Deltahawk DHK 200 and 235hp Variants

[Rotorhead]

Since the 180hp variant was certified, it looks like the company is aiming to gain certification for a couple other higher horsepower models. Certainly would be exciting to have one, but I can only imagine what the STC process for carrying jet fuel would be...

https://www.flyingmag.com/deltahawk-adds-2-more-engines/

-KC

[Fly Boomer]

2 hours ago, Rotorhead said:

Since the 180hp variant was certified, it looks like the company is aiming to gain certification for a couple other higher horsepower models. Certainly would be exciting to have one, but I can only imagine what the STC process for carrying jet fuel would be...

https://www.flyingmag.com/deltahawk-adds-2-more-engines/

-KC

Fun to see that project finally come to fruition.  Back in the day, they talked about 6- and 8-cylinder versions, marine, stationary, and other variations.

[Pinecone]

Hmm, the 235 version weighs in the same range as my TSIO-360-SB (330 to 452 versus 345) and produces 15 more HP.

Cruising at the same HP as I do now, it would be burning 7.5 GPH. 

That would give me a cruising duration of around 13 hours with full tanks (Monroy STC) with reserves.

A nice 2,275 mile range in calm air.  Or literally coast to coast.

[Pinecone]

6 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

What is the current estimate for the engine now?…over $100,000?  (The last time they said anything was 4 years ago when they said the target was $90,000).  As tightly cowled as a Mooney is, I bet you will need a new cowl. It’s not like a Cessna. Add another $15,000. 

Have you priced a factory new engine lately?

A new TSIO-360-SB is $93,675 now.

[A64Pilot]

23 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

What is the current estimate for the engine now?…over $100,000?  (The last time they said anything was 4 years ago when they said the target was $90,000).  As tightly cowled as a Mooney is, I bet you will need a new cowl. It’s not like a Cessna. Add another $15,000. 

Honestly that’s nothing, EVERYTHING has to be replaced from the alternator, starter, engine mount, exhaust system, prop, every engine instrument and likely some extensive fuel system mods, pumps etc. Tanks ought to be fine, we used the same fuel tank sealer for turbine crop duster used in the Avgas Mooney’s.

You ought to look at the Diesel Maule Certified about ten years ago to see a huge very ugly very high drag looking cowl, so who knows?

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/diesel-maule-alternative-energy-for-the-boondocks/

It would truly be a very extensive mod, and people will argue this but you are rolling the dice, we honestly don’t know what may happen given a few years and thousand hours, airframe or mounts cracks, who knows.

I’d like to see it happen it hopefully would dump lots of serviceable “stuff”, props engines, exhausts, every accessory into the used market.

[Pinecone]

My point was, you are getting a new engine for a similar price to a new engine.

[Fly Boomer]

On 2/3/2024 at 3:10 PM, 1980Mooney said:

And if a new cowl is required for the conversion then it will be $$$ more. 

I have not looked at their marketing materials for many years, but they used to compare the cross-section of their diesel to the cross-section of a 360 Lycoming or Continental.  If memory serves, their engine would fit in the same outline.

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

I have not looked at their marketing materials for many years, but they used to compare the cross-section of their diesel to the cross-section of a 360 Lycoming or Continental.  If memory serves, their engine would fit in the same outline.

I wonder if that outline accounts for the plumbing and radiator for the liquid cooling, intercooler, etc.   I wonder whether that's accounted for in the weight claims as well? 

[Fly Boomer]

10 minutes ago, EricJ said:

I wonder if that outline accounts for the plumbing and radiator for the liquid cooling, intercooler, etc.   I wonder whether that's accounted for in the weight claims as well? 

I don't know.  Much has changed since I first saw their engine.  The version I saw didn't have heads -- the cylinders were formed with an integral "head".  The whole thing looks different.

[A64Pilot]

In the past Diesel’s have always been heavier, due in part to the compression and in part to the rather erratic timing, erratic because a cold Diesel actually Diesels, but once warm and at operating speed there is enough heat in the cylinder so that the fuel begins it’s burn the moment it is injected.

But with the magic that common rail is erratic timing can be handled and is why the NVH of modern Diesels is close to spark ignition engines.

I don’t really understand the push for Diesels myself, I guess it’s because the fuel is already at airports? I would think that design and manufacturing of a modern spark ignition motor that could run on Auto fuel would be easier and lighter, for example look at what’s being done with Outboard engines.

Bigger than we need, but 600 HP on 87 Octane, I only link this to show that you can make big power on Autofuel, just need modern combustion chamber which mean four valve heads and that means liquid cooling, or that’s what it took to put four valves in motorcycles, they couldn’t do it without liquid cooling.

Boat motors differ greatly from automobiles, because often a boat is run nearly at or at full throttle for extended times like an airplane, but that’s almost never the case for Auto’s.

https://www.mercurymarine.com/us/en/engines/outboard/verado/verado-600hp

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

In the past Diesel’s have always been heavier, due in part to the compression and in part to the rather erratic timing, erratic because a cold Diesel actually Diesels, but once warm and at operating speed there is enough heat in the cylinder so that the fuel begins it’s burn the moment it is injected.

But with the magic that common rail is erratic timing can be handled and is why the NVH of modern Diesels is close to spark ignition engines.

I don’t really understand the push for Diesels myself, I guess it’s because the fuel is already at airports? I would think that design and manufacturing of a modern spark ignition motor that could run on Auto fuel would be easier and lighter, for example look at what’s being done with Outboard engines.

Bigger than we need, but 600 HP on 87 Octane, I only link this to show that you can make big power on Autofuel, just need modern combustion chamber which mean four valve heads and that means liquid cooling, or that’s what it took to put four valves in motorcycles, they couldn’t do it without liquid cooling.

Boat motors differ greatly from automobiles, because often a boat is run nearly at or at full throttle for extended times like an airplane, but that’s almost never the case for Auto’s.

https://www.mercurymarine.com/us/en/engines/outboard/verado/verado-600hp

As far as I am concerned - the big market for diesel and the big reason for diesel is one thing you just said - its already at the airports as JetA - and I mean on the world market in many parts of the world where there maybe jetA but no avgas.  So not so much for the North America market.  Or for me.

[A64Pilot]

22 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

As far as I am concerned - the big market for diesel and the big reason for diesel is one thing you just said - its already at the airports as JetA - and I mean on the world market in many parts of the world where there maybe jetA but no avgas.  So not so much for the North America market.  Or for me.

I understand, as I said one of our dealers was installing the Diesel STC in 172’s as fast as they could before it went away.

Their name is Africare and they are the Bell helicopter dealer as well as Cessna for Africa and of course sell a Lot in that Continent. Apparently for whatever reason Avgas is scarce in the African Continent, so they could sell more Diesel 172’s than they could modify and I’m pretty sure those were new 172’s. The market is there no question.

Maule had a LOT of pre-orders but I think they were smart enough to not take deposits, if SMA hadn’t gone under Maule could have sold everything they could build easily.

I think the Diesel market is for new aircraft though, not so much for our older aircraft, just too expensive, but I’ve been wrong before

But I can’t think of anywhere there isn’t Auto fuel, in fact I’d say 87 Octane Autofuel is much more available than Jet, sure you would have to sell it at the airport, but how tough could that be?

 

[KSMooniac]

I sure like the idea and have been a fan from afar for way too many years.  They have some specs on the 180 hp, but nothing for the 200 or 235 except fuel burns.  The 180 hp dry weight is given as 357 lbs including starter, turbo, alternator, and exhaust.  I have to think it is not the complete exhaust, but at least enough to get to the turbo.  It presumably does not include the radiator and the rest of the kit to make it work, nor the 13+ lbs of coolant if my math is correct.  I figure a radiator, some brackets, hoses, and ducts/plenums to integrate it will add another 10+ lbs, so figure the installed dry weight + coolant = 370+ lbs.  The dry weight for a Lyc IO-360 is right around 300 lbs, but I don't know if that includes any accessories or exhaust.  The dry weight of a TCM TSIO-360 is 438 lbs, but again, I'm not sure what that includes.

That's a lot of words to say that if the weights of the 200 and 235 hp variants are close to the 180, then either or both should be viable for a mid-body Mooney retrofit.  We know Rocket was able to hang much bigger engines long ago, too, but likely with less certification scrutiny than we have in the current environment.  Integrating a radiator will be a challenge, but perhaps the DH does not need an intercooler, and the space/style of intercooler integration in the past could be duplicated for a radiator.  The purchase price is eye-watering for a new engine outright, so the current business case is weak if an owner is faced with being able to overhaul what they have vs. buying something like this.  It might be different in a few years if trends continue for Lyc and TCM/CMI in terms of prices, lead times, etc.  Maybe DH could exploit an opening there, especially if they ramp up volume for other markets and can reduce their prices?  That is likely very wishful thinking on my part.

It is fun to think about, in any case.  I'm worried about a post-100LL world, and at the rate we're going, the gov't won't solve the problem and all of the anti-GAMI interests will succeed in keeping G100UL away from our airports.  Maybe then it will make more sense if we want to keep flying our beloved Mooneys.  I can't afford to step up to a TBM, Epic, or Pilatus just yet...

[Fly Boomer]

7 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I understand, as I said one of our dealers was installing the Diesel STC in 172’s as fast as they could before it went away.

Their name is Africare and they are the Bell helicopter dealer as well as Cessna for Africa and of course sell a Lot in that Continent. Apparently for whatever reason Avgas is scarce in the African Continent, so they could sell more Diesel 172’s than they could modify and I’m pretty sure those were new 172’s. The market is there no question.

Maule had a LOT of pre-orders but I think they were smart enough to not take deposits, if SMA hadn’t gone under Maule could have sold everything they could build easily.

I think the Diesel market is for new aircraft though, not so much for our older aircraft, just too expensive, but I’ve been wrong before

But I can’t think of anywhere there isn’t Auto fuel, in fact I’d say 87 Octane Autofuel is much more available than Jet, sure you would have to sell it at the airport, but how tough could that be?

 

DeltaHawk started all this long before there was even an inkling that 100UL would ever be a thing.  What was known was that the future for 100LL was starting to look dim.  As it turns out, the main market for these may be all the countries on the planet (most of them) where avgas is not readily available.  The military is apparently showing interest for loitering UAVs as well.

[Will.iam]

1 hour ago, KSMooniac said:

I sure like the idea and have been a fan from afar for way too many years.  They have some specs on the 180 hp, but nothing for the 200 or 235 except fuel burns.  The 180 hp dry weight is given as 357 lbs including starter, turbo, alternator, and exhaust.  I have to think it is not the complete exhaust, but at least enough to get to the turbo.  It presumably does not include the radiator and the rest of the kit to make it work, nor the 13+ lbs of coolant if my math is correct.  I figure a radiator, some brackets, hoses, and ducts/plenums to integrate it will add another 10+ lbs, so figure the installed dry weight + coolant = 370+ lbs.  The dry weight for a Lyc IO-360 is right around 300 lbs, but I don't know if that includes any accessories or exhaust.  The dry weight of a TCM TSIO-360 is 438 lbs, but again, I'm not sure what that includes.

That's a lot of words to say that if the weights of the 200 and 235 hp variants are close to the 180, then either or both should be viable for a mid-body Mooney retrofit.  We know Rocket was able to hang much bigger engines long ago, too, but likely with less certification scrutiny than we have in the current environment.  Integrating a radiator will be a challenge, but perhaps the DH does not need an intercooler, and the space/style of intercooler integration in the past could be duplicated for a radiator.  The purchase price is eye-watering for a new engine outright, so the current business case is weak if an owner is faced with being able to overhaul what they have vs. buying something like this.  It might be different in a few years if trends continue for Lyc and TCM/CMI in terms of prices, lead times, etc.  Maybe DH could exploit an opening there, especially if they ramp up volume for other markets and can reduce their prices?  That is likely very wishful thinking on my part.

It is fun to think about, in any case.  I'm worried about a post-100LL world, and at the rate we're going, the gov't won't solve the problem and all of the anti-GAMI interests will succeed in keeping G100UL away from our airports.  Maybe then it will make more sense if we want to keep flying our beloved Mooneys.  I can't afford to step up to a TBM, Epic, or Pilatus just yet...

Water cooling has already been done on a mooney with the vents aft of the cargo space. It produced 350hp but parts for that motor was stopped so now those mooneys will be paper weights as the cost to convert back would be too much from what i understand.  

[KSMooniac]

Correct. But I think only 3-5 were built. Still sucks for those owners, but they night great candidates for a DH conversion.

Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk

[A64Pilot]

16 hours ago, KSMooniac said:

 

It is fun to think about, in any case.  I'm worried about a post-100LL world, and at the rate we're going, the gov't won't solve the problem and all of the anti-GAMI interests will succeed in keeping G100UL away from our airports.  Maybe then it will make more sense if we want to keep flying our beloved Mooneys.  I can't afford to step up to a TBM, Epic, or Pilatus just yet...

I can assure you the Government doesn’t give a rats behind, they have no interest in solving the issue, if it’s solved and I believe it has been that will come from private industry. 

I’m hanging my hat on the resurgence of ADI, alcohol water injection, even if your a Gami proponent, you need ADI to exist to help keep the price down, as I understand it Gami won’t have anything to do with pricing, that will come from who produces it, and if they have a monopoly well that’s not always good for the consumer.

Any engine conversion is way out of my price range, especially one that will be as comprehensive as a Diesel conversion will be, everything forward of the firewall will have to be replaced as a min. As a WAG I’d think that would cost well North of $150K, start adding up prop, engine mount, exhaust and cowling etc and 150K might be a heck of a deal. Don’t forget labor this won’t be a quickie. If the engine is $100K I wouldn’t be surprised by the time it was all done if the total wasn’t twice that.

Now a new aircraft depending on what OEM pricing will be may not be much if any more than a Lycoming or Continental powered aircraft.

I think without looking that the 172 lost about 100 lbs useful.

I’m curious, what anti Gami interests are there?

[Pinecone]

2 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Yes that is true only for a newly produced plane in which there is an option on engine selection.   Perhaps Cirrus, Diamond or Cessna will offer it as option if they modify a model around the engine.

 

Yes, but my point was, a new Lycoming or Continental is in the same price range.  It seems many people's mind are on prices 5 years ago when a new engine was $50,000 or less, not the prices of today.

Also, if the 235 can be pulled back to 150 HP, I would save 2 gallons per hour plus around 75 cents per gallon on what is burned, so another $6 per hour, or nearly $18 per hour.  2000 hours, that is $36,000 in fuel costs.   Plus I would be flying bit faster as I cruise at about 138 HP now.

No mags to rebuilt, no spark plug to replace.

WRT saving a percentage of the purchase price, that would be to zero cost, and we are assuming you are looking at a factory reman at least. And don't forget replacing the hoses and repairing the engine mount.  Also, using 3000 hours would be another $18,000 in fuel costs.  

And if it will go to 3000 hours before overhaul, you same 1/2 and overhaul.

No, not cheap, but not quite as bad as first look.

[McMooney]

as long as the market will support me selling my m20e for $250k, i'm all in.

 

honestly, i would do this tomorrow if i could afford it, totally solves all my problems

[aviatoreb]

I've always figured my airplane is really a dumb investment and its essentially a complete loss for all the money I put into it.  I keep fixing it up and it looks shiny, beautiful inside and out, great paint, great upholstery and great panel.  Cool prop.  TKS, rocket.  Its cool! And I always figured damned Im one dumb so of a &*^% for spending all that money on it if I think its an investment.  But I like having nice things and its really really nice!  When I need to overhaul my engine - soon - that will be another pile of money that I wont recoup when I spend it - I mean a lot of money.  My airplane is in such tip top shape it probably already is at the max of what a rocket will go for even with a high hour engine.  But I will spend the money to overhaul it anyway because its my long time keeper.  And if I got in the mood to do a diesel if one were available - meh - I would do that too - but not because I think its an investment.  PS - there's other money I actually invest - but my airplane is my mooney money hole.

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Yes, but my point was, a new Lycoming or Continental is in the same price range.  It seems many people's mind are on prices 5 years ago when a new engine was $50,000 or less, not the prices of today.

Also, if the 235 can be pulled back to 150 HP, I would save 2 gallons per hour plus around 75 cents per gallon on what is burned, so another $6 per hour, or nearly $18 per hour.  2000 hours, that is $36,000 in fuel costs.   Plus I would be flying bit faster as I cruise at about 138 HP now.

No mags to rebuilt, no spark plug to replace.

WRT saving a percentage of the purchase price, that would be to zero cost, and we are assuming you are looking at a factory reman at least. And don't forget replacing the hoses and repairing the engine mount.  Also, using 3000 hours would be another $18,000 in fuel costs.  

And if it will go to 3000 hours before overhaul, you same 1/2 and overhaul.

No, not cheap, but not quite as bad as first look.

Agreed that the price range of a new Lycoming or Continental keeps growing or to paraphrase @aviatoreb's comments they keep giving us reasons to set bigger and bigger piles of money on fire....

Also another thing not mentioned in the cost of a retrofit - if you want a heater in your plane you will have to add a coolant fed heat exchanger and fan system inside the cabin or potentially mount it in the engine compartment and tie into the existing SCAT  ventilation/heater tubing.  These costs all add up.

The things I don't get with Deltahawk:

• I have never seen any "real world" performance data published from the certified engine in the Cirrus SR-20 mule. (if have missed it someone please post).
  • Lab dyno fuel consumption/HP provided for two (2) data points is interesting and one indicator  - but real performance in the SR-20 is another.   After all they have been flying the prototype for 10 years - in 2014 it went to Oshkosh in an earlier version.
• If they have been perfecting the certified DH-180 in a Cirrus SR-20 testbed for 10 years why isn't Cirrus an early adopter? (or why hasn't Deltahawk teamed up with Cirrus to roll it out to them first?)  After all Cirrus is building GA aircraft in material numbers.
  • Instead they announced at the time of certification that they teamed up with Bearhawk in homebuilt
  • Is Cirrus cool to Deltahawk because China State Aviation (AVIC) owns both Cirrus Aircraft  (through its CAIGA subsidiary) and Continental Aerospace (through its AECC subsidiary) which markets its own diesel engine via the acquisition of Thielert? - and see this as competition which they don't want to assist?
• In the Cessna Pilots Association December 2023 article on Deltahawk, Dennis Webb, Deltahawk's Director of Marketing and Certification, tells the author " Webb promised me that we can expect STCs for the Cessna 172 and other Cessna models at some point."
  • WTF? - there are only about 40,000+ Cessna 172 still flying.  Instead they want to piddle around with Blackhwak Aircraft and sell onesies and twosies?  It doesn't sound like a priority.
• If there is no urgency regarding providing STC's for Cessna (another 20,000+ 182's for the 235 HP variant, another 4,000+ Cardinals, etc, etc..), I seriously doubt you will see a Mooney STC very soon.

Edited February 7 by 1980Mooney

[A64Pilot]

On 2/6/2024 at 6:07 PM, Pinecone said:

Yes, but my point was, a new Lycoming or Continental is in the same price range.  It seems many people's mind are on prices 5 years ago when a new engine was $50,000 or less, not the prices of today.

Also, if the 235 can be pulled back to 150 HP, I would save 2 gallons per hour plus around 75 cents per gallon on what is burned, so another $6 per hour, or nearly $18 per hour.  2000 hours, that is $36,000 in fuel costs.   Plus I would be flying bit faster as I cruise at about 138 HP now.

No mags to rebuilt, no spark plug to replace.

WRT saving a percentage of the purchase price, that would be to zero cost, and we are assuming you are looking at a factory reman at least. And don't forget replacing the hoses and repairing the engine mount.  Also, using 3000 hours would be another $18,000 in fuel costs.  

And if it will go to 3000 hours before overhaul, you same 1/2 and overhaul.

No, not cheap, but not quite as bad as first look.

Buy an airplane that can burn Mogas with an STC, often the STC is dirt cheap as many can with no modifications, some need extra pumps and cowling vents etc. Maule does for example, that’s factory drawings though I think.

I have no idea really but can the 180 HP carbureted Mooney’s burn Mogas?

If not then I guess a Mooney is out but many others can.

Which has me thinking if you can’t make one run on Auto fuel for whatever reason, perhaps ADI would require 94UL? I’ve not seen 94UL for sale so I guess at this point it’s kind of rare?

Anyway over there at the C-140 / 120 Assn it’s been known for a long time that the price difference between Mogas and 100LL pays for your engine overhaul, if of course if it’s burned full time to TBO. The price savings is substantial, but based on fuel price alone a Diesel conversion just doesn’t make $$ sense, even if you need an overhaul anyway.

At todays prices anyway, we don’t know what the future may bring. When 100LL goes away I think things will accelerate in a hurry, right now there is no need.

[A64Pilot]

On 2/6/2024 at 8:38 PM, aviatoreb said:

I've always figured my airplane is really a dumb investment and its essentially a complete loss for all the money I put into it.  I keep fixing it up and it looks shiny, beautiful inside and out, great paint, great upholstery and great panel.  Cool prop.  TKS, rocket.  Its cool! And I always figured damned Im one dumb so of a &*^% for spending all that money on it if I think its an investment.  But I like having nice things and its really really nice!  When I need to overhaul my engine - soon - that will be another pile of money that I wont recoup when I spend it - I mean a lot of money.  My airplane is in such tip top shape it probably already is at the max of what a rocket will go for even with a high hour engine.  But I will spend the money to overhaul it anyway because its my long time keeper.  And if I got in the mood to do a diesel if one were available - meh - I would do that too - but not because I think its an investment.  PS - there's other money I actually invest - but my airplane is my mooney money hole.

I think your an outlier, I think for most of us if faced with a 150 to 200K requirement it would break us, there would be a whole lot of scrap Mooney’s being parted out overnight.

If I had to write off the Mooney that would probably put me in something Rotax powered, used at that.

[Austintatious]

On 2/3/2024 at 10:36 AM, 1980Mooney said:

What is the current estimate for the engine now?…over $100,000?  (The last time they said anything was 4 years ago when they said the target was $90,000).  As tightly cowled as a Mooney is, I bet you will need a new cowl. It’s not like a Cessna. Add another $15,000. 

 I heard from Deltahawk directly 100-110K..  but that was for a firewall forward package (not for a mooney)

 

 

[Austintatious]

On 2/5/2024 at 8:33 AM, A64Pilot said:

In the past Diesel’s have always been heavier, due in part to the compression and in part to the rather erratic timing, erratic because a cold Diesel actually Diesels, but once warm and at operating speed there is enough heat in the cylinder so that the fuel begins it’s burn the moment it is injected.

But with the magic that common rail is erratic timing can be handled and is why the NVH of modern Diesels is close to spark ignition engines.

I don’t really understand the push for Diesels myself, I guess it’s because the fuel is already at airports? I would think that design and manufacturing of a modern spark ignition motor that could run on Auto fuel would be easier and lighter, for example look at what’s being done with Outboard engines.

Bigger than we need, but 600 HP on 87 Octane, I only link this to show that you can make big power on Autofuel, just need modern combustion chamber which mean four valve heads and that means liquid cooling, or that’s what it took to put four valves in motorcycles, they couldn’t do it without liquid cooling.

Boat motors differ greatly from automobiles, because often a boat is run nearly at or at full throttle for extended times like an airplane, but that’s almost never the case for Auto’s.

https://www.mercurymarine.com/us/en/engines/outboard/verado/verado-600hp

Woa there buddy... that last part isnt true at all..  Maybe for race boats... but the majority of Outboard engines spend VERY little time at WOT....   I have 3- 300 HP Mercs on my boat and I typically cruise it around 4500 RPM...  this translates to like 50% power or something like that... Fuel burn wise they will go as high as 90 GPH between all 3 of them... but when I cruise I am burning 35 GPH.

BTW, you looked at how much those OB's weigh in comparison to an aircraft engine?   WAAAAAAAAY too heavy.