Article in Kitplanes

There's an article in the Dec 2006 issue of "Kitplanes" about DeltaHawk. Apparently they're talking about "bulk real customer deliveries in Feb 2007". Pricey engines though... over $30K. If they succeed, I wonder how long before somone starts selling firewall-forward kits for RVs.

I'm sure it won't be too long. And the price may not be too bad if you factor in any operating costs savings over it's lifetime.

I'm off to check thier website now...

Looks interesting, just wish it wasn't so heavy. 320-some-odd pounds before oil and coolant...

And according to them, they're already working on FF kits for experimental aircraft - one would think that an RV would one of more profitable ventures in that arena.

One of the only "alternative" engines I've seriously considered, but it is cost-prohibitive compared to a lyc.

xl1200r said:

And according to them, they're already working on FF kits for experimental aircraft - one would think that an RV would one of more profitable ventures in that arena.

Click to expand...

According to the Delta Hawk web pages under Q&A their first Q&A is:
"Q: I would like to build a diesel RV. How soon might your "firewall forward" kit be available?
A: DeltaHawk is primarily in the engine business and does not plan to develop firewall forward kits..." and the story goes on.

For Phil: The DeltaHawk engines has been discussed also earlier in this board so go and search a bit for more info... Also their webpages are quite informative compared to many others -- what's true and what may not be, time will show us.

osxuser said:

One of the only "alternative" engines I've seriously considered, but it is cost-prohibitive compared to a lyc.

Click to expand...

Is it? Have you planned to fly with your plane? I admit that the initial cost is bigger, but I quess you will fly for years so you should also distribute costs over the years. After that it may start look like a good deal. There are some calculations at their web pages -- feel free to do your own and say that how much Lyco has generated cost in first 1000 hours for example and then compare it to the DeltaHawk estimates. If you don't bother to do anything like that (or trust DeltaHawks calculations) are you really even considering this?

Personally I'm also interested in this engine, but with current setup it will not allow negative G-forces (as most alternative engines does not seem to) and therefore not as attractive as it could be.

The weight is a big concern (I would say more so than the cost)... after all the firewall forward stuff, coolant and oil, anybody have an idea how much heavier a 160hp Delta Hawk installation would really be than an O-320?

I also read that on their website about FWF kits...which is why I wonder how long it will be before another company decides to jump on this market, and develop the FWF kits for Delta Hawk engines. I think that would be another limiting factor in the engine's success... many builders (like me) might hesitate knowing we have to fabricate an engine mount, cowling at all that stuff ourselves, probably adding a serious amount of time to complete.

I'm beginning to wonder about the validity of their numbers. In the comparison page for the 200hp engine they claim the total mission weight (installed engine + fuel) to be 700 lbs for the IO-360 and 661 lbs for the Deltahawk = 39 lbs lighter. Yet just above it the installed weight is listed as 20 lbs heavier. I dont see how thats possible when you take into account that diesel has a specific gravity of 0.81 and avgas is 0.72 (lighter fuel), not to mention that every diesel I've ever owned had 3x the volume of oil in the crankcase and then there's the weight of the coolant and radiator to boot.

Mission Weight Numbers

Baja_Traveler said:

I'm beginning to wonder about the validity of their numbers. In the comparison page for the 200hp engine they claim the total mission weight (installed engine + fuel) to be 700 lbs for the IO-360 and 661 lbs for the Deltahawk = 39 lbs lighter. Yet just above it the installed weight is listed as 20 lbs heavier. I dont see how thats possible when you take into account that diesel has a specific gravity of 0.81 and avgas is 0.72 (lighter fuel), not to mention that every diesel I've ever owned had 3x the volume of oil in the crankcase and then there's the weight of the coolant and radiator to boot.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing that their mission weight compares the amount of avgas required to fly X hours and the amount of diesel required to fly the same X hours. If the deltahawk burns less diesel per hour than its avgas counterpart, its total mission weight could be less (needs to carry less fuel for the same trip).

Brandon

Pirkka said:

According to the Delta Hawk web pages under Q&A their first Q&A is:
"Q: I would like to build a diesel RV. How soon might your "firewall forward" kit be available?
A: DeltaHawk is primarily in the engine business and does not plan to develop firewall forward kits..." and the story goes on.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to go digging around the site for it again as I'm at work right now, but they did excplicitly mention that they were in fact working on FF kits for experimental aircraft. They did not, however, specify which ones.

Going off memory, they may have some "partners" working on this, and not DeltaHawk themselves, but their website did elude to such products being availible.

With a company that's progressing as fast as this one should be, I would not be suprised if the FAQs are not always up to date.

Some of the numbers on DHs site don't seem to add up. The flight testing against the Lyco seemed to show it very sick or running very rich. The FF numbers seemed high. The BSFC numbers they posted for the DH were not much lower than a typical Lyco. Take a long time to save money on fuel it would seem, way more money to buy it and really heavy too.

I'd wait to see some real world numbers before getting too excited.

I'd wait to see some real world numbers before getting too excited.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Third party testing is the only thing that's going to prove the airworthyness. Only that will tell if the extra weight is going to be a reasonable trade-off.