diesel 160-200HP engines

Bill,

Tailor made application for the DeltaHawk. The liquid cooling will do
wonders for evening out the thermal loading, our flight testing
indicates full power to beyond 18,000 feet, and the engines flat torque
profile "should" take care of your HP needs at lower airspeeds. I say
"should" because we won't really know, without taking a much closer look
at your application. However, the 160 HP DeltaHawk performs exactly the
same as a 200 HP IO-360 in takeoff and climb out in a side by side
comparison using the identical aircraft with different engine
installations (two Velocity RG's). Based upon that empirical data, I'd
venture that the 200 HP DeltaHawk will compare quite favorably
performance wise with the Lycoming and further bring both significant
weight (50-70 lbs.) and fuel savings to the table.

Dave Driscoll
DeltaHawk LLC

Bill Daniels wrote:

Thanks for the nice reply. Now I have another question that, while it
is about engineering, also relates to a market opportunity. First a
bit of background - forgive me if you already know all this.

I fly gliders which are most often hauled into the air by a tow
plane. Now glider tugs belong to the same engineering category as
tractors used for tractor pull competitions - brute force and not much
sophistication. For spark ignition, air cooled engines, glider
towing is brutal work - red line temps followed by rapid chill down
five or six times an hour.

Sometimes, the tug is asked to tow a 1300 pound glider into a mountain
wave at 15,000 feet which can really tax the engine's cooling capacity
as well as high altitude performance.

A Piper Pawnee with a 260 HP Lycoming O-540 has enough power for the
job but, without some VERY careful operating techniques, overhauls
come up often. Fuel consumption on a Lyc O-540 runs over 20 GPH. All
this makes glider tows far more expensive than they should be. A
Pawnee with a standard 2-blade prop is also noisy enough to prompt
airport neighbor complaints.

A glider tug tows at about 65 knots and speeds above that are
unimportant. The power package needs to produce maximum thrust for
the HP at that airspeed. This fact suggests that a large, slow
turning prop or perhaps a ducted fan could do the same job with much
less horsepower - and noise.

A 160 - 200 HP Deltahawk looks like a perfect match for the job if it
were matched to the correct prop. Would you please comment on this
application?

Bill Daniels



"Dave Driscoll"
wrote in message
...
Bill,

I love questions like this, you've already done the heavy lifting
and pretty much nailed the merits. The merits start to look even
better when you examine the possibilities of putting a clutched
shaft on your existing turbo and electrically spin the compressor
side as required (reduces weight, gains you the HP that is always
being sucked up by the blower which is compressing air at a much
lower efficiency than the turbo, etc.) There are also a mess of
other possibilities that while more complex from an engineering
standpoint offer "better" solutions for certain mission profiles.
These include compressed air starts, fully electrical turbos,
clutched superchargers, centrifugal or screw compressor
supercharges instead of roots type, the list goes on.

The selection of our current solution was a combination of the
desire for mechanical redundancy, the use of off the shelf parts
(off the shelf 5 years ago mind you), and the need for something
that didn't require a huge amount of engineering effort to shoe
horn into our package. That said, undoubtedly this is one of the
areas that will see modification as time passes, and it wouldn't
surprise me in the least if 5 years from now there is a DeltaHawk
model that in addition to the electric turbo has full FADEC fuel
control, an electric water pump, and an integrated
starter/generator. Imagine what that will do to the weight and
fuel efficiency. Additionally, due to the modular design of all
of these components on the DeltaHawk, all of these items are a
external to the engine case and for the most part are a bolt on
proposition.

Dave Driscoll
DeltaHawk LLC


Bill Daniels wrote:

Dave, I like the Deltahawk package the way it is, but I do have a
hypothetical question.

What are the merits, of lack thereof, of using an electrically boosted
turbocharger to supply combustion air for starting or flight idle? It would
seem, at first glance, to be a simpler and lighter solution than using both
a roots supercharger and a turbo in series.

Bill Daniels


"Dave Driscoll" wrote in message
...


All,

In addition to being an lurker and occasional poster on RAH, I also
happen to be one of the engineers responsible for the DeltaHawk (or the
sole reason the engine hasn't been in full production for the last 3
years according to the marketing guy). In any case, as this is one of
my few areas of RAH expertise, I'd be happy to answer any questions that
people may have regarding the project.

The web site

www.deltahawkengines.com

is generally pretty up to date, but there are certainly always specific
questions that a FAQ won't answer.

Dave Driscoll
DeltaHawk LLC

geo wrote:



Here's an interesting new diesel engine with much lower operating costs.
Looks like it would fill the bill for a Glass Goose (which I'm


considering)


very nicely. Waddya think? http://www.deltahawkengines.com/object00.htm

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:39:39 -0700, "Bill Daniels"
wrote:



Thanks for the nice reply. Now I have another question that, while it =
is about engineering, also relates to a market opportunity. First a bit =
of background - forgive me if you already know all this.

I fly gliders which are most often hauled into the air by a tow plane. =
Now glider tugs belong to the same engineering category as tractors used =
for tractor pull competitions - brute force and not much sophistication. =
For spark ignition, air cooled engines, glider towing is brutal work - =
red line temps followed by rapid chill down five or six times an hour. =20

Sometimes, the tug is asked to tow a 1300 pound glider into a mountain =
wave at 15,000 feet which can really tax the engine's cooling capacity =
as well as high altitude performance. =20

A Piper Pawnee with a 260 HP Lycoming O-540 has enough power for the job =
but, without some VERY careful operating techniques, overhauls come up =
often. Fuel consumption on a Lyc O-540 runs over 20 GPH. All this =
makes glider tows far more expensive than they should be. A Pawnee with =
a standard 2-blade prop is also noisy enough to prompt airport neighbor =
complaints.

A glider tug tows at about 65 knots and speeds above that are =
unimportant. The power package needs to produce maximum thrust for the =
HP at that airspeed. This fact suggests that a large, slow turning prop =
or perhaps a ducted fan could do the same job with much less horsepower =
- and noise. =20

A 160 - 200 HP Deltahawk looks like a perfect match for the job if it =
were matched to the correct prop. Would you please comment on this =
application?

Bill Daniels

Bill, I have a question for you: Why is the O-540 overheating? You
are climbing using full rich aren't you? If you are, then the engine
should not be overheating. Full rich for takeoff and climb is called
for so that the overly rich mixture burns slow enough to allow the
Peak Pressure Point to occur around 16 degrees past top dead center.
As long as the timing of the magnetos is properly set and the mixture
valve is working properly, it would be nearly impossible for the
engine to overheat. It does use a lot of fuel with that setting
though.

You might be interested in the Ford powered Pawnee developed by Dave
Sharples in Australia. It's been running for about six years now
since they installed it to replace the O-540. Swings the same prop at
the same rpm but uses a lot less fuel. The engine took a long time
for them to sort out, but once they got it running the way they
thought it should, they've bascally forgotten about it, other than
routine oil changes and spark plug changes.

They developed it strictly for glider tug duty. They were very much
hoping to reduce the overhaul costs for the Lycoming.

They managed to do that.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:39:39 -0700, "Bill Daniels"
wrote:



Thanks for the nice reply. Now I have another question that, while it =
is about engineering, also relates to a market opportunity. First a bit
=
of background - forgive me if you already know all this.

I fly gliders which are most often hauled into the air by a tow plane. =
Now glider tugs belong to the same engineering category as tractors used
=
for tractor pull competitions - brute force and not much sophistication.
=
For spark ignition, air cooled engines, glider towing is brutal work - =
red line temps followed by rapid chill down five or six times an hour.
=20

Sometimes, the tug is asked to tow a 1300 pound glider into a mountain =
wave at 15,000 feet which can really tax the engine's cooling capacity =
as well as high altitude performance. =20

A Piper Pawnee with a 260 HP Lycoming O-540 has enough power for the job
=
but, without some VERY careful operating techniques, overhauls come up =
often. Fuel consumption on a Lyc O-540 runs over 20 GPH. All this =
makes glider tows far more expensive than they should be. A Pawnee with
=
a standard 2-blade prop is also noisy enough to prompt airport neighbor =
complaints.

A glider tug tows at about 65 knots and speeds above that are =
unimportant. The power package needs to produce maximum thrust for the =
HP at that airspeed. This fact suggests that a large, slow turning prop
=
or perhaps a ducted fan could do the same job with much less horsepower =
- and noise. =20

A 160 - 200 HP Deltahawk looks like a perfect match for the job if it =
were matched to the correct prop. Would you please comment on this =
application?

Bill Daniels

Bill, I have a question for you: Why is the O-540 overheating? You
are climbing using full rich aren't you? If you are, then the engine
should not be overheating. Full rich for takeoff and climb is called
for so that the overly rich mixture burns slow enough to allow the
Peak Pressure Point to occur around 16 degrees past top dead center.
As long as the timing of the magnetos is properly set and the mixture
valve is working properly, it would be nearly impossible for the
engine to overheat. It does use a lot of fuel with that setting
though.

You might be interested in the Ford powered Pawnee developed by Dave
Sharples in Australia. It's been running for about six years now
since they installed it to replace the O-540. Swings the same prop at
the same rpm but uses a lot less fuel. The engine took a long time
for them to sort out, but once they got it running the way they
thought it should, they've bascally forgotten about it, other than
routine oil changes and spark plug changes.

They developed it strictly for glider tug duty. They were very much
hoping to reduce the overhaul costs for the Lycoming.

They managed to do that.

Corky Scott

As I obliquely mentioned, you need to be VERY careful with the Lyc's
operating procedures. Running rich of best power is one of them.
Unfortunately, that cuts climb performance which can lead to other dangers
such as taking the glider out of gliding range of the runway during the
initial climb. It also washes oil from the cylinder walls accelerating
cylinder wear, fouls plugs and contaminates the oil among other bad things.

In addition to running rich, there is a cool-down protocol after the glider
releases. All of this helps engine life at the cost of fuel consumption and
the number of revenue tows per hour. Mess up the engine operating protocol
just once and the life of the engine is compromised.

Economically, glider towing teeters on the brink of being a big money loser.
Profits are very elusive and disaster is always close. If an operator is
smart enough to make money at it, he's probably smart enough to get
seriously rich doing something else.

Yes, I am aware of Sharples Ford powered tug. I think it's an all-round
great idea. I just wish the FAA would open a loophole in the regs to
permit that kind of experimenting here. Unfortunately, the FAA considers a
glider tug a "for-hire" commercial operation and damn near enforces Part 135
regs.

The Deltahawk seems to have even more advantages than Sharples Ford plus it
will be certificated which will satisfy the Feds.

Bill Daniels

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Dave Driscoll wrote:

This however is not a good practice as the high pressure pumps will be
operating without lubrication on the top side until the fuel is
reintroduced. The collective thoughts of the group are that you can
certainly get away with it a couple of times, but better be thinking
about inspecting the high pressure plungers after the 2nd full dry
restart.

Most of my diesel experience is with engines using Stanadyne DB2 injection
pumps. Stanadyne makes what they call an "Arctic kit" for this pump that
makes it insensitive to fuel lubricity by, if I understand correctly,
changing the material of some parts so any fuel, even gasoline, can be
used without damage to the injection pump. I've always wondered why they
don't make all the pumps that way to begin with; maybe there's a downside
I'm not aware of. Why doesn't DeltaHawk set up the injection pump that
way? Speaking strictly as a layman, it seems it would solve the run-dry
damage problem, as well as providing some emergency fuel flexibility.

-Dan

Dan,

The DB2 is a little different animal than what we use on the DeltaHawk.
The DeltaHawk uses an independent, high pressure, plunger style pump
element for each cylinder. These run at significantly higher pressure
than the DB2 and also allow for redundancy in that the failure of a
single pump element will only take out a cylinder not the entire fuel
system. While in the DeltaHawk application there are some significant
advantages to the plunger style pump, what is commercially available in
this style of pump is not as fault tolerant to fuel lubrisity as the
DB2. However, although we currently use an off the shelf element, there
are some improvements that can be realized when volumes will allow us to
create a high pressure injection pump tailored to our specific
application. The long and short of things, with the current pump is
that while repriming once or twice isn't going to destroy the engine, it
isn't something that should become routine.

Dave Driscoll
DeltaHawk LLC

Dan Youngquist wrote:

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Dave Driscoll wrote:



This however is not a good practice as the high pressure pumps will be
operating without lubrication on the top side until the fuel is
reintroduced. The collective thoughts of the group are that you can
certainly get away with it a couple of times, but better be thinking
about inspecting the high pressure plungers after the 2nd full dry
restart.



Most of my diesel experience is with engines using Stanadyne DB2 injection
pumps. Stanadyne makes what they call an "Arctic kit" for this pump that
makes it insensitive to fuel lubricity by, if I understand correctly,
changing the material of some parts so any fuel, even gasoline, can be
used without damage to the injection pump. I've always wondered why they
don't make all the pumps that way to begin with; maybe there's a downside
I'm not aware of. Why doesn't DeltaHawk set up the injection pump that
way? Speaking strictly as a layman, it seems it would solve the run-dry
damage problem, as well as providing some emergency fuel flexibility.

-Dan

Great concept for an engine with many advantages, but the weight will probably
exceed the aft CG limits for a Glass Goose. $31K is also very expensive. The
Jabiru 180 hp, Mazda 13B may be better solutions for something more powerful
than an 0-320.

Scott Gettings


Dave Driscoll wrote:

All,

In addition to being an lurker and occasional poster on RAH, I also
happen to be one of the engineers responsible for the DeltaHawk (or the
sole reason the engine hasn't been in full production for the last 3
years according to the marketing guy). In any case, as this is one of
my few areas of RAH expertise, I'd be happy to answer any questions that
people may have regarding the project.

The web site

www.deltahawkengines.com

is generally pretty up to date, but there are certainly always specific
questions that a FAQ won't answer.

Dave Driscoll
DeltaHawk LLC

geo wrote:

Here's an interesting new diesel engine with much lower operating costs.
Looks like it would fill the bill for a Glass Goose (which I'm considering)
very nicely. Waddya think? http://www.deltahawkengines.com/object00.htm

Scott Gettings wrote:

Great concept for an engine with many advantages, but the weight will probably
exceed the aft CG limits for a Glass Goose. $31K is also very expensive. The
Jabiru 180 hp, Mazda 13B may be better solutions for something more powerful
than an 0-320.

If they can live up to their claims, the 200hp engine pays for itself in fuel
and plug savings in the first 2,000 hours (and no weight penalty). If they make
it, I'm picturing one in a Vans RV-8.....

-- Charlie Springer

Yup. I'm penciling the inverted 180hp model in for an RV-8A right now (I
like the significantly better price point than that 200hp model). But, if
the 200 gets certified and the insurance benefit makes it more economical
over the long haul.....vroom! Fortuantely, it will be about 2 years before I
place my order, so plenty of time for DH to ring things out. Things should
time out nicely for me.

"Regnirps" wrote in message
...
If they can live up to their claims, the 200hp engine pays for itself in
fuel
and plug savings in the first 2,000 hours (and no weight penalty). If they
make
it, I'm picturing one in a Vans RV-8.....