diesel 160-200HP engines

Right now, DH has one big thing in it's favor: exchange rates. Those English
and German diesels (Wilksch, TAE Centurion) are expensive and don't offer
all the same life-cycle cost advantages. They just need to get the engines
out the friggin door....and preferably get FAA cert, too.

I really want that inverted 180HP job for my still-notional RV-8A. I know
too many guys with Harman Rockets that I want to thumb my nose at.

Pete


"Rob Turk" wrote in message
. nl...
Well that's good news then. I was very close to getting a diesel for our
experimental, but the only available engine at the time was too heavy for
our airframe. I still think diesel engines will take off, but there's
several companies out there who have promised products forever without any
appearant progress. Can you say 'Zoche'?

Rob

I hope these guys are successful. Lots of good things going for TD
engines, especially if you want to go up high and go a long way.

Also, you could run the thing on recycled (reconditioned) deep fryer
oil. The exhaust would smell like french fries cooking. No Joke.

Regards



"geo" wrote in message ...
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

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

OK, cool. I got some questions.

The site says the engine is not suitable for aerobatic use. What are the
operating limits of the engine, specifically the inverted V-4.

Pete


"Dave Driscoll" wrote in message
...
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.

Pete,

This is a very complex issue which involves a bunch more variables than
the three big ticket ones I'm going to mention (fuel delivery for one).
Internal to the engine, crankshaft stresses, bearing loads, and oil
scavanging/delivery are the three largest concerns for Aerobatic class
engines. The first two are also significantly affected by what prop is
being used (low inertia, high inertia), however based upon empirical
comparison with other engines which are Acrobatically rated, the
DeltaHawk is in pretty good shape on those two fronts (our crank is
stronger and we have more bearing area). Oil however is another story,
the current Deltahawk's are only designed with oil scavenging occurring
in one direction, down. There are separate sump systems for the upright
and inverted models and while they work fine in their intended
orientation, we have not done significant negative g testing with either
configuration. It is our intention to pursue this type of testing in
the future, as well as test a configuration of the engine with both sump
systems active, however to date we have not.

Currently the engine is intended to duplicate the performance of the
Normal (+3.8,-1.52) and Utility (+4.4,-1.76) classes (I say mimic,
because all the initial engines will be registered on experimental class
aircraft and limitations will be set by the builder) and our flight
testing thus far has not uncovered any problems with these performance
envelopes.

Hope that answered your question.

Dave Driscoll
DeltaHawk LLC



Pete Schaefer wrote:

OK, cool. I got some questions.

The site says the engine is not suitable for aerobatic use. What are the
operating limits of the engine, specifically the inverted V-4.

Pete


"Dave Driscoll" wrote in message
...


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.

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

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

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

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