buying the engine. Tha's not the way to promote general aviation industry. It is nuch better to go experimental.
I have been watching this thing develop for over 20yrs and have yet to see or hear one run.
Has anyone one installed one of these in a Mooney?
One day a V12?!
Delta Hawk is a blessing for Aviation . Also very excited about the 6 cylinder engines being developed.
Blah, blah, blah…..been seeing and hearing the Deltahawk blatherings for decades now. Interesting design then and now but a day late and a dollar short. The insurance industry is the tail wagging the aviation dog and there is NO WAY it will ever be an accepted STC. Not then, not now not ever without hundreds of thousands of “bare back” flight hours.
Total nonsense comment.
@@galactictomato1434 How many airplanes have you built? How many engine choices have you made?
In 2011 when I sold my SR20, I wanted to replace my engine with a delta hawk engine. 13 years later and it’s still not out 😅