Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Deltahawk article
- Thread starter cjensen
- Start date
Fwf
The engine may well be the greatest ever to designed and built.. And I would love to have a diesel like Deltahawk to power my 9A. What seems so commercially dumb is their lack of foresight to develop a FWF kit. Will they survive without a FWF package ?? Maybe/maybe not. One of the reasons I believe Eggenfellner is so successful is their package and support.
The engine may well be the greatest ever to designed and built.. And I would love to have a diesel like Deltahawk to power my 9A. What seems so commercially dumb is their lack of foresight to develop a FWF kit. Will they survive without a FWF package ?? Maybe/maybe not. One of the reasons I believe Eggenfellner is so successful is their package and support.
FWF package
Success in business is not complex, and it's rare that you have to actually have an original idea. In fact, copying what someone else has done, but doing it better/cheaper/faster has been proven to be a great way to be successful. It seems the rotary/diesel/V6 guys could learn a thing or two from Eggenfellner.
I agree with you 100%. If the Eggenfellner kit was not a complete FWF package, he would not have my money. The engineering of the extra stuff that makes an engine run is critially important, and the cause of most (all?) alternative engine forced landings. This is an area where the Lycomings are *way* ahead, since there is so much experience, huge installed base, and many choices for suppliers. To expect a "regular" builder to create their own FWF package for a new engine is surprising. I vaguely recall that they were working with a different company to come out with some FWF kits. Hopefully this will happen.Neil said:
Success in business is not complex, and it's rare that you have to actually have an original idea. In fact, copying what someone else has done, but doing it better/cheaper/faster has been proven to be a great way to be successful. It seems the rotary/diesel/V6 guys could learn a thing or two from Eggenfellner.
Not going after experimentals
I know a fair amount about Deltahawk since a few of the employees are in my EAA chapter and I have attended a couple of thier presentations. They are really only going after the military drone market and eventually the certified GA market. Selling to the experimentals is secondary and the volume probably doesn't justify a FWF kit.Neil said:
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Hummm interesting
I know little of the technical issues of the engine, but a quick look at their web site, I have to say a nice looking engine. I like, a lot, they have real data, realistic, consistent, believable data.
A few quotes from the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like a big challenge but enthusiasm is not lacking, best of luck to them. I do find comments of the demise of gas engines, mixed with their financial problems, mixed with their future prediction of sales, to be bold and unrealistic. However lets hope they get it to market and stay around. Nice looking engine. The high altitude +16,000 feet performance with 100% power available would be awesome. I don't see it as much for a small sport plane but cool for a high flying pressurized corporate twin.
With any of these engines (water cooled) the whole installation needs to be figured into the mix. They are not offering installation kits. Cessna and Cirrus does not sell that many planes, and wounder if the OEM's are willing (able) to alter their airframe design to utilize a water cooled engine. There is as always the weight and radiator issues. Workable but it has to be worked.
Sounds like a real challenge, but to say gas piston engines will be here at least for our lifetime. There is too much inertia with Gas engines to be "worthless" in 5 (or 10) years. Making any engine from scratch for the aircraft market takes big cojones. Cool engine.
George
I know little of the technical issues of the engine, but a quick look at their web site, I have to say a nice looking engine. I like, a lot, they have real data, realistic, consistent, believable data.
A few quotes from the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"In five or 10 years, a lot of leaded gasoline engines are going to be worthless," Pierpont said (I guess we gas engine owners should be worried 
)
"DeltaHawk's principal owners have worked without paychecks, pouring their own money into the company. "our lights nearly flickered out a couple of times," Doers said.
"We are right in step with our competitors," Doers said. "Two of them received their certification earlier, but technical issues are slowing their entry into the marketplace."
"It might be another 18 months before DeltaHawk gets FAA certification, an arduous process with many hurdles and tons of paperwork. But with certification, the company could be well-positioned for selling engines to commercial aircraft companies such as Cessna and Cirrus Design."
Now, DeltaHawk seeks about $3 million to continue engineering and ramp up production.
DeltaHawk has received eight factory-made engines from Kurt Manufacturing, and another 45 are in various stages of assembly. Each engine will sell for about $27,000.
The company expects to sell 325 engines in 2007, bringing in roughly $8.78 million in revenue.
"Funding is the biggest obstacle to making our next leap," Doers said.
)"DeltaHawk's principal owners have worked without paychecks, pouring their own money into the company. "our lights nearly flickered out a couple of times," Doers said.
"We are right in step with our competitors," Doers said. "Two of them received their certification earlier, but technical issues are slowing their entry into the marketplace."
"It might be another 18 months before DeltaHawk gets FAA certification, an arduous process with many hurdles and tons of paperwork. But with certification, the company could be well-positioned for selling engines to commercial aircraft companies such as Cessna and Cirrus Design."
Now, DeltaHawk seeks about $3 million to continue engineering and ramp up production.
DeltaHawk has received eight factory-made engines from Kurt Manufacturing, and another 45 are in various stages of assembly. Each engine will sell for about $27,000.
The company expects to sell 325 engines in 2007, bringing in roughly $8.78 million in revenue.
"Funding is the biggest obstacle to making our next leap," Doers said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like a big challenge but enthusiasm is not lacking, best of luck to them. I do find comments of the demise of gas engines, mixed with their financial problems, mixed with their future prediction of sales, to be bold and unrealistic. However lets hope they get it to market and stay around. Nice looking engine. The high altitude +16,000 feet performance with 100% power available would be awesome. I don't see it as much for a small sport plane but cool for a high flying pressurized corporate twin.
With any of these engines (water cooled) the whole installation needs to be figured into the mix. They are not offering installation kits. Cessna and Cirrus does not sell that many planes, and wounder if the OEM's are willing (able) to alter their airframe design to utilize a water cooled engine. There is as always the weight and radiator issues. Workable but it has to be worked.
Sounds like a real challenge, but to say gas piston engines will be here at least for our lifetime. There is too much inertia with Gas engines to be "worthless" in 5 (or 10) years. Making any engine from scratch for the aircraft market takes big cojones. Cool engine.
George
Last edited:
Darrell514
Active Member
deltahawk engines
I found this site which might be a help in FWF kit. Sounds like someone will have one in an RV at OSH.
http://www.deltahawkengines-europe.com
Darrell
RV9QB
I found this site which might be a help in FWF kit. Sounds like someone will have one in an RV at OSH.
http://www.deltahawkengines-europe.com
Darrell
RV9QB
Last edited:
flyingdefinescontent
Member
Diesels Attacking Oshkosh?
Oh man, I would love to see one mounted and flying, just to be able to get some of my concerns out of the way. This thing is a two-stroke. I've had some experience with older two stroke diesels and they were loud, loud, LOUD! Loud enough to rattle fillings (and rivets loose). And they used a bunch of fuel as compared to their 4-stroke brethren. On the other hand I drove a 6V92 Detroit diesel equipped truck, fully loaded (80,000 pounds), 15 miles to our mechanic at about 50 miles per hour after the crankshaft broke. The truck shook alot but never missed a beat, amazing.
I'd love to see this engine become economically viable.
Carey Bowman
0 RV flights
0 building hours
1 fattening RV purchase account
Oh man, I would love to see one mounted and flying, just to be able to get some of my concerns out of the way. This thing is a two-stroke. I've had some experience with older two stroke diesels and they were loud, loud, LOUD! Loud enough to rattle fillings (and rivets
loose). And they used a bunch of fuel as compared to their 4-stroke brethren. On the other hand I drove a 6V92 Detroit diesel equipped truck, fully loaded (80,000 pounds), 15 miles to our mechanic at about 50 miles per hour after the crankshaft broke. The truck shook alot but never missed a beat, amazing.I'd love to see this engine become economically viable.
Carey Bowman
0 RV flights
0 building hours
1 fattening RV purchase account
I'm more interested in the Thielert diesels. They're only 135hp, but they'd be fine on a -9 and they sip fuel. Certified in Europe.
Problem is, they won't work with 'end-users' - they will only deal with a kit manufacturer to develop a FWF package.
Diesel is so much better for so many reasons...
Problem is, they won't work with 'end-users' - they will only deal with a kit manufacturer to develop a FWF package.
Diesel is so much better for so many reasons...
aparchment
Well Known Member
newbie ignorance
Pardon my newbie ignorance, but what are the advantages to diesel?
Antony
Pardon my newbie ignorance, but what are the advantages to diesel?
Antony
Well here's just a start (I don't have time to look everything up):
1. Better fuel consumption (diesel is denser than Avgas or gasoline and thus while it weighs more, it packs more power per gallon) - up to 30% or so less fuel / hour for the same power.
2. In addition to burning less, fuel is cheaper. In Texas, I can use tax-free agricultural diesel (i.e., the stuff sold to farmers) and save at least $0.38 per gallon.
3. No carb icing (no carbs!)
4. No need to lean (this is a hypertechnical subject), so no mixture control.
5. MUCH safer - much less flammable than gasoline. Liquid diesel is hard to light with a match. This could be important to the guy pinned under his overturned nosedragger
Etc...
1. Better fuel consumption (diesel is denser than Avgas or gasoline and thus while it weighs more, it packs more power per gallon) - up to 30% or so less fuel / hour for the same power.
2. In addition to burning less, fuel is cheaper. In Texas, I can use tax-free agricultural diesel (i.e., the stuff sold to farmers) and save at least $0.38 per gallon.
3. No carb icing (no carbs!)
4. No need to lean (this is a hypertechnical subject), so no mixture control.
5. MUCH safer - much less flammable than gasoline. Liquid diesel is hard to light with a match. This could be important to the guy pinned under his overturned nosedragger
Etc...
Last edited:
ship
Well Known Member
it's not loud at all. actually about the same as lyco. slightly more "mechanical" noise at idle but no knocking or loud exhaustflyingdefinescontent said:Oh man, I would love to see one mounted and flying, just to be able to get some of my concerns out of the way. This thing is a two-stroke. I've had some experience with older two stroke diesels and they were loud, loud, LOUD! Loud enough to rattle fillings (and rivets
Not too loud
FWIW, I live in Racine, WI where thier hanger is located. I attended a joint SAE/EAA (I'm a member of both) presentation at our chapter building a couple years ago. The presentation was given by the Deltahawk guys and was very informative. At the end of the meeting, they pulled out their Velocity with the DH engine and fired it up. Even after doing a runup, it didn't appear to be any louder than a Lyc. Just my perception.flyingdefinescontent said:Oh man, I would love to see one mounted and flying, just to be able to get some of my concerns out of the way. This thing is a two-stroke. I've had some experience with older two stroke diesels and they were loud, loud, LOUD! Loud enough to rattle fillings (and rivets
ship
Well Known Member
only approved for JetA. diesel fuel is a no-no. lots of crud in "diesel" especially "off-road" or "ag" diesel (high sulfer, etc.)mdredmond said:
it'll run, but you don't want to trust your butt with diesel fuel in an airplane.
diesel also has a nasty tendency to turn into jello at cooler altitudes.
ship said:
true, true, ...BUT
not so 7-1-06 when the USA and Canada will join the rest of the world [5 years late] in using ULSD [ultra low sulpher diesel].
Trucking Cos and the Big 3 put a 5 year lag on it here and that is due to expire this summer. The reason we have fewer auto diesel choices than Europe [were 50% of vehilces are diesel] is rot-gut diesel and poor EPA rules [again, skewed by big 3 lobbying to favor gas vehicles [hmmm a SUV can get 10 mph and a diesel gets near 50 and diesels are limited [new diesel technology is amazing, at idle a diesel puts out 1/10th the pollution of a cigarette]]]... when calculated on a miled traveled per pollution expelled diesels are very clean [and then there is the whole Bio-diesel, grow our own benefit as well].
Anyway, beginning in July clean ULSD will be available for use.
John
edited to add this related thread:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?p=47768&posted=1#post47768
Last edited:
ship
Well Known Member
no argument there. however, the main benefit of JetA in aerodiesels is that it is more highly refined. The main benefit of JetA is prolonged life of the fuel pumps.Deuskid said:
Can't speak for the other engines, but DeltaHawk has tested all fuels and found JetA (with small amount of lubricity additive) to be best for the health of the high pressure fuel pumps.
No doubt there will be those who burn diesel nonetheless. Temps below 40F are risky, which means altitude is an issue on all but the warmest days.
ship
Well Known Member
that's for benefit of military and non-aviation industrial uses. engine "performance" is one thing, "flight" is another. aviaton applications will not be recommended with D1 or D2. the recommendation is more about consistency and reliability in flight rather than whether the engine will burn it.mlw450802 said:
Thielert and SMA are certified for operation on diesel, but they don't recommend flying on diesel fuel. DH will most likely follow same path since certification effort is so difficult, i.e. you get as much as you can during the process.
fwiw, i worked with deltahawk for 2 years; still in close contact with the company. also did the setup for FAA certification effort. diesel is NOT favored by FAA for flight for these same reasons. Thielert and SMA were certified in Europe; FAA is still not convinced diesel fuel is worthy of certification but is willing to listen. FAA must accept European certification and vice versa.
otherwise, yes, the engine will happily burn almost anything as long as TBO reliability isn't a requirement.
Last edited:
Dave_Boxall
Well Known Member
mdredmond said:
I'm working on a 9A in the UK. We're awaiting delivery on our Wilksch WAM-120 (120 HP). We expect delivery in around 2-weeks. We hope to see 3 RV-9A's flying with this engine in the UK by the end of this year. Wilksch are working with the builders as the 9 is pretty popular in Europe so they see a significant market. A 9A mount is available now, and as soon as a builder sorts out a cowl Wilksch hope to be able to supply those as well.
The Theilert is pretty heavy for the HP - probably too heavy for a 9
Dave
N395V
Well Known Member
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Zoche
I first saw the Zoche enging at Oshkosh '91, again at '95, and '98. It was not there in '04, or if so well hidden.
This thing seems to be destined to be a "tinkerers dream", probably never destined to go into production, IMHO.
Like so many other alternates to the "Traditional" A/C engine, this thing grabs you by the imagination and takes a good hold of yur attention, but it always weems that the production model is just a little beyond reach.
Reminds me of an article Rex Taylor wrote years ago about the "Noble Gas" engine.
I will keep my eyes open, and wish them sucess, but will hold onto my $$$$until they have PRODUCTION engines in the field, and have developed a track record.
Ditto Dynacam, Deltahawk----(although I think they have probably got the best chance of success of all of them), Stearling cycle engines, Scotch yoke engines, and a host of others I have followed over the years, (including a couple in this forum in the last few months) and of course the Moller Sky Car, with its direct drive ducted fan Wankles--8 of them!!!
Mike
I first saw the Zoche enging at Oshkosh '91, again at '95, and '98. It was not there in '04, or if so well hidden.
This thing seems to be destined to be a "tinkerers dream", probably never destined to go into production, IMHO.
Like so many other alternates to the "Traditional" A/C engine, this thing grabs you by the imagination and takes a good hold of yur attention, but it always weems that the production model is just a little beyond reach.
Reminds me of an article Rex Taylor wrote years ago about the "Noble Gas" engine.
I will keep my eyes open, and wish them sucess, but will hold onto my $$$$until they have PRODUCTION engines in the field, and have developed a track record.
Ditto Dynacam, Deltahawk----(although I think they have probably got the best chance of success of all of them), Stearling cycle engines, Scotch yoke engines, and a host of others I have followed over the years, (including a couple in this forum in the last few months) and of course the Moller Sky Car, with its direct drive ducted fan Wankles--8 of them!!!
Mike
ship said:
Hi Ship -
I wonder if you've lived with a diesel using TDI, PD or CR fuel distribution and a trubo? I have. Not in an A-C but in an auto. Here in the mid west it drops way below 40 and nary a problem. Folks up in Canada don't have a problem with temp either. Much of the fuel flows back to the tank heated, and with glow plugs I've never had a problem staring either of my diesels. Some put engine warmers on theirs but it really isn't necessary. When it is below zero it probably takes 10 seconds for the glow plugs to cycle and then the engine probably runs rough for 2-3 seconds but that is it...
now, I will grant you, bad fuel will cause you problems but bad gas in gassers will cause you problems too.
There are centeen [spelling?] boosters if you are worried about lubercation [but Jet A is worse than D2 in that regard] and Bio-D has wonderful lubercating capabilities. Guys who get jet-a free on the tdiclub.com site either don't use it or use additives to make it 'better' for their cars. Jet A may be cleaner [right now] but really it is all just various kinds of kerosene and come 7-1 I bet D2 will be as refined as jet a.
There are several auto diesels that would make wonderful conversions [toyota, volvo, the boxer engine....] but you still have all the conversion headaches. I think one designed or already adapted to a-c makes the most practical approach.
cheers,
John
Rotary10-RV
Well Known Member
ship said:
The thing to remember is the engine uses a supercharger (for starting) and a turbosupercharger (for normal flight.) The turbo really takes the "bite" out of the exhaust. They also have been running a small muffler post-turbo.
Bill Jepson
Rotary10-RV
Well Known Member
Mike S said:
The Zoche has been, "in development," for so long it's absurd. Zoche strikes me as a well to do engineer doing a retirement project. Zoche has also stated he won't sell to experimentals! (I always find this comment assinine in that there are more exp's registered than almost anything else!) The design and concept look great but there isn't even a "projected" sales date.
Compared to Zoche the Deltahawk development could be considered instant.
The engine builder that doesn't consider the experimental market is designing for failure. Until Cirrus Design (which started with homebuilts) hit stride recently Vans was the manufacturer with the most new registrations for years. (prop driven) That was true even for several years AFTER Cessna started LP production again! The Deltahawk is far and away the most promising of the new diesels. When they wised up and did an inverted version I thought that they will/could/should succeed. Hpoe they make out well.Bill Jepson
ship
Well Known Member
Hi John,Deuskid said:
Ironically, I drive a TDI and a Duramax (GMC). I also live in the "cold" country.
No glow plugs on DeltaHawk, although it HAS started at low temps with some cranking (see website). I was there for that one. It was seriously cold outside that day.
The diesel at the gas station is conditioned for temps, i.e. winter diesel & summer diesel. Winter diesel will "fly" just fine UNLESS you get upstairs where it's -20F. Summer diesel doesn't have the ant-gel conditioners....not something to take lightly at higher altitudes even in the summer.
In December, the D2 in Alaska is different blend than D2 in Omaha, which is different than D2 in Atlanta. All for temps.
Re lubricity: yes, JetA is worse than D2, hence the recommendation to add lubricity conditioner to JetA when filling up.
I have no argument with flying on diesel per se. DeltaHawk can run on all kero fuels, but the engine was designed to be run on JetA as the primary fuel. Having been there first-hand, I can say with confidence there are a lot of good reasons to run on JetA in an aircraft application. That goes for all aero-diesels. As always, economics and logistics will dictate what people actually put in their tanks.
ship
Well Known Member
Rotary10-RV said:
turbos do reduce exhaust noise in some applications, although hearing a Formula 1 race engine at 19,000 rpm demonstrates it's not always the case.
there's no muffler on the DeltaHawk, just a straight pipe from turbo to cowl. test engines run with no pipe on turbo exhaust. somewhat loud but WAY lower than prop noise at full power.
mlw450802
Well Known Member
The formula 1's are indeed an earache but the turbos were apparently very effective on reducing the noise from the indy cars as anyone who had been to the race the last year they allowed turbochargers and has also been to subsequent races where normally aspirated is all that's currently allowed. They are now cruelly noisy.ship said:
I imagine the Deltahawk's exhaust does really benefit from noise reduction due to the turbo's extracting so much energy from it.
I know in the olden days when truckers put straight pipes on the 'jimmy' diesels (supercharger only) they were quite impressive in the noise department.
ship
Well Known Member
true. as you correctly noted turbos are decent mufflers, although the intake on the compressor side makes a fair amount of noise in it's own rightmlw450802 said:
loudest thing ever to hit the road....my father-in-law was a trucker for 45 years...he owned a few...told me the most impressive part of the old jimmy's was the flames coming out of the stack at full tilt going up steep hills, followed closely by the belching smoke.mlw450802 said:
the irony is with all the fireworks, noise and smoke, the things could barely make it up hills with a full load.
DeltaHawk is quieter with the exhaust pipe (in the plane) than without (on the test stand).
ship
Well Known Member
...some further insights on JetA vs. Diesel in aircraft applications. note that low sulfer causes other problems w/lubricity.Deuskid said:
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/...so?-token.key=11435&-token.src=index&-nothing
