Deltahawk DHK 200 and 235hp Variants

[philiplane]

I installed the very first Deltahawk diesel on N1974B, the test bed Cirrus SR20, at LoPresti's Sebastian facility in 2013. The engine itself is simple, robust, and well though out. Deltahawk has spent a decade refining the design, and I would take it any day over any other diesel on the market. 

[Austintatious]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

Except there aren’t any firewall forward packages for any certified aircraft retrofits. Deltahawk made it clear in the December Cessna Pilot Association interview/article that they are focused on working with OEM aircraft manufacturers for new aircraft construction. They said that they would get to Cessna 172 retrofits “at some point” ….only a 40,000++ market. 
 

That makes perfect business sense for Deltahawk. Given the age, model variations, prior modifications over many decades even within one model of aircraft, retrofitting involves a lot of variation and customization. Deltahawk benefits from a standardized approach leveraging an aircraft manufacturer’s engineering and manufacturing resources. For instance Cirrus or Diamond will likely design and manufacture the unique engine mount and cowl needed for their applications. 
 

That is not the case with any retrofit. I think they gave you a WAG the seriously underestimated the task. 

That was for a Velocity V twin... which have already been put onto a flying (experimental) aircraft.

[EricJ]

16 hours ago, Austintatious said:

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

That's actually not too bad for a new engine.

[A64Pilot]

18 hours ago, Austintatious said:

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.

I wasn’t saying to use an outboard in an airplane. I was saying that many boats can be and some are run HARD, where you can’t automobiles or motorcycles, even racing you spend considerable time throttle off, but a boat like an airplane you can push it up and leave it there, many do, so boat motors have to be built to not blow up when run at or near WOT for extended times, unlike automobiles which can make big power, but for very limited times. You put any HP auto or motorcycle on a Dyno and leave it there it will grenade quicker than you would expect.

It’s a rule of thumb that any spark ignition motor run at max power will consume roughly 1 GPH per 10 HP. So yes your 900 HP outboards at full chat will suck down roughly 90 GPH, and the CBP boats running 1200 HP will suck down pretty much 120 GPH, even my Mooney burns 19 GPH at takeoff.

The CBP boats stick in my craw, they just don’t have the need and when I was cruising in our sailboat 1,000 HP LEO boats were pretty common. I figure even not cruising high power each one sucked down over 100 gls per day for the taxpayer to pay for.

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-us-customs-and-border-protection-marine-unit-operating-a-1200hp-39-77354817.html

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

That's actually not too bad for a new engine.

That isn’t only not too bad, but hard to believe. Heck even just a prop alone is what 1/4 that? To say nothing of cowling, engine mount etc.

I would be astonished if you could use your existing prop.

[Fly Boomer]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I would be astonished if you could use your existing prop.

Many years ago, when Doug had the first "flying" engine on his Velocity, he had a lot of difficulty finding a prop maker that could provide a prop that didn't have some kind of harmonic issues.  It's a very different engine now, but back then I think the problem was the rapid rise of each angular acceleration when a cylinder fired, and possibly the fact that there were twice as many pulses per cylinder.

[A64Pilot]

20 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Many years ago, when Doug had the first "flying" engine on his Velocity, he had a lot of difficulty finding a prop maker that could provide a prop that didn't have some kind of harmonic issues.  It's a very different engine now, but back then I think the problem was the rapid rise of each angular acceleration when a cylinder fired, and possibly the fact that there were twice as many pulses per cylinder.

That’s pretty much most Diesels, they have a tendency to be rough on truck power trains too, especially clutches, the use of dual mass flywheels helps tame the impulses.

But I think wood props are very tolerant, the wood dampens out the vibrations, and an MT is essentially a wood prop, I don’t know about pure composites though, maybe? I would think the more the impulses per revolution would help, not hinder.

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

I would think the more the impulses per revolution would help, not hinder.

That makes sense.

[A64Pilot]

With enough money any issue can be solved, and that’s the rub, having enough money to solve them.

I would think the only logical course of action is to put them on new OEM aircraft, then once that business is established and you have cash flow, to look at which aircraft that you could make money on conversions, and that’s likely the 172 to start with based on the conversions of the past sold well, but many were burnt now owning orphaned engines, so now they have to pay again to have the aircraft converted back? I think maybe the market is a little more careful nowadays.

I think myself if I had the cash I’d like to see the engine put on new aircraft and be on them for 5 years until I got a warm fuzzy that they will stay in business.

I Certified a new aircraft with the then new General Electric turbine, I felt confident since it had the blue GE meatball on it that it would stay in business, GE had spent God knows how much building a new factory etc and they were GE for Gods sake, the worlds largest turbine manufacturer. GE can’t afford the bad press on orphaning an engine and GE has more money than probably even Elon Musk.

Guess what? The engine wasn’t put on the Cessna Caravan and a couple of others, Pratt went to Cessna with a sweetheart deal and GE I think has dropped the engine and no longer supports it. But I retired before that so I’m not sure.

Pratt came to us and offered to pay all expenses to get their new engine the 140 Certified on the aircraft and the idiot owner of the plant ran them off. Pratt wanted GE’s little turbines to fail, they wanted to keep their monopoly.

If GE can cut bait and orphan engine, well nothing is assured in my opinion.

An issue that I can see is the major market is likely Europe and EASA I don’t believe EASA automatically accepts US STC’s like it used to. So maybe EASA would come first?

Unless there is a major issue to push us to Jet-A I don’t think they would sell enough conversions to the Mooney community to break even on the cost to procure the STC, but that’s an opinion of course. If you have to both pay expenses and turn a profit on say 25 aircraft, then your going to have to have a pretty darned high price.

But if the OEM aircraft manufacturer pays all costs associated with Certifying the engine on their aircraft elf  well them you may be able to be competitive with legacy engines and still turn a profit.

[philiplane]

The original Deltahawk installation used a Hartzell composite prop made specifically for the application. A very rugged propeller, and beautifully crafted.

And the large cowl air inlet was expected to be reduced significantly, after the initial flight tests were completed.

[A64Pilot]

I remember that prop used to be expensive, anyone have an estimate of what it costs now?

That inlet sure looks almost exactly like a turbine ram air recovery inlet. Perhaps some of the reason for it is curb appeal, marketing?

[philiplane]

2013, not 2011. At that point, DH had about a decade of development into the project.

Then, in 2014, they did a major redesign of the engine to ensure that it would be leak-free. It had developed some very minor coolant seepage, which they wanted to stamp out completely. Because they intended to sell this into the long-duration flight drone engine market. I'll give Doug Doers credit for wanting a perfect engine, even though he knew it would delay certification and sales for many years. Which contrasts with the Thielert and Austro diesels, which are adapted Mercedes car diesels that continue to have troubles.

The large single inlet was to ensure the engine would pass the FAA cooling climb tests on the first flight. Once you've proven it won't overheat, and you have some test data, you can re-size and optimize the inlet for production. A dual inlet makes the ductwork easier, you've got an oil cooler, a turbo intercooler, and a radiator to supply with cooling air. 

Also, the original V4 engine was running at 160 to 180 HP, and the production variants will produce up to 235 HP, which will require some more air to cool. The dual inlet duct can accommodate that. The growth path is to V6 and V8 variants as well.

This engine is designed to run with zero coolant, in the case of a coolant/radiator failure. The oil cooler rejects enough heat that the engine can continue operation at reduced power, for many hours, until landing. The Thielert, Austro, and Continental diesels can't do this.

[jaylw314]

I recall having interest in the Deltahawk diesel when I first started my RV project in 2010.  Since then, I bought the Mooney and Van's has gone into bankruptcy, but I keep checking every now and then to see if the RV-10 FF kit is available yet...