VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #1  
Old 03-31-2006, 12:42 PM
cjensen's Avatar
cjensen cjensen is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI area
Posts: 2,967
Default Deltahawk article

here's an update from their website.

newpaper article
__________________
Chad Jensen
Astronics AES, Vertical Power
RV-7, 5 yr build, flew it 68 hours, sold it, miss it.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-02-2006, 12:55 AM
Neil Neil is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hong Kong/Tasmania
Posts: 30
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-02-2006, 04:20 AM
rv8ch's Avatar
rv8ch rv8ch is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LSGY
Posts: 3,173
Default FWF package

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil
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.
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.

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.
__________________
Mickey Coggins
http://rv8.ch
"Hello, world!"
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-02-2006, 08:56 AM
ericwolf ericwolf is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 235
Default Not going after experimentals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil
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.
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.
__________________
Eric Wolf
RV-8A Flying since May 2009, 300+ hours
Mattituck IOF-360, WW 200RV Prop
N184EW
Past President, EAA838 Racine, WI
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-02-2006, 09:54 AM
gmcjetpilot's Avatar
gmcjetpilot gmcjetpilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,283
Default 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:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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 by gmcjetpilot : 04-04-2006 at 09:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-03-2006, 04:08 PM
Darrell514 Darrell514 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sheridan, WY 82801
Posts: 75
Default 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

Last edited by Darrell514 : 04-03-2006 at 10:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-03-2006, 04:19 AM
flyingdefinescontent flyingdefinescontent is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Lakes Country, MN
Posts: 11
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-03-2006, 09:47 AM
mdredmond mdredmond is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 416
Default

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...
__________________
Matt Redmond
Denton, TX (KDTO) - VAF #510
Got the Bug & Wife's Signoff
RV-9 Tip-Up, Empennage & Wing
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-03-2006, 09:56 AM
aparchment's Avatar
aparchment aparchment is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: South Hamilton, MA
Posts: 521
Default newbie ignorance

Pardon my newbie ignorance, but what are the advantages to diesel?

Antony
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-03-2006, 10:18 AM
mdredmond mdredmond is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 416
Default

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...
__________________
Matt Redmond
Denton, TX (KDTO) - VAF #510
Got the Bug & Wife's Signoff
RV-9 Tip-Up, Empennage & Wing

Last edited by mdredmond : 05-03-2006 at 10:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:55 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.