Jet A conversions for Mooney air frames??

[1980Mooney]

On 1/13/2025 at 10:09 AM, Fly Boomer said:

A number of shortcuts have been tried -- some more successful than others.  One I have been following for at least 20 years is https://www.deltahawk.com/ which is a clean-sheet design.  They have been inching forward, but certification and production seem to be perennially just out of reach.

Inching is right.  Although they got the DKH180 certified in May, 2023, as I understand, they redesigned again to reduce external hoses and reduce weight.  In November someone from DeltaHawk posted the test results on Facebook and LinkedIn (LinkedIn?...nothing to the aviation community or press.. crazy..)

The presentation is odd.  If the "Fuel Burn" is the average of the flight - then the numbers might not be so bad.

But if the 'Fuel Burn" is for 12,000 ft. cruise then the following applies:

• The 180 HP engine performance at 12,000 ft. (Standard day) in an SR20 looks a few knots faster than an M20C at the same altitude, but burning WAY MORE fuel
  • M20C - 2,700 RPM
    • 140-143 KTAS
    • 8.6 GHP = 51.6 LBS/hour
  • DeltaHawk
    • 146 KTAS
    • 10.6 GPH = 70 LBS/hour 
  • That is 36% MORE consumption by weight by DeltaHawk
• The 200 HP engine performance at 12,000 ft. (Standard day) an SR20 looks about the same as an Ovation pulled back to 50% power (140 hp)
  • M20R - 2,400 RPM
    • 162 KTAS
    • 9.1 GPH LOP = 54.6 LBS/hour
    • 10.7 GPH ROP = 64.2 LBS/hour
  • DeltaHawk
    • 12.1 GPH = 80 LBS/hour
  • That is 25 - 46 % MORE consumption by weight by DeltaHawk

 

DeltaHawk Engines, Inc.DeltaHawk Engines, Inc. • Edited • 2 months ago

 

On November 7 DeltaHawk tested the performance of our Cirrus SR20 with the 200 HP DeltaHawk engine. While this was only the first flight with the 200 HP engine, the performance was very impressive. The data below includes comparisons to the same aircraft with our 180 HP engine.

Both tests were completed in very similar weather conditions near max gross weight of the SR20

180 hp:
Cruise performance @ 12,000 ft MSL: 146 KTAS
Climb Performance (average climb rate from 1,000 ft MSL-12,500 ft MSL): 565 ft/min
Time to climb from 1,000 ft to 12,500 ft: 20.3 min
Fuel burn: 10.6 GPH

200 hp
Cruise Performance @ 12,000 ft MSL: 161 KTAS
Climb Performance(average climb rate from 1,000 ft MSL-12,500 ft MSL): 860 ft/min
Time to climb from 1,000 ft to 12,500 ft:13.3 min
Fuel burn: 12.1 GPH
 

Edited Wednesday at 01:10 AM by 1980Mooney

[0TreeLemur]

2 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

A lot of people say that the M20J was the best plane that Mooney ever built, but in reality, maybe it really was the M20C.

Having owned both, the ergonomics/aerodynamics of the J win the day.   That's why there are all those mods to make a C more J-like.  The J cruises 10 knots faster than a C with 20 percent less fuel flow.

[PeterRus]

12 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Don't get me wrong, I would love the look feel of a new plane too. But a $400,000 premium for 2 extra doors?  Besides, at that UL it is really mainly a 2-person plane.

I can turn this around and, let's say "S-class is a nice car, but for the price I can get XXX civics from the  80s..." you get my point.

UL is an issue with many (if not all) GA airplanes. "With crumped back seats C is really mainly a 2-person plane". 

But I am really disappointed with Deltahawk's "real world" fuel flow numbers...

[AJ88V]

Search pulled up this thread

 

[1980Mooney]

That is a photo above is of the original SR20 test mule which was a couple versions ago.  Before the latest engine revision, the test mule looked like this:

Edited Wednesday at 09:01 PM by 1980Mooney

[1980Mooney]

In 2023 DeltaHawk was "targeting" $110,000 (Excluding Installation Labor Cost) for a Cessna 172 conversion to a DHK-180.  I suspect that ship sailed long ago and prices will be higher.

CessnaPilotsMagazine-DeltaHawk-Nov2023.pdf

• "Webb promised me that we can expect STCs for the Cessna 172 and other Cessna models at some point. They are working with all of the OEM manufacturers with the goal of having DeltaHawk engines installed in new aircraft"

I have seen no STC's approved for conversions of any type and no examples of any plane flying with a DHK engine.  DH signaled that they wanted to work with aircraft manufacturers initially for installation in new aircraft and will begin to address GA conversions later. Co-Developing STC for PA-44 Seminole - DeltaHawk Engines

Also they intend to design, manufacture and sell a complete conversion - no sales of engines alone.  With limited engineering that will be a slow process and naturally will focus on the largest fleets first.  The latest engine redesign obviously is slowing it down too.

 

"But we don’t supply just an engine, DeltaHawk will provide complete Engine Propulsion Packages, which includes much more than just an engine. We are developing model-specific packages for popular Certified aircraft, complete with required Supplemental Type Certificate (STC).

All packages will be engineered, manufactured, and tested to the highest standards. Flight testing by DeltaHawk’s Professional Test Pilots assures the highest level of performance and safety.

These packages will include the engine and mount, plus heat exchangers, pumps, filters, cowl, and necessary hardware, all factory tested as a complete package and ready for installation plus, of course, the required certification paperwork and approvals.
If we don’t have a package announced for your aircraft, make sure you vote."

 

 

[Ibra]

23 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

A lot of people say that the M20J was the best plane that Mooney ever built, but in reality, maybe it really was the M20C.

If you are not after turbos then: C, J, R are sweet spots of short, medium, long bodies. It’s like buying the latest product at the end of it’s cycle 

On topic, Diamond Aircraft managed to convert DA40XL to DA40TDI then DA40NG using JetA, these aircraft are efficient and well designed, however, Diamond Aircraft lost track on two items: integrated cockpits (it’s a bottle neck versus modular avionics) and they produced DA50NG which is basically “Diesel Ovation” that is heavy as hell and costs 1.5m$, who buys this stuff?

There is a nice comparison of XL & M20J here (as well as SR22 and Arrow), the NG is far more efficient than XL (I used to pay 20$/h for fuel), I wonder what M20NG will do but I bet it rocks !

https://www.mooney201.de/why-a-mooney-.html

The numbers speak for themselves,

Edited Wednesday at 09:58 PM by Ibra

[AJ88V]

23 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

A lot of people say that the M20J was the best plane that Mooney ever built, but in reality, maybe it really was the M20C.

I'd say the E model outperforms the C in most performance categories, but both are great airplanes. That said, I own a C and see no reason to 'upgrade' to anything short of a J which is probably the sweet-spot for speed, room, and efficiency.  The 231/252 is excellent in the turbo domain, but really requires operating at much higher altitude to realize the benefit.

The C seems to be awfully close to a Cirrus SR20 for cruise, climb, useful load, and efficiency - real eye opener -  but the C is a lot cheaper.  Period.

What really gets me is what an amazing platform Al Mooney designed with the M20, how adaptable it's been with additional power and fuselage stretches.  This is why the focus on efficiency really paid off.

Proud to be a Mooniac!

[Shiroyuki]

On 1/14/2025 at 7:04 PM, 1980Mooney said:

Inching is right.  Although they got the DKH180 certified in May, 2023, as I understand, they redesigned again to reduce external hoses and reduce weight.  In November someone from DeltaHawk posted the test results on Facebook and LinkedIn (LinkedIn?...nothing to the aviation community or press.. crazy..)

The presentation is odd.  If the "Fuel Burn" is the average of the flight - then the numbers might not be so bad.

But if the 'Fuel Burn" is for 12,000 ft. cruise then the following applies:

• The 180 HP engine performance at 12,000 ft. (Standard day) in an SR20 looks a few knots faster than an M20C at the same altitude, but burning WAY MORE fuel
  • M20C - 2,700 RPM
    • 140-143 KTAS
    • 8.6 GHP = 51.6 LBS/hour
  • DeltaHawk
    • 146 KTAS
    • 10.6 GPH = 70 LBS/hour 
  • That is 36% MORE consumption by weight by DeltaHawk
• The 200 HP engine performance at 12,000 ft. (Standard day) an SR20 looks about the same as an Ovation pulled back to 50% power (140 hp)
  • M20R - 2,400 RPM
    • 162 KTAS
    • 9.1 GPH LOP = 54.6 LBS/hour
    • 10.7 GPH ROP = 64.2 LBS/hour
  • DeltaHawk
    • 12.1 GPH = 80 LBS/hour
  • That is 25 - 46 % MORE consumption by weight by DeltaHawk

 

DeltaHawk Engines, Inc.DeltaHawk Engines, Inc. • Edited • 2 months ago

 

On November 7 DeltaHawk tested the performance of our Cirrus SR20 with the 200 HP DeltaHawk engine. While this was only the first flight with the 200 HP engine, the performance was very impressive. The data below includes comparisons to the same aircraft with our 180 HP engine.

Both tests were completed in very similar weather conditions near max gross weight of the SR20

180 hp:
Cruise performance @ 12,000 ft MSL: 146 KTAS
Climb Performance (average climb rate from 1,000 ft MSL-12,500 ft MSL): 565 ft/min
Time to climb from 1,000 ft to 12,500 ft: 20.3 min
Fuel burn: 10.6 GPH

200 hp
Cruise Performance @ 12,000 ft MSL: 161 KTAS
Climb Performance(average climb rate from 1,000 ft MSL-12,500 ft MSL): 860 ft/min
Time to climb from 1,000 ft to 12,500 ft:13.3 min
Fuel burn: 12.1 GPH
 

If I'm remebering correctly, Deltahawks are two stroke diesel aren't they? Then why would it be a surprise that their fuel efficiency sufferes?

Pull up the POH of a diamond DA62, that's a 180hp turbocharged diesel with actually diesel efficiency, and look at their numbers.  That's a proper modern automotive diesel certified for aircraft and is proven to be fairly reliable and cost effective.