What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

DeltaHawk for RV-14

czechsix said:
When I talked to them at OSH they were throwing around ~$110K for the RV-14 firewall forward package including the DHK200 (200hp), however like others I got mixed feedback on how firm that price was and whether or not it included the prop, which isn't a trivial thing when you're talking about a carbon fiber Hartzell. I doubt they will know the final number until they get the FWF package done, and they may not even know yet how much it costs to produce their engines.
Click to expand...
I emailed DH earlier this year. They said a target price is $110K including prop for FWF for the RV14 using the DH180. While for the Velocity V-Twin, they were suggesting a target around $120K with prop for the DH200s when they become available. Notice: I said target price.

We agree that time will tell if they hit the target, or even how close to the target they get.

In terms of budget, do not forget the fuel costs. Jet-A is often cheaper then avgas, and the unleaded avgas solutions raise the price another buck or two. Then consider the lower fuel flow by volume (by weight difference should be negligible). With a fuel flow around 1GPH lower, and at least $3 per gallon cheaper. That might have a pretty descent pay back.
Oh, I am ignoring mogas. Generally not available away from the home dome, and even then depends on the local airport giving permission (or not knowing and turning a blind eye).

In terms of investment. DH went under multiple times, the current majority owners (might be sole owners, have not seen definitive statements either way) would likely have little concern or worry about the previous invested millions. e.g. Maybe there was 200 million spent. But the current owners only care about the spending for the past decade, not the past thirty years.

Tim
 
tspear said:
I emailed DH earlier this year. They said a target price is $110K including prop for FWF for the RV14 using the DH180. While for the Velocity V-Twin, they were suggesting a target around $120K with prop for the DH200s when they become available. Notice: I said target price.

We agree that time will tell if they hit the target, or even how close to the target they get.

In terms of budget, do not forget the fuel costs. Jet-A is often cheaper then avgas, and the unleaded avgas solutions raise the price another buck or two. Then consider the lower fuel flow by volume (by weight difference should be negligible). With a fuel flow around 1GPH lower, and at least $3 per gallon cheaper. That might have a pretty descent pay back.
Oh, I am ignoring mogas. Generally not available away from the home dome, and even then depends on the local airport giving permission (or not knowing and turning a blind eye).

In terms of investment. DH went under multiple times, the current majority owners (might be sole owners, have not seen definitive statements either way) would likely have little concern or worry about the previous invested millions. e.g. Maybe there was 200 million spent. But the current owners only care about the spending for the past decade, not the past thirty years.

Tim
Click to expand...
Yeah when I said the savings at the pump will never pay you back for the additional cost of the DeltaHawk, I was thinking in terms of the avg sport pilot who flies ~50 hrs a year and assuming recent fuel prices in the U.S. Currently AirNav.com shows national average cost of 100LL at $6.19 and Jet A at $5.71. Let's say the RV-14 burns an average of 10 gph with an IO-390 and 7 gph with a DHK200. The annual bill for 100LL would be $3100 and for Jet A it would be $2000, so with a savings of $1100/year you'd never break even on the significantly higher cost of the DH installation. However, it's anybody's guess where prices will settle out on unleaded 100 octane avgas, depending on the cost of production, distribution, liability, taxes, and competition amongst fuel producers (or lack thereof if EAGLE keeps going in circles and GAMI ends up being the sole supplier). Suppose in 2030 the price of 100UL is $8 and Jet A is $6, and maybe you fly 100 hrs a year. Now you're spending $8000/year on 100UL vs. $4200 on Jet A, and the latter starts looking a lot more attractive (after 10 years you would have saved $38K at the fuel pump). For most aircraft owners outside of the U.S. the cost of avgas (not to mention availability) makes the additional investment in a DeltaHawk a pretty easy decision. In the U.S. it's frustrating right now trying to make a decision because there are a lot of variables in play with unknown outcomes.
 
@czechsix

I only see a few variables:
1. When will avgas switch to unleaded?
2. How much additional cost will it be? As of last summer, the minimum number of material cost was $1 per gallon. That means at the pump it will be more than $1
3. What is the final price of the DH FWF packages?
4. What parts of the Vans RV-?? are removed from the kit because of the DH FWF and how much are they worth?

Tim
 
tspear said:
@czechsix

I only see a few variables:
1. When will avgas switch to unleaded?
2. How much additional cost will it be? As of last summer, the minimum number of material cost was $1 per gallon. That means at the pump it will be more than $1
3. What is the final price of the DH FWF packages?
4. What parts of the Vans RV-?? are removed from the kit because of the DH FWF and how much are they worth?

Tim
Click to expand...
Other cost variables:
5. What is the real world fuel burn of the DHK200 vs. IO-390 on an RV-14? Hopefully we'll know soon once Craig's airplane is flying.
6. What is the cost to maintain the DHK200? This could range from less expensive than a Lycoming to significantly more, especially if field service uncovers issues not found in development/certification and customers are required to foot the bill for upgraded parts.
7. What is insurance cost, and can you get it? Some folks have had trouble getting insurance on alternative engines, hopefully since the DeltaHawk is certified the underwriters will view it as an acceptable risk comparable to a Lycoming and insure full hull value for reasonable rates (all other things being equal, insurance will still cost more due to the higher hull coverage you'll need with the DHK engine).
8. Biggest unknown is the success of the engine and company. If highly successful you'll be rewarded with good resale value to recoup or even exceed what you invested. If the engine has reliability issues that damage its reputation and/or if DeltaHawk ends up insolvent, you could be left with an almost worthless FWF package that nobody else wants. We've seen it happen before in this industry.
 
Last edited:
For me, reliability is by far the most important consideration in choosing an aircraft engine. The fuel savings with a DeltaHawk is really nice but for me it's a rounding error compared to how much I'll have into my RV-14 when it's done.

The Lycoming is an ancient design by todays's automotive standards and not as reliable as it should be considering how simple it is. But, we have 70 years and millions of hours of experience with them across thousands of airplanes. Lycoming engines are well proven and their weaknesses are well understood.

I'm really glad another company is entering the market with an entirely different way of thinking. The DeltaHawk has great potential - especially in areas that lack easy access to 100LL. But, I wouldn't fly behind it even if it was free until we have hundreds of them in the GA fleet with hundreds of thousands of hours of flight time. But that's just me and I'm probably in the minority in our homebuilder community.
 
bertschb said:
For me, reliability is by far the most important consideration in choosing an aircraft engine. The fuel savings with a DeltaHawk is really nice but for me it's a rounding error compared to how much I'll have into my RV-14 when it's done.

The Lycoming is an ancient design by today's automotive standards and not as reliable as it should be considering how simple it is. But, we have 70 years and millions of hours of experience with them across thousands of airplanes. Lycoming engines are well proven and their weaknesses are well understood.

I'm really glad another company is entering the market with an entirely different way of thinking. The DeltaHawk has great potential - especially in areas that lack easy access to 100LL. But, I wouldn't fly behind it even if it was free until we have hundreds of them in the GA fleet with hundreds of thousands of hours of flight time. But that's just me and I'm probably in the minority in our homebuilder community.
Click to expand...
bertschb said:
For me, reliability is by far the most important consideration in choosing an aircraft engine. The fuel savings with a DeltaHawk is really nice but for me it's a rounding error compared to how much I'll have into my RV-14 when it's done.

The Lycoming is an ancient design by todays's automotive standards and not as reliable as it should be considering how simple it is. But, we have 70 years and millions of hours of experience with them across thousands of airplanes. Lycoming engines are well proven and their weaknesses are well understood.

I'm really glad another company is entering the market with an entirely different way of thinking. The DeltaHawk has great potential - especially in areas that lack easy access to 100LL. But, I wouldn't fly behind it even if it was free until we have hundreds of them in the GA fleet with hundreds of thousands of hours of flight time. But that's just me and I'm probably in the minority in our homebuilder community.
Click to expand...
What makes you think the Delta Hawk is reliable? It has few in service. Lycoming is very reliable with millions of hours of service. Failures. Sure a ramp queen on a 40 yr old plane with internal engine corrosion, lack of maintenance. Lycoming flown regularly, maintained and operated by a pilot not a gorilla is very reliable. When delta hawk has 100's of engines in service with 10'0s of thousands of fleet hours, with real world performance data AND I can fly one, I'd consider it (with a price drop). I would never buy a new or alternative engine without flying one and talking to at least three operators. To imply the delta hawk is reliable and Lycoming is not, is pure conjecture and not supported by data.

"The Lycoming is an ancient design by today's automotive standards and not as reliable as it should"
Car engines converted to airplanes can not beat a Lycoming in performance. So 2 stroke diesel is new technology? Hugo Güldner invented the first two-stroke diesel engine in 1899. The technology is over 120 yrs old. Lycoming design is the result, in todays money, billions in research driven by WWII and refinement over a half a century from the best engineers.. Lycoming uses the most advanced materials, processes, quality controls. It is a aircraft spacific engine. Look at the Reno Sport Class? Red Bull Air Races? All Lycoming or Continentals winning. Except a rare engine like the V12 Falcon all Lycoming and Continental. As far as electronic ignition and electronic fuel injection? Lycoming has it but Magnetos and Carburetors or Mechanical Fuel Injection are farm tractor simple and work.

The idea the 180 HP delta hawk is the right engine for RV10, I'd disagree. Yes delta hawk is turbo and super charged and can maintain HP to higher altitude. You know Lycoming's come in turbocharged flavor, if your plan is to fly in the Flight Levels. The delta hawk vs IO540 at 55 to 70 hp deficient to start with from sea level. Think of takeoff and climb performance.

People are comparing finishing kit price? Look at just the price of engine. Lycoming is much less. There is no other way to cut it. Wait time? I don't know but not in market...

Your point if only diesel or Jet a is available in remote areas is solid. I don't fly in North Candida or Africa. Also glad Delta Hawk is in the market and agree, it has potential. They need big manufactures to buy it and certify it in their plane and sell a ton. Sadly planes are not a big market globally at least at the prices they are asking. One problem all the great used planes for a fraction of the price.
 
Last edited:
jackking123 said:
What makes you think the Delta Hawk is reliable?
Click to expand...

You are correct that it doesn't have 100's in service. They have done extensive testing, but testing isn't the same as the real world. However, I do object to the people that try to equate the Delta Hawk with the other diesels that have been put in airplanes. The other diesels are all auto diesel conversions, and just like gasoline auto conversions, they haven't proven to be very reliable overall. Some have been reasonably successful, but as a class, not so much. The Delta Hawk has been designed from the very beginning for aviation, and they've spent the time and $$$ to optimize it for that use. I have no doubt there will be some teething pains for early adopters, but I expect them to be relatively minor.
 
jackking123 said:
The idea the 180 HP delta hawk is the right engine for RV10, I'd disagree.
Click to expand...

I think they mean the 235 HP DeltaHawk. Yes, that's less than the 260 HP that most RV-10s get... but by the time a non-turbo'ed 260 HP engine gets to about 3000 or 4000 feet, it's only making about 235 HP. Above that, a turbo-normalized 235 HP engine makes more power than a "260 HP" engine, right? Something like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top