Diesel (piston) Mooney?

[Geoff]

Anybody out there clost to TBO looking at diesel alternatives?  I saw an article that Deltahawk/LoPresti is pursuing an STC on the SR20.  Given the LoPresti Mooney history I would expect that there could be a STC in the works soon for 200hp Mooney's.  The

The Deltahawk guys have been around a long time but it sounds like they are getting very clost to V4 certification.  I fully intend to check them out at OSH.

"DeltaHawk is well on its way to type certification of the DH-180A4 engine
(180 HP).  An FAA Designated Engineering Representative consulting
group, The DERs Group, has been engaged to manage and direct the
process.  Current estimates are to achieve Type Certification (TC) as
early as the beginning of 2011.  The remaining engine model variants will
be quickly certified afterward as amendments to the initial TC."

[OR75]

I am close to TBO and looking at my options. I have not looked at diesel options but for sure would consider it if it was available.

There is a lot of talk about some companies trying to come up with a 100UL.

I am sure they all have great intentions. But I must admit that I am not too excited with the idea  of GA ending up with another exotic fuel. I had rather see us go mainstream with autogas or Jet.  

[Geoff]

I found the SR20 DeltaHawk comparo... follow link.  An STC on a 201 looks like it would essentially turn it into a 231 or 252 killer.  Positives are likely increases in speed, primarily due to turbo/supercharging, and less weight due to lighter powerplant and less fuel burn vs current 201/231.

http://www.deltahawkengines.com/Firewall%20Cirrus.shtml

[Magnum]

My post from the other thread:

Continental made a deal for the SMA Diesel, it should come to market in 2011. It has 230 hp, so it would be great for the 201. It is flying in the Cessna 182 right now, but they still have problems with high altitude restarts. Hope they'll get it fixed.

http://www.smaengines.com/?lang=en

[Geoff]

I pinged the guys at LoPresti about the Deltahawk conversion they are doing for the SR20 and here is their reply...

Hi Geoff
As you likely know, we are attached to Mooneys at the hip. It was the first conversion we considered. We all know 100ll is going away and we wanted to make the aircraft capable for years to come.

Doing an STC of this magnitude is about $300,000 to $500,000 per aircraft design, so the size of the potentila market is always a consideration. The Cirrus market provided the funding in the way of deposits for future engine deliveries (10 users at $80,000 apiece). Thus that decision was easy to make. I think the Mooney market might also be such a candidate but I would very much appreciate your viewpoint as a Mooney owner.

Rj Siegel  CEO/LoPresti Aviation Engineering

[tablor]

I'm guessing some of you may have seen this article:

http://www.mooney.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=428&Itemid=54

The project might one day yield something.  The engine is much lighter as Geoff says, but the fuel consumption is not lower.  The result is you either carry the same weight as current models (100gal) and reduce the range greatly (~70% I think it was) or you change out the gear for something that will allow you to increase the gross weight and therefore fuel capacity.  The speed wasn't going to be significantly better, maybe in the 250-260 kts was a guess (over the 242 POH Acclaim).  I suppose if you could get that from an STC engine swap it might be worth the penalty in useful load on one of the older frames.  I also haven't a clue how the Rolls proposed engine compares to the engine you all are referring to.

As far as alternate fuels go, you're absolutely right.  We read about it everywhere and I'm sure it's just a matter of time.  I hope that whatever is decided on, we don't pay a serious price in performance with a lower grade fuel.  In regards to the thread, unless you're not concerned with lost money - it does seem a bit premature to pay for someone to develop an engine for you.  I suppose that may be how some new products come about, but I think we have to rely on the major engine manufacturers to come up with a solution for all of general aviation.

[Piloto]

No matter what type of engine (piston or turbine) the best long term and cost effective solution is for an engine that runs on MOGAS. This way availability is not an issue and fuel prices would be lower than now. I don't see what is the big deal of using MOGAS. Millions of cars use it every day and you never heard auto engines having problems with it. There is a bunch of 300HP car engines that run on MOGAS all year around without any fuel problems. I think the issues of MOGAS vs AVGAS have been exagerated. The fact that MOGAS is run on millions of cars every year with no problem vs thousands planes for AVGAS is enough proof that the fuel is reliable.

José

    

[OR75]

Totally agree.  any new special fuel will have us in a corner and won't be cheaper.

 

[Geoff]

Respectfully gentlemen I disagree.  MOGAS will never satisfy the requirements of the GA fleet as a whole, especially in the US where the ethanol content is a significant issue.  Jet A is the standard.

[KSMooniac]

Regarding the RR/Mooney project...I'm sure that is all but tabled now considering Mooney's current financial state.  I directly heard from Wayne Fischer that it was solely intended as an option for the export market where 100LL cannot be found reliably or reasonably.  It would have been optimized for flight in the mid- to high-teens and likely in the 220 knot range.  An Acclaim would be a superior choice if you can get 100LL, but I understand the dilemma.  The M20 fuselage is practically impossible to pressurize, so it doesn't make sense to expect a turboprop version to cruise in the flight levels...

The DeltaHawk powerplant looks very promising, and if they can indeed get certified then it will make a very appealing option for an M20 airframe, both here and abroad.  I would strongly consider the switch at overhaul time to get better altitude performance.

[KSMooniac]

<dp>

[tablor]

Quote: Geoff

Respectfully gentlemen I disagree.  MOGAS will never satisfy the requirements of the GA fleet as a whole, especially in the US where the ethanol content is a significant issue.  Jet A is the standard.

[Geoff]

Here is a reply I got from the CEO of LoPresti regarding their potential future development of an STC.  Looks like very rough numbers would put the performance of the M20f/j/k in the range of +200kts at FL180 buring 7-9 gph of a fuel that we all know will be around worldwide for years to come.  Powerplant weight (installed) would be essentially a push, i.e. no CG issues.  It would also mean range would be significantly increased.  Pretty compelling if proven true.  Look out Ovation owners!

Only time will tell if the Deltahawk engine is any more reliable than the Theilhert/Austro/Centurion attempts.

Thanks for your comments. The performance we're currently getting with our test bed Velocity is very encouraging. The engine holds 100% power to 18,000 ft. In the SR20 that means it's faster, uses less fuel  and carries more weight than an SR22.
For the fixed gear SR20 that means 210 cruise on about 7 gph. We'll see how close the emperical comes to the projected but the engine now is burning 40% less than the Lycoming at far greater speeds.
As for Mooney drivers. It is likely we will be able to certify long body and short body as only two seperate STC's. That won't happen though until we get a list of depositors. So it remains to be seen.
Cheers!
Rj Siegel    CEO/LoPresti

[carusoam]

People, please help me with my math....?

[1] M20J with Magic Delta Hawk = 200kts at 9gph...

[2] What is my "out the door" cost on that?  It looks like RJ Siegel estimated $80,000?

[3] M20R with very real Continental IO550 = 180kts at 16gph (rop).

[4] Conservative side of the estimate as follows:   

[5] Not accounting for the 20kt speed difference, This would save 7gph (roughly speaking). 

[6] Spread over the 2,000hrs between major overhauls. (14,000 gallons saved in its life time). 

[7] 100LL can be $4.00 per gallon (George may have better fuel price than I do).

[8] This equates to a $56,000 savings of fuel not used over the 2,000hr life of the engine.

[9] Diesel being about $1.00 cheaper per gallon, 2,000 hrs X 9gph X $1.00/gal savings = $18,000 in fuel price savings. 

[10] Total fuel savings is about $74,000

[11] Price of engine - fuel savings = actual cost of conversion  $80,000 - $74,000 = $6,000

[12] Get a magic DeltaHawk, you will fly faster, you will environmentally friendlier, and it may nearly pay for itself with the fuel savings over the 2,000 hr lifetime of the engine.

Fine Print:

The DeltaHawk engine is not currently available in an M20 format.  The speed and efficiency noted above may not ever be achieved.  TBO of 2000 hrs has not been promised or demonstrated.  You would need to fly all 2,000 hours to achieve the actual savings.  Price of fuel over the next 10 - 20 years may vary.

Please check my numbers,  I like the idea of going faster with less lead and paying for a new engine with fuel savings.

RJ and the LoPresti team may be onto something again...

Best regards,

-a-

[Ron McBride]

Also remember 2000 hrs at 160Knots is 320,000 miles.

2000 hrs. at 200 knots is 400,000 miles.

You would have to fly roughly 80, 000 extra miles to make the 2000 hrs. You would save approx 400 hours for the same distance.

This sounds very interesting, of course you have the up front cost of $50,000 to $60,000 over an overhaul.

Ron with a 69F

[carusoam]

Ron,

I agree...

Since my model was a comparison of M20R, I was comparing 180kts vs. 200kts.  After the 2,000 hours is complete, I would realize a gain of a "free" 20kts X 2,000 hrs = 40,000 free additional miles.  That would make most pilots happy.

This is clearly a better deal for M20J drivers. 

Since the engine is "only" 200 hp, I am not sure it would work for an M20R.  It would be difficult to get off the ground fully loaded. 

Since I seem to be in fantasy land anyway, can I get the DeltaHawk in a 280 - 300hp version?

Best regards,

-a-

[DaV8or]

Quote: carusoam

People, please help me with my math....?

[Geoff]

Dave - all very good points.  The other side of the equation isn't without uncertainty regarding fuel availability either.

Currently we seem to be faced with either believing in a magic engine that burns Jet A or a magic fuel that is a drop in replacement for 100LL.  Fortunately, most of us don't have to place our bets yet.  That being said I plan to watch both the G100UL and Deltahawk SR20 STC very closely over the next couple of years.  My personal hope is that both alternatives succeed and are offered with their respective compromises attached to each solution and the consumers will be able to decide. 

Overwhelmingly, I believe the rest of the world would largely prefer an engine solution, while we in the US would probably prefer a fuel solution.  Short term this is probably acceptable, long term I am concerned that this would further marginalize the NL avgas market and make whatever fuel solution is found even more of a boutique fuel than 100LL driving prices even higher and the Jet A/NL Avgas differential higher.

I'm just happy that the industry is attacking this problem from multiple angles.  This is why I love market forces and good old free enterprise.  A problem is identified/created (by the EPA) and the market goes to work on alternative fixes.  Nothing like a little competition to keep the consumer (reasonably) happy. 

[Piloto]

Quote: tablor

Agreed.  Er...  wait, never say never?  Cars run all day without the drastic temperature change, without having fuel stable enough to sit around in airplanes not going anywhere, and with electronic fuel injection and more sensors than a even some good mechanics know how to deal with.  Even if you could run an IO/O-360 safely on mogas there'd be a huge penalty in performance and manufacturers would still need to learn what new problems an unleaded fuel creates for reliability.  It's not impossible, just improbable in the near future.

The Rolls-Mooney project didn't realistically make it out of the conference room, but marketing being what it is...

[DaV8or]

I love the Delta Hawk and Rolls Royce alternative engine solutions, I really do, but the huge hurdle any alternative engine faces in the market is price and reliability. The huge amount of R & D as well as the certification process, combined with the STC process means that until volume sales can be achieved, the early adoptors are going to be looking at a very steep price. In many of our cases, the cost would be equal to the value of our planes. Not many of us will have that kind of money to gamble with.

It is a gamble, a huge gamble, because I don't think there has ever been a aircraft engine developed that didn't have problems. So, you and a thousand or so other brave souls pay your $70,000 to install your Delta Hawk engine and you're happily motoring along. Then it turns out that in real world flying, several of them have failures of the camshaft bearings and the FAA sends out an AD. Kind of a bummer, but you think to yourself, "Well, at least it's covered by the warranty!" Delta Hawk, a tiny start up company who still hasn't really made a profit yet, is now looking at engine swaps on a thousand planes, all on their dime. They don't have the money, so bankruptcy is the only way out. Now you're stuck with a plane you can't fly, an engine with no more factory support and in some people's cases, payments to make on a loan. I hope that all the early adopters opt to keep all the original parts to go back to gasoline.

[skyking]

Diamond has been putting diesel engines in the single and twin for a while now and i have been seriously thinking about this even though my engine is pretty much still new.

Thankfully i have a few years to go before this gets to me a serious issue for me but i will be following the diesle/mogas/ tubine issues closely.

[DaV8or]

Quote: Piloto

I agree that there some issues to be resolved but they can all be resolved with new engine design. There are millions of cars that conmute daily to Quito 10,000 feet elevation and la Paz Bolivia 12,000 feet with no problems in countries were fuel quality is not the best. The alternative of MOGAS is really atractive when facing no GAS at all. An old M20C flying on MOGAS would have a higher value than a grounded Acclaim due to no AVGAS.

I consider this challenge the best motivation for the GA industry to introduce new products that would benefit us all. A MOGAS engine would have a more appealing market than any glass cockpit new product. If I was the CEO of Lycoming or Continental my focus would be on a MOGAS engine before Toyota or Honda come up with it. If AVGAS is gone so is Lycoming and Continental.

José

[OR75]

and you did not mention winter and summer gasoline grades !!!

Jet A is one of the very few universal fuels (probably the only 1) and despite some airline testing bio versions of it (for their image), it is here to stay

[Piloto]

Did you know that before WWII all aircraft engines ran on MOGAS (including the Wright brothers flying machines), there was no AVGAS!! If Lindbergh in 1927 crossed the Atlantic succesfully on MOGAS it is good enough for me to go to the Bahamas.

José 

[Geoff]

MOGAS in 1927 is not MOGAS in 2010.