Get voting for an alternative engine option!

[FredG]

here you are: https://www.deltahawk.com/

 

[0TreeLemur]

Man, I got completely excited reading the specs.  Sadly, it seems too heavy for most Mooney airframes given our useful load constraints.  As I read it, the engine weighs >130 lbs more than the Lycoming IO-360.  That would throw the CG out the front.  Na ganna happan.

[McMooney]

Get the 235hp variant  and move the battery far back in the tail, add a second if necc

[Pinecone]

Burns less fuel, so you can just carry less.

[Shadrach]

15 hours ago, 0TreeLemur said:

Man, I got completely excited reading the specs.  Sadly, it seems too heavy for most Mooney airframes given our useful load constraints.  As I read it, the engine weighs >130 lbs more than the Lycoming IO-360.  That would throw the CG out the front.  Na ganna happan.

Where are you getting your numbers?

Per Lycoming TCDS:

The following tabulations show std. dry weight (less) (alternator and starter), C.G.’s, fuel injectors, fuel pumps and magnetos for these model. 

Lycoming IO360A1A - Dry weight 293lbs

Delta Hawk- Dry Weight 357 lbs/157 kg (includes starter, turbo, exhaust, alternator)

So it looks to me like a 64lb delta per the published numbers except that the Lycoming number is sans starter and alternator. Once those are added to IO360, the difference is a wash. The Deltahawk is likely lighter than a TN’d IO360 dry but more once fluids are added.

[Mufflerbearing]

21 hours ago, 0TreeLemur said:

As I read it, the engine weighs >130 lbs more than the Lycoming IO-360.  That would throw the CG out the front.  Na ganna happan.

From what I was able to see, it appears that there is a discrepancy between how the two engines are weighed.  The diesel weight includes the starter and alternator and other things whereas the gas did not.  It is speculated that the weight difference really is only 65 lbs heavier for the diesel. 

Now, I'm not convinced that this engine will run burning less fuel.  I have not seen the comparable on that.

The $100k for the 4 cyl is pretty steep unless it has a tbo like 4,000 hrs.

[Ragsf15e]

Obviously we’re a very long way off (if ever) from having something like this, but wouldn’t it be awesome if you could upgrade your engine, because these are turbo charged (or at least normalized) and all the Es, Fs, and Js would suddenly be much faster in the low teens?  We could see significant performance benefits in speed, climb, and high DA.

[Shadrach]

55 minutes ago, Mufflerbearing said:

From what I was able to see, it appears that there is a discrepancy between how the two engines are weighed.  The diesel weight includes the starter and alternator and other things whereas the gas did not.  It is speculated that the weight difference really is only 65 lbs heavier for the diesel. 

Now, I'm not convinced that this engine will run burning less fuel.  I have not seen the comparable on that.

The $100k for the 4 cyl is pretty steep unless it has a tbo like 4,000 hrs.

What is it that makes you skeptical of the fuel burn?  Given that it’s a turbo diesel with a compression ratio of 20:1, the fuel specifics look very believable, if not conservative.

[cliffy]

Do we realize we are talking about a re-engine project on a close to 50 year old airframe? 

With a limited amount of viable subjects and we aren't making any more of them so as every day

passes with every crash the market size dwindles?   I'm thinking ROI here. 

[Shadrach]

34 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Do we realize we are talking about a re-engine project on a close to 50 year old airframe? 

With a limited amount of viable subjects and we aren't making any more of them so as every day

passes with every crash the market size dwindles?   I'm thinking ROI here. 

The engine is being developed for the SR20. So 25 year old airframes not 50…

[cliffy]

Its a Mooney forum talking about an alternative engine option

A thought to using in a Mooney was proffered

And Es Fs and others were talked about as a subject of investigation- so

I don;t think my comments were too far off subject but if they were OK

[Shadrach]

19 hours ago, cliffy said:

Its a Mooney forum talking about an alternative engine option

A thought to using in a Mooney was proffered

And Es Fs and others were talked about as a subject of investigation- so

I don;t think my comments were too far off subject but if they were OK

It would be an excellent retrofit to the 4 cylinder birds. And makes far more sense than something like an IO390. 

It’s true the market is shrinking. As a consequence values are increasing and the cost of a power plant is a smaller percentage of total aircraft value. I’ve seen people spend ridiculous amounts of money, trying to squeeze 5kts out of an airframe. Spending an extra 50-60k over a factory overhaul on an engine swap that gives any 4 cylinder Mooney performance that approaches a 231…with better fuel specifics and useful load in some cases, seems far more practical then some of the other rabbit holes I’ve seen people through money down. The real question is, can they price it to sell. I would pay a premium to have diesel power,  but the number needs to be reasonable. 
 

[0TreeLemur]

7 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Where are you getting your numbers?

Per Lycoming TCDS:

The following tabulations show std. dry weight (less) (alternator and starter), C.G.’s, fuel injectors, fuel pumps and magnetos for these model. 

Lycoming IO360A1A - Dry weight 293lbs

Delta Hawk- Dry Weight 357 lbs/157 kg (includes starter, turbo, exhaust, alternator)

So it looks to me like a 64lb delta per the published numbers except that the Lycoming number is sans starter and alternator. Once those are added to IO360, the difference is a wash. The Deltahawk is likely lighter than a TN’d IO360 dry but more once fluids are added.

@Shadrach, I pulled my numbers out of my arse.  I mis-remembered the dry weight of the IO-360 as 250 pounds.   But with the diesel, you must six quarts of water, a radiator, and mounting hardware too.   I don't think that their 357 # includes that stuff.  My number included a 30-lb add for that.

For people like me with an early-mid '80's M20J that is a bit on the heavy side as they were made then and therefore UL challenged, going to a heavier engine just doesn't make much sense.   Folks with a later J model with the increased gross, it might make more sense.

Yesterday I filled out the questionnaire and received an e-mail back from the company this morning that seemed to indicate that the 180 h.p. version is most desired.

[Shadrach]

25 minutes ago, 0TreeLemur said:

@Shadrach, I pulled my numbers out of my arse.  I mis-remembered the dry weight of the IO-360 as 250 pounds.   But with the diesel, you must six quarts of water, a radiator, and mounting hardware too.   I don't think that their 357 # includes that stuff.  My number included a 30-lb add for that.

For people like me with an early-mid '80's M20J that is a bit on the heavy side as they were made then and therefore UL challenged, going to a heavier engine just doesn't make much sense.   Folks with a later J model with the increased gross, it might make more sense.

Yesterday I filled out the questionnaire and received an e-mail back from the company this morning that seemed to indicate that the 180 h.p. version is most desired.

6 quarts of 50-50 blend weighs 14lbs. 
 

An angle valve 360, Lycoming weighs about 350 pounds on the mount with accessories.

Parallel valve Lycoming is about 40 pounds lighter than the angle valve. 
 

The weight penalty will be significant for C and models. For the Angle valve Birds, I think the Delta will be less than 40 pounds.  The reduced fuel burn goes a long way towards diminishing that.. 

this is all pie in the sky kind of stuff, but in less complicated regulatory world, one could make a really efficient cross country airplane with diesel powered Mooney.

[toto]

6 hours ago, Shadrach said:

It would be an excellent retrofit to the 4 cylinder birds. And makes far more sense than something like an IO390. 

It’s true the market is shrinking. As a consequence values are increasing and the cost of a power plant is a smaller percentage of total aircraft value. I’ve seen people spend ridiculous amounts of money, trying to squeeze 5kts out of an airframe. Spending an extra 50-60k over a factory overhaul on an engine swap that gives any 4 cylinder Mooney performance that approaches a 231…with better fuel specifics and useful load in some cases, seems far more practical then some of the other rabbit holes I’ve seen people through money down. The real question is, can they price it to sell. I would be a premium to have diesel power,  but the number needs to be reasonable. 
 

My IO-360 has <1000 hours, and hopefully has many happy years left, but I would seriously consider a significant cost premium over a Lycoming engine for a DeltaHawk that is relatively future-proof and brings performance and economy gains.

[McMooney]

After paint, fuel tanks and a new deltahawk engine, i don't want to hear anyone complain about me selling my E for 300k

[hammdo]

Don’t forget new panel…

-Don

[ArtVandelay]

Don’t forget new panel…
-Don

And new interior and speed mods…..gotta have the speed mods!

[JayMatt]

15 hours ago, Mufflerbearing said:

 

The $100k for the 4 cyl is pretty steep unless it has a tbo like 4,000 hrs.

Where did you see the cost? Is there a TBO on these yet? 235hp on a supercharged motor would be a pretty solid performance mod on a M20J. Basically no hp loss at 8k and would cruise 180 kts on 10.2gph. I wouldn't be surprised if these were the numbers. If people think about stuff like lopresti mods and what not, that cost 20g's to gain 5 kts.... I think this would be worth the weight trade off. Which shouldn't be much anyway. 

[Pinecone]

16 hours ago, Mufflerbearing said:

Now, I'm not convinced that this engine will run burning less fuel.  I have not seen the comparable on that.

The $100k for the 4 cyl is pretty steep unless it has a tbo like 4,000 hrs.

Have you priced new engines lately??

The specs they quote is 8.3 GPH for 150 HP output on the 200 HP version (75% power).   My 252 burns 10.1 GPH at around 140 HP.   So it is almost 2 GPH less.

A 6 hour flight would burn about 50 gallons versus 60 for the gas engine.  So that saves 60 pounds in fuel.  It would give my plane a 12.5 hour fuel duration.  So nearly 2200 mile range in calm winds.

[Shadrach]

22 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Have you priced new engines lately??

The specs they quote is 8.3 GPH for 150 HP output on the 200 HP version (75% power).   My 252 burns 10.1 GPH at around 140 HP.   So it is almost 2 GPH less.

A 6 hour flight would burn about 50 gallons versus 60 for the gas engine.  So that saves 60 pounds in fuel.  It would give my plane a 12.5 hour fuel duration.  So nearly 2200 mile range in calm winds.

Fuel delta would be larger than that. You wouldn’t be puking fuel through the engine on the way to altitude.

[redbaron1982]

56 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Fuel delta would be larger than that. You wouldn’t be puking fuel through the engine on the way to altitude.

100% For me, the most impressive number is not the 8.3 gph at 75% but the 11.4 gph at full-rated power. 

I have no idea if it is even feasible to retrofit this into an M20J, let alone if someone is willing to go through the STC process.

I wonder how much would be the TCO, considering there is no ignition system at all (no magnetos, spark plugs, etc.).

Reliability could be also a relevant improvement.

[Mufflerbearing]

2 hours ago, JayMatt said:

Where did you see the cost? Is there a TBO on these yet? 235hp on a supercharged motor would be a pretty solid performance mod on a M20J. Basically no hp loss at 8k and would cruise 180 kts on 10.2gph. I wouldn't be surprised if these were the numbers. If people think about stuff like lopresti mods and what not, that cost 20g's to gain 5 kts.... I think this would be worth the weight trade off. Which shouldn't be much anyway. 

I saw the videos and the costs of the engine was mentioned there. 

For a J model this engine would be ok, but having an ovation, I'm hoping they would have an option for maybe a 6 cyl with enough HP to equal what I have now.  Maybe in the future.  I do like this idea for an engine, but I am getting (at 10k-12k') 170 kts true at 11.5 gph.  This engine may not get that.

Also, I had a 8V92 silver which is a detroit diesel 2 stroke engine.  Besides it leaking everywhere, horrible fuel mileage and down on power, it was a great engine.  Technology has been around for a long time.  I think this is a good option if it works out.

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Fuel delta would be larger than that. You wouldn’t be puking fuel through the engine on the way to altitude.

Made me laugh, but nobody I know leans while climbing.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Fly Boomer said:

Made me laugh, but nobody I know leans while climbing.

I do.  Even so, I’m still puking fuel through the engine, just not as much as I would at full rich.