The afp boost pump is setup that way and works fine. However, that is for intermittent use. You lose one of the key benefits, which is cooler fuel by avoiding the recycling of hot fuel. I would be concerned about the pump getting hot with extended idling. Those pumps push a lot of fuel and their design assumes that cool fuel is extracting the heat.
Van's Air Force
The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!
DeltaHawk for RV-14
- Thread starter czechsix
- Start date
czechsix
Well Known Member
Fair point, many FBO's premix Prist with Jet A, but not always so it's best to verify when anticipated operating temps dictate...Prist primarily prevents water in the fuel from forming ice crystals. Agree the risk of Jet A gelling is not the concern for the type of flying we do (it's good to -40F), but regular truck stop #2 diesel can begin to gel at 10-15F and the paraffin wax starts to crystalize at 32F (which can start to clog filters)...so if you're hauling your own diesel out to the hangar to run thru your DeltaHawk, an anti-gel additive should be used anytime you expect to encounter temps at/below freezing.
Last edited:
Mike,
DeltaHawk has been working with Vans on the fuel delivery scheme as it related to the tanks. The current thinking is that the fuel return line will go to the header tank, not to the individual wing tanks. Incidentally, on the EAA RV15 webinar of a few days ago, there was some discussion on the design of the tanks that is of interest to anyone anticipating using the DeltaHawk engine. Worth a listen for this as well as general info on the RV15 design progress.https://www.eaa.org/videos/6388381930112
Craig
@cjs
Over in https://www.diamondaviators.net there has been some recent discussions on fuel impurities effectively causing hot spots on the piston crown which shortens the life of the piston, along with other negative effects on such things as the injectors. This apparently is a common problem in high HP to weight/size diesel engines.
Curious, have you discussed this issue with DH? Are the engines designed to replace such "wear parts"?
Tim
Over in https://www.diamondaviators.net there has been some recent discussions on fuel impurities effectively causing hot spots on the piston crown which shortens the life of the piston, along with other negative effects on such things as the injectors. This apparently is a common problem in high HP to weight/size diesel engines.
Curious, have you discussed this issue with DH? Are the engines designed to replace such "wear parts"?
Tim
Small update:
MT Propellors has been at the DeltaHawk facility in Racine testing their props on the DH test stand (see pics). All part of DeltaHawks efforts to find additional prop choices for the firewall forward package. I’ll post more on this once the testing is done.
MT Propellors has been at the DeltaHawk facility in Racine testing their props on the DH test stand (see pics). All part of DeltaHawks efforts to find additional prop choices for the firewall forward package. I’ll post more on this once the testing is done.
Last edited:
czechsix
Well Known Member
This particular engine/prop combo looks like it's for the Seminole...notice the CCW rotation (as viewed from the cockpit) typical of the right engine installation on many twins. DeltaHawk's press release says the Seminole will use the 180 hp version, but hopefully they'll test and approve the MT with the 200 hp model as well so we can get a more affordable alternative to the Hartzell for the RV-14 package.
Yes, it’s the new series engine block running counter for the Seminole. It was tested up to 210hp. That said, they’ll also be testing for the RV14.
Last edited:
czechsix
Well Known Member
Saw this pic on DeltaHawk's FB page today:
Looks like they cut down the tips on the MT prop to shorten the blades compared to the picture Craig posted above. Wonder if they found objectional harmonic vibration in the longer blades and are experimenting with reduced length to address it? Just speculating...might be related to something else (performance evaluation, acoustic noise, etc)...
The shortening wasn’t due to any RV14 specific issue, they were incrementally shortened from 78 inches to 72 inches to assess performance, analyze vibration characteristics, and better understand how they interact with RPM and power combinations across the various potential airframe candidates.
Good catch though - nothing gets by this group!
Agreed, but the combination will need to be tested on the aircraft too. The MTV9-B was purpose built for the Sr305 and showed no issues in the test cell or on the C182, but the harmonics on the Rv10 were totally different.
Craig, has your RV-14 with the Deltahawk been flying much since it went to Racine?
Do you know how many hours have been put on it?
Have the been any issues?
Do you know how many hours have been put on it?
Have the been any issues?
akschu
Well Known Member
This!!
This is why I refused to look at alternative engines: lack of prop options and little testing. I actually called a PSRU vendor (years ago now) to ask what prop testing they had done and was told that the design had a few hundred hours on it and nobody has died. I tried to explain that harmonics don't work that way, one person can operate at 2400 until the second coming and be fine, and someone else could operate at 2042 for 10 minutes and have it come apart and the way you know is by vibration testing, to which I was told their PSRU doesn't vibrate.
I'm thrilled to see another option out there, not that matters to me, because I'm not going to build another, but I would have looked at this very hard if I was just starting.
This is why I refused to look at alternative engines: lack of prop options and little testing. I actually called a PSRU vendor (years ago now) to ask what prop testing they had done and was told that the design had a few hundred hours on it and nobody has died. I tried to explain that harmonics don't work that way, one person can operate at 2400 until the second coming and be fine, and someone else could operate at 2042 for 10 minutes and have it come apart and the way you know is by vibration testing, to which I was told their PSRU doesn't vibrate.
I'm thrilled to see another option out there, not that matters to me, because I'm not going to build another, but I would have looked at this very hard if I was just starting.
We’ve not been flying it. All work has been focused on the #2 plane. That said, we had a lot of flight data from #1 - additional time wasn’t going to tell us anything we didn’t already have insight on. Total hours: somewhere about 125-150 (can’t recall exactly). I put about 70 of those on it before handing it back to DeltaHawk after the TripleTree Fly-Inn last fall.
No significant issues. Lots of little things - and, those gave guidance on some of the modifications integrated into #2. DeltaHawk also did a complete tear down inspection of the engine to assess wear. Everything looked good.
For what it’s worth - I can’t wait to get #2 in the air. As good as the prototype was, #2 should be even better. It will get a proper paint job as well. And, I hope to fly it for many hours/years. My Lycoming 2020 RV14 just ticked over 800 hours recently and I’m hoping its successor is ready for full-time work before it hits a thousand.
Katamarino
I'm New Here
Do you hear any news on progress regarding the C182 STC? Haven't been able to find any similar resource to this RV14 thread for the C182!
I ran your question by the guys at DeltaHawk - here is literally the response they sent:
“We have a completed design (for the 182) and are currently working through procurement of the prototype components. Once those are in hand, we’ll move into installation and certification testing. We’ll share more updates as we progress through those phases.
The c182, rv10, rv15 are going to be phenomenal matches.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My comment: Don’t read anything into them not mentioning the RV14 in the last line. I believe they were simply referring to future dev projects vs the just about completed RV14.
Katamarino
I'm New Here
Thank you!
A small update.
First - I've been personally busy as of late, so haven't had the time to update as much as I would normally. Rest assured, though, everyone is working to advance the project.
245WM, the prototype DeltaHawk RV14 (#1 build) will be at Sun-n-Fun this coming week. Its already down in GA. I was going to fly it to SnF, but my schedule just wouldn't allow for this. So, I'm heading there mid-week in my Lycoming RV14.
Work is progressing on the #2 RV14 with the new series 400 block/engine. We are on schedule to have this at Air Venture in July - this will showcase the new firewall forward installation and show the package customers will receive. We will also have additional performance numbers to publish along with this.
After Air Venture, we will be converting 245WM (the #1 DH RV14 build) to a tricycle gear (as the development platform for the DeltaHawk engine install) for all of those who like their third wheel in the front of the plane.
Additionally, work will be progressing on the RV10 installation.
The plan is to have three versions of RV installations completed and at Air Venture 2027: Tail and Tricycle gear RV14s, and the RV10.
Work will commence on the RV15 as the kit components become available. We have yet to receive our wing kit, so our best guess is we'll be lucky to have the RV15 built and ready to show by Air Venture 2028. It really does depend mostly on Van's delivery of all the kit components. All that said, we're pretty excited about the RV15 project and as soon as we have the kit(s) we'll begin construction. Fortunately, the work we are doing, and have done, on the other installations should enable an expedited integration process on the 15.
Say Hi if your at SnF.
First - I've been personally busy as of late, so haven't had the time to update as much as I would normally. Rest assured, though, everyone is working to advance the project.
245WM, the prototype DeltaHawk RV14 (#1 build) will be at Sun-n-Fun this coming week. Its already down in GA. I was going to fly it to SnF, but my schedule just wouldn't allow for this. So, I'm heading there mid-week in my Lycoming RV14.
Work is progressing on the #2 RV14 with the new series 400 block/engine. We are on schedule to have this at Air Venture in July - this will showcase the new firewall forward installation and show the package customers will receive. We will also have additional performance numbers to publish along with this.
After Air Venture, we will be converting 245WM (the #1 DH RV14 build) to a tricycle gear (as the development platform for the DeltaHawk engine install) for all of those who like their third wheel in the front of the plane.
Additionally, work will be progressing on the RV10 installation.
The plan is to have three versions of RV installations completed and at Air Venture 2027: Tail and Tricycle gear RV14s, and the RV10.
Work will commence on the RV15 as the kit components become available. We have yet to receive our wing kit, so our best guess is we'll be lucky to have the RV15 built and ready to show by Air Venture 2028. It really does depend mostly on Van's delivery of all the kit components. All that said, we're pretty excited about the RV15 project and as soon as we have the kit(s) we'll begin construction. Fortunately, the work we are doing, and have done, on the other installations should enable an expedited integration process on the 15.
Say Hi if your at SnF.
I spoke with Deltahawk last week about the quarterly update email they sent on 5/4. At the bottom of the RV Series bullet they said "RV-14 reservation holders are encouraged to convert reservations into formal orders to secure their position in the production queue."
Bottom Lines:
1. You do not need to convert your reservation into an order to preserve you place in the que; your reservation does that for you.
2. Deltahawk has not developed their order forms or process so you can't place an order yet. Best I could get is they will be ready before Air Adventure...
Bottom Lines:
1. You do not need to convert your reservation into an order to preserve you place in the que; your reservation does that for you.
2. Deltahawk has not developed their order forms or process so you can't place an order yet. Best I could get is they will be ready before Air Adventure...
czechsix
Well Known Member
That's what they told me a year ago when I asked the same question...at SNF 2025 they were saying that they're 'now taking orders for the RV-14 FWF'. In reality all you can do is put in your reservation deposit, there's no order form, specs, options, pricing, or anything else available yet.
I would not buy anything that is not well proven, and being delivered. I understand they need capital. Who doesn't need capital in todays age, right. I know they got a STC, but no big manufacture takers to power production planes. What do they know we don't?
Performance: I know of a few flying, one here on this forum. I know there is a twin Velocity canard pusher with Delta Hawks. I just am not seeing real independent Numbers. Personally I would not pony up more money. I am interested but wait and see.
Piper is putting them on the Seneca.
There are a number of ‘big manufacturers’ who are actively interested in, and moving forward with, the DeltaHawk engines.
Here’s one in particular:
Piper Aircraft
Katamarino
I'm New Here
DH put a post on social media recently showing one of their first counter-rotating engines installed on a Seneca for testing.
That is GREAT NEWS... As a CFI-ME and a freight dog in PA-34-220T Seneca III w/ factory known-icing (FIKI) package, "full de-ice": boots, hot plate on windshield, heated props. I have a lot of time in make/model, some scary. I used the FIKI equip, flying over the Cascades middle of night. I was young never do that again. With that said DH is going to need more ponies than 180HP and the bigger engines, which are still in approval phase. Are they even in mass production of DHK180 yet?
"DeltaHawk produces the FAA-certified 180 HP DHK180 and is releasing 200 HP (DHK200) and 235 HP (DHK235) models in 2025-2026." I assume the DHK235 would be the ticket for the Seneca. Hope they get it on line soon.
"DeltaHawk is developing a 350-horsepower jet-fueled engine, the DHK6A350, a six-cylinder variant intended for high-performance aircraft with expected FAA certification in 2027. This engine is set to power the Bushliner 1850, currently." Hope they make their schedule, but they need to DHK180 into full production first. On other hand need orders to ramp up; bad business to make engines without buyers lined up.
Seneca III and IV and V uses two turbocharged Continental TSIO-360-KB engines, 220 HP. unsung hero engine, very Continental smooth, powerful, reliable. Back in the day people tried or at least waxed poetic about putting them in RV's. I know of one for sure. but it never took off in RV's (see what I did there, pun intended).
The Seneca V current model is in low production, not publish but in the dozens range not 100's. If Piper/DH can deliver, keep price below the TSIO-360-KB powered Seneca V, produces same power, it could be a hit, a Diamond DA62 (1.5M-$1.8M) killer? I see the biggest selling point of diesel/Jet-A reciprocating engines (besides my VW TDI diesel, heavy equip, large ships, trains, 18-wheelers, generators) is flying in parts of the World where 100LL Av Gas is not available, but diesel is available.
Last edited:
I had the wrong Piper model, currently they are putting Deltahawk in the Seminole. 180hp makes more sense there. Actually an upgrade, 172knot cruise in a Seminole!
Once proven in that airframe, flight schools will be snapping those up for their multiengine training aircraft. Other diesels seem to be throw away engines, the Deltahawk is designed from the ground up for easy maintenance and fast inexpensive overhauls - replaceable sleeves for the cylinders, no cams, no valves. Basically bearings, journal inspection, resleeve the cylinders, overhaul/replace accessories and it's good to go.
Wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate efforts on a production line rather than start down another rabbit hole?
Let's see, this company was established in 1996 and has so far sold absolutely nothing except hope, promises and good intentions.
I really do hope they succeed but rather than flying prototypes and more testing, I would like to hear about a manufacturing location and perhaps some progress in a certified production line. Something more substantial than more tests and a 6 cylinder version etc etc...
Does anyone have a clue if DH has started building a manufacturing facility and where it is?
I have always been a "glass half full" kind of guy and often been accused of over exuberance when it came to the newest and latest.
Someone give me something to chew on other than plans, projections and wishful thinking.
Let's see, this company was established in 1996 and has so far sold absolutely nothing except hope, promises and good intentions.
I really do hope they succeed but rather than flying prototypes and more testing, I would like to hear about a manufacturing location and perhaps some progress in a certified production line. Something more substantial than more tests and a 6 cylinder version etc etc...
Does anyone have a clue if DH has started building a manufacturing facility and where it is?
I have always been a "glass half full" kind of guy and often been accused of over exuberance when it came to the newest and latest.
Someone give me something to chew on other than plans, projections and wishful thinking.
Some good points for sure and I don’t think you’re wrong. However, prior to 2015, they didn’t have the resources to move forward. The influx of monies came then. Ten or eleven years seems like a long time too, especially when the base designs where there, but….. I think they are after a bigger play, some of it not in aviation.
We’re lucky we have a few folks like cjs keeping Experimentals in the game plan, if it comes through..
Perhaps I am getting a bit cynical as I age.
Obviously, an endeavor such as developing a new engine takes a huge amount of time and effort, not to mention money, to bring it all together before production can start.
There is not a word in any of their literature about production, just "capabilities" and more tests, prototype development, future this and that ...
Someone show me a production line or engine, not another prototype. It has been 20 years since this engine was supposedly certified. Don't investors want a return on their money before they die of old age?
Seriously, after taking hundreds of deposits we are to believe that they are now going after a "bigger play" before starting production on the orders they already have?
I really hope you all get your engines before the DOD gets ahead of the line.
This would probably be their make/break point, IMO. . Rotax has served well but that engine is probably the only thing using gasoline.
Deleting the logistics/supply of a commodity, especially to a forward area, is a huge benefit. Getting a substantial DOD contract would be a double edged sword but probably needed to ensure their future viability.
czechsix
Well Known Member
DeltaHawk has been in development since the late 90's but to my knowledge they've never claimed it was certified until 2023: https://www.deltahawk.com/2023/05/18/faa-certification/
Yes it takes a long time to develop something like this, and firewall forward packages likewise take a lot of work to develop, test, iterate, test again, and produce a high quality, complete package. If it was easy, inexpensive, and low risk we wouldn't still be flying Lycomings.
I think DeltaHawk is doing all the right things development-wise, it just takes longer than anyone (other than Lycoming) wants it to...
Good points but to clarify it is certified but not certified in any Part 23 plane. An engine without an airframe is not useful. That is why they went after experimental, but I felt like EAB's were ugly red headed step child they were using to get flight test data. Just the Vib I got, because they kept talking of being an OEM supplier to Part 23 planes. Experimental did not seem to be their business plan. And that is OK.
As far as Lycoming, it is a hard bench mark to beat. We fly Lycoming because it is GOOD, very good, reliable, efficient (oh yes it is 0.42 lbs/hp-hr}. Lycoming in GA stands on the shoulders in equiv todays dollars of billions in War Defense Research, Commercial Research, and experience. Lycoming is not old. It has freaking sodium filled exhaust valves. Cylinder coating, Nickel-Silicon Carbide (NiC-based) or NiCom, done in house. QC? Electron scanning microscope, robotic dimensional tolerance tables, 6 axis CNC. 100's of millions invested in their manufacturing with state of the art materials, 2nd to none, including Delta Hawk, Rotax. Not saying competition is inferior but Modern? They are all ICE... Electronic ignition, or Fuel Injection? We have EI on Lycs. EFI great but not value added on a plane that is at fixed power, say 75% most of the time. Do you need a EFI to alive of the burden of a mixture knob? Electrically dependent planes be it EI or EFI can be a Con. A Carb and Mechanical FI and Magneto is pretty reliable and simple. However EI does add efficiency.
That is why I bristle at "modern engine". How? Lycoming is a purpose built Aircraft air-cooled, direct drive engine. 100's of different ideas were tried over last 100 years. Diesels in aircraft? Goes back over 80-90 yrs ago. Inline, V's, water cooled, inverted, direct/geared, has been done to death. The Horz opposed 4 and 6 cylinder is a sweet spot. Apparently Delta Hawk and Rotax agree in configuration. Rotax took the low displacement high Rev Gear box ideology. Not better, but has pros but also Cons. None of "Modern" cheaper options are cheaper. They cost more to buy and maintain. Fuel savings? That is dubious argument if you fly 100 hrs a year. Lycoming is a better value in my opinion and less risk, IMHO. However I love diesel compression ignition.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, decisions need to be made to ensure completion of our projects in a timely manner. While I would like to use the DH in my -15, I doubt it will happen. Having watched DH for more than two decades and still not being able to get one, well, I am not confident
You work for lycoming?
It’s important to respond to a few comments in recent posts. There is definitely some persistent mis-information regarding the DH engines, their performance, the intentions of the company, and the RV14 project in particular. I’d like to address some of these from the perspective of having worked with the DeltaHawk folks over the past couple years on the RV14 project.
I don’t see DH viewing the EAB market as the bastard step child. They’ve been fully engaged and supportive of our RV project(s). I meet almost weekly w Jon, their president, or key members on the staff, and DH has spent thousands of man-hours developing and testing the firewall forward package. Are they eyeing the certified market - definitely (expect to see a brand new Piper w DeltaHawk’s engines at AirVentire this year). But, it’s clear to me their belief is both markets are attractive for a modern alternative to Lycomings/Continentals.
Speaking of modern…it’s a stretch to say the lycoming is a modern engine other than it’s currently being manufactured. The basic design and architecture of the engine hasn’t changed in 70 years. It’s certainly not equivalent to the progressive development and refinement of the small block Chevy engines, for example.
That said, Here’s a few of the things a modern DeltaHawk engine provides:
Mechanical FI (fuel injection) and no EI (electronic Ignition). It’s a robust and simple system. And, yes - no mixture knob. Maybe that’s not a big deal to some, but I find it liberating (I fly both a lycoming RV14 and the DeltaHawk14). Would you be happy continually fiddling w the mixture knob in your modern car engine?
Water cooling vs air cooling: Allows for more consistent operating temps and closer tolerances in the build. My IO-390 burns about 1qt of oil for every 5 hours of operation - not unusual according to Lycoming. The DeltaHawk does much better. No shock cooling worries. No worries about managing temps on climb-out on hotter days.
No spark plugs or mags. Having just dealt with a misfiring plug on my Lycoming, and previously having to overhaul the PMags (after only 500 hours) I won’t miss this or the related costs.
Native Forced Air - the DeltaHawk is supercharged and turbo-charged as part of its basic design. The ability to produce full power regardless of the density altitude (to 17k’) is a huge benefit. I primarily fly in the mountains - where the benefit is obvious. But, even flat-landers can appreciate this when taking off on a hot day at gross weight.
How ‘bout that fuel efficiency. I’ve consistently seen 35-40% better fuel efficiency in the DH vs my IO-390. Even if one only flies 100 hours a year here’s some math:
Lycoming: 100 hrs x 10 gph = 1000 gals. $6/gal. $6000 on fuel.
DeltaHawk: 100 hrs x 7 gph = 700 gals. $5.50/gal. $3850 on fuel.
$2150/ year savings. Not to mention you’re probably burning less oil and have less maintenance (plugs, cost of annual, etc).
Note: I only used a 30% fuel savings in the example. Also, I generally find diesel $.75 to $1.00 cheaper than 100LL. Although the past couple months both have been horribly pricey.
All this said, will the DeltaHawk be a true alternative to the Lycoming? I don’t know - but, based on my experience w the engine and the company so far, I believe it will be. Will all this happen overnight. Clearly not. But, a lot of progress has been made to date and I’m excited for AirVenture to show this.
Finally, we’re working w SynergyAir on a true apples-to-apples comparison on the cost of purchasing and installing the DeltaHawk engine on the 14. I think most will be surprised at how price competitive the DH will be. DeltaHawk is planning to provide a complete, assembled, tested, and mounted engine with all the associated components (forced induction, radiators, starter, alternator, cowling, etc, etc.). I suspect when one actually compares the price of the lycoming with all the bits and pieces to achieve the same end result, the DeltaHawk may come out equal or less costly.
CJS
I don’t see DH viewing the EAB market as the bastard step child. They’ve been fully engaged and supportive of our RV project(s). I meet almost weekly w Jon, their president, or key members on the staff, and DH has spent thousands of man-hours developing and testing the firewall forward package. Are they eyeing the certified market - definitely (expect to see a brand new Piper w DeltaHawk’s engines at AirVentire this year). But, it’s clear to me their belief is both markets are attractive for a modern alternative to Lycomings/Continentals.
Speaking of modern…it’s a stretch to say the lycoming is a modern engine other than it’s currently being manufactured. The basic design and architecture of the engine hasn’t changed in 70 years. It’s certainly not equivalent to the progressive development and refinement of the small block Chevy engines, for example.
That said, Here’s a few of the things a modern DeltaHawk engine provides:
Mechanical FI (fuel injection) and no EI (electronic Ignition). It’s a robust and simple system. And, yes - no mixture knob. Maybe that’s not a big deal to some, but I find it liberating (I fly both a lycoming RV14 and the DeltaHawk14). Would you be happy continually fiddling w the mixture knob in your modern car engine?
Water cooling vs air cooling: Allows for more consistent operating temps and closer tolerances in the build. My IO-390 burns about 1qt of oil for every 5 hours of operation - not unusual according to Lycoming. The DeltaHawk does much better. No shock cooling worries. No worries about managing temps on climb-out on hotter days.
No spark plugs or mags. Having just dealt with a misfiring plug on my Lycoming, and previously having to overhaul the PMags (after only 500 hours) I won’t miss this or the related costs.
Native Forced Air - the DeltaHawk is supercharged and turbo-charged as part of its basic design. The ability to produce full power regardless of the density altitude (to 17k’) is a huge benefit. I primarily fly in the mountains - where the benefit is obvious. But, even flat-landers can appreciate this when taking off on a hot day at gross weight.
How ‘bout that fuel efficiency. I’ve consistently seen 35-40% better fuel efficiency in the DH vs my IO-390. Even if one only flies 100 hours a year here’s some math:
Lycoming: 100 hrs x 10 gph = 1000 gals. $6/gal. $6000 on fuel.
DeltaHawk: 100 hrs x 7 gph = 700 gals. $5.50/gal. $3850 on fuel.
$2150/ year savings. Not to mention you’re probably burning less oil and have less maintenance (plugs, cost of annual, etc).
Note: I only used a 30% fuel savings in the example. Also, I generally find diesel $.75 to $1.00 cheaper than 100LL. Although the past couple months both have been horribly pricey.
All this said, will the DeltaHawk be a true alternative to the Lycoming? I don’t know - but, based on my experience w the engine and the company so far, I believe it will be. Will all this happen overnight. Clearly not. But, a lot of progress has been made to date and I’m excited for AirVenture to show this.
Finally, we’re working w SynergyAir on a true apples-to-apples comparison on the cost of purchasing and installing the DeltaHawk engine on the 14. I think most will be surprised at how price competitive the DH will be. DeltaHawk is planning to provide a complete, assembled, tested, and mounted engine with all the associated components (forced induction, radiators, starter, alternator, cowling, etc, etc.). I suspect when one actually compares the price of the lycoming with all the bits and pieces to achieve the same end result, the DeltaHawk may come out equal or less costly.
CJS
varnoair838
I'm New Here
Fitting a liquid-cooled diesel engine into a cowl designed specifically for an air-cooled Lycoming IO-390 is going to require extensive custom fabrication. You'll need to completely redesign the cooling ducts to handle the radiator placement without destroying the aerodynamics.
Yes. And they have done that.
My understanding is that the DH engine is a two stroke and that the positive displacement "supercharger" is actually a positive displacement blower to force air into the combustion chamber as the exhaust ports are opened since there is no induction cycle in a two stroke engine. Without this blower, the engine would not actually start, much less run. This blower does not increase the inlet pressure above ambient. Once running, the exhaust driven turbocharger can then "supercharge", that is increase the inlet pressure above ambient, the engine.
Not trying to be argumentative, just want clarification on the terminology.
Last edited:
RV-15 builder here. I'm not rushing my build and will likely need an engine in the '28-'29 timeframe. Although I'm in the Houston area, I have every intention of operating in the high altitude backcountry environment. I have no intention of getting a normally aspirated engine. I'd like to consider the DH option and wish them great success. The heart of Experimental Aviation is advancements in engineering and technology. We should be celebrating DH in their attempts at advancing Experimental Aviation.
That is true. Unfortunately, it takes time...and I've been watching DH for more than two decades and still can't buy one. I am guessing that it won't be available when I am am ready for an engine for my -15. Even if it is, the price tag is eye watering; for those doing the math given the above post, what is your break even time? Rhetorical question but one that should be considered.
Everyone is rooting for them including me but someone has to stir the pot once in a while and ask for some serious answers.
When can we reasonably expect the first production engine to be delivered to customers?
Even Van, who is notoriously tight lipped about delivery schedules on new airplane kits offers some window of hope for those us waiting for kits and parts.
As an investor or future customer with a deposit, I would be much more concerned about the return of my money rather than the return on my money.
Utah-Jay
Well Known Member
Pilots are notoriously cheap….
I would 100% put a DH 200 hp engine on the -15, but only if it was not crazy expensive compared to other options like the IO-390.
I get the lower cost usage of the DH, but acquisition is a huge thing in building a plane.
So yeah even though I love the DH technology, it is just not in the cards
I would 100% put a DH 200 hp engine on the -15, but only if it was not crazy expensive compared to other options like the IO-390.
I get the lower cost usage of the DH, but acquisition is a huge thing in building a plane.
So yeah even though I love the DH technology, it is just not in the cards
