Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Deltahawk diesel engine

They SFC is still unbeatable for a diesel engine. And all the extra weight gets given back on longer range – you do calculations between an avgas engine and a diesel and even though the diesel is heavier, by 4-5th hour in the air, they saved all that extra weight in less fuel consumption. And from there on it’s just a win-win if you fly longer.

I would love to have a diesel-powered Aerostar if that ever becomes an option. Now that EPS engines have gone under, doesn’t seem too promising for diesel in the 350hp range.

aidanf123 wrote:

this project has been a black hole for investor money for over 10 years – their only chance in the market will be to declare bankruptcy at some point – after which some investor can pick up the IP and the plant for pennies on the dollar and sell the motor at a reasonable price – they have sunk so much money into the development that they have no chance of recouping the costs in the GA market

It doesn’t matter if the company keeps going bust as long as it is then picked up by another investor for pennies on the dollar.
The selling price of a new engine is given by the existing (AVGAS) engines in the market, and if the bankruptcy-cycle of this company continues, then eventually the last investor will be fine as the company will be able to sell this engine at a competitive price because all the previous sunk-cost has been written off by previous investors, and does not need to be recovered during commercialization.

If the engine has merits, the company will survive changes of ownership (and management).

Last Edited by tolipag at 06 Jun 18:24
United Kingdom

Sure, but with every “bankrupcy” the product itself gets a worse and worse reputation, pretty soon it gets a minus 273.16 reputation in the US (the biggest market) and once that happens, all that is left is scraping out the barrel in Europe and some other places, which nearly always leads to an ultimate failure.

And the competition is watching the whole time, so they can see where you failed, and if they got the capability they will steal your market, while your engine is doing yet another round of funding so the owner can keep his kids in private schooling I know a guy who has been doing that for well over 30 years. I once owned a small piece of his latest “billion dolar potential venture”… which has been totally wound up AFAIK and anyway after 5-10 refinancings is worthless.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

tolipag wrote:

It doesn’t matter if the company keeps going bust as long as it is then picked up by another investor for pennies on the dollar.

I don’t know what your business background is but it doesn’t go like that. At least not for successful products.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

A 4-seater, JET A1 burning, STOL, with great payload? Sounds good to me. Really curious how it will compare with the Lycoming powered version!

The thing that impressed me about his engine is it’s potential for great reliability, few moving parts, no electronics/software, can limp back home only on the supercharger if the turbo would fail. I would love to see it on some certified 4 seater.

From https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/bearhawk-makes-deltahawk-an-option/ :

Shortly after AirVenture this year, kit-maker Bearhawk Aircraft announced that the newly certified DeltaHawk DHK180 will be an option for its Bearhawk 4-Place kit aircraft, which is typically powered by either a four-cylinder, 180-HP or six-cylinder, 250-HP Lycoming gas engine. For now, development of the firewall-forward package is being handled by DeltaHawk in Racine, Wisconsin, on an airframe that is currently under construction.

“We are contacted often by pilots all over the world in locations where 100LL avgas is unavailable or very expensive. For these builders, the DeltaHawk represents a great option. In addition, many builders in the U.S. want alternative engine choices. The economical and Jet A burning DeltaHawk will be attractive,” said Mark Goldberg, president of Bearhawk Aircraft.

Dennis Webb, an aircraft Engine DER at DeltaHawk directing the certification effort, added, “Bearhawk designs are extraordinary aircraft in terms of payload and STOL capability, combined with fast cruise speeds. The DeltaHawk DHK180 in a Bearhawk will significantly expand its capabilities, especially with regards to altitude performance, range, and lower cost of operation.”

Package prices have not been announced. DeltaHawk previously quoted engine prices around $60,000 into the experimental market. For context, Glasair Aviation’s firewall-forward package for the Continental CD-155 project penciled out at $110K, but that included a special cowling and MT propeller. When completed, the Bearhawk 4-Place will join a twin Velocity and Cirrus SR20 currently flying the compression-ignition DeltaHawk.

EHLE, Netherlands

hmng wrote:

The thing that impressed me about his engine is it’s potential for great reliability, few moving parts, no electronics/software, can limp back home only on the supercharger if the turbo would fail.

But what if the supercharger fails? No electronic means suboptimal in today’s world. With a diesel this means lots of black smoke.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

As I understand it, the supercharger is primarily for starting with the turbocharger taking over once the engine is running. The supercharger has the additional duty of acting as an emergency (50% power) backup in case os turbo failure.

Lee on Solent, United Kingdom

It’s a piston ported two stroke diesel. There is no way it will run without a super charger, it’s an intrinsic part. At higher rpm, I’m sure the turbo could take over most of the “boost”, but in principle the supercharger and turbocharger have different functions.

oops. Saw now that this one has exhaust valves, typical for marine two strokes. But the principle of the supercharger is the same.

Last Edited by LeSving at 10 Aug 16:28
The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

But what if the supercharger fails?

Not an expert, but I thought the idea is that the turbo is stressed with the hot exhaust gases, and conversely the charger is under less stress and expected to be fail less.
Of course, in the end, nothing is 100% failure proof…

EHLE, Netherlands
29 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top