Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Deltahawk diesel engine

product differentiation

It seems that you like this buzzword

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

This thread was the first search hit for Delthawk, 9 years old, but that is nothing compared to the time this engine has been in development, aiming for certification.
Guess what, they finally did it!

EHLE, Netherlands

As Peter pointed out – 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 (maybe in the military market for drones though where JET a compatibility is super important for militaries )
Its 8 kg heavier than the continental cd-170 so compared to the competition its pretty good – open question of course is the critical altitude – the cd-170 is only 6000 feet, max power vs continuous power etc – considering they are starting at 180 hp with this motor maybe it will have more headroom than the CD series which started at 135.
Lets not be begrudgers – this and the recent rotax 916, and the continued development of the CD series means finally there is choice at this power level (modern motors) for the first time in decades – choice is always good.

Excellent news. Any idea of TBO.

I also wonder if it’s any good and offer significantly less running costs that what we currently have

And please put it in a C172 or PA28.

I’m sick of conti and lycoming reliability.

Like all the other diesel engines, it won‘t bring the costs down. They will ensure that by setting the price accordingly . As in almost everything in GA.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

To justify the price the marketing team will price in the savings from avgas consumption assuming the very worst possible delta in price that they can find to set the price for the motor – thus effectively killing the project as it will be approx twice the cost of a lycoming of similar power -

Yes, exactly.

What tends to happen with diesels is that the mfg aims for the 500hr/year (FTO) market.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I wonder about 40% less moving parts what does it mean in term of costs, reliability and complexity?

In one hand, they have less moving parts which make them less costly to build as it’s the case for cars where compression/glow-ignition (diesel) has much simpler design than spark-ignition (petrol) are easy to assemble
In the other hand, diesels have more complex controls (e.g. pre-heat, emission, fadec…) and tight operating envelope (e.g. dirt in injectors, temps…) which make them more complex and less reliable

At the end of the day, the diesel engine will be more expensive in the long run, especially with glitches here and there and no maintenance support but definitely it will have a cheaper consumption

If one clock hundreds of hours in ISA conditions, JetA piston sounds great and I can see why it can appeal to schools/rentals
I have flown DA40NG with AE300, it was nice for 50h/year rentals (aircraft did 300h/year), I like it but I will not own it

The costs for diesel/petrol have been debated for cars over 100 years, I don’t think anything has changed? the only things left are environmental considerations:

  • For driving, if one drive a lot they get diesel, although diesel will get banned in +2040
  • For flying, if one fly less they get avgas, ideally UL engine/fuel (LL is likely banned in +2040)

If I fly less than 30min or drive less than 200km, I would get an electric engine into aircraft/car

Last Edited by Ibra at 19 May 11:02
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

I still can’t find a TCDS on an FAA DRS website. The only thing with “DeltaHawk” in it’s name about the DHK180 aspects of certification.
Let’s wait and see…
Or am I missing it on the site?


Ibra wrote:

I wonder about 40% less moving parts what does it mean in term of costs, reliability and complexity?

It’s a two stroke, no valves, no cam shaft (although most two stroke diesels (marine applications mostly) do have that as well, this doesn’t). What it does have is a supercharger and a turbocharger. It’s not exactly simple IMO. It’s also heavy compared with a similar powered Lycoming. The engine does look nice though, and very thought through (after 30 years of development, one wouldn’t expect less )

They have said repeatedly in the last years they target the experimental market, so why all the fuzz with certification? It doesn’t make sense. It’s too heavy for even a RV-14 and way too weak for an RV-10.

Perhaps for drones it will work somehow? at least cost shouldn’t be an issue, and this thing will cost more like 2-3-4-5… Lycomings. Some years back (10-15) an RV-builder asked about the price. They said the projected price was about 60k. Today that is probably more like 100k.

The age of aviation diesels piston engines seems to have come and gone in a way. A nice idea, but too heavy/costly/complicated for experimental market, and too little overall economical/practical improvement for the certified market to really make a difference. And when each unit costs as much as a (hardly existing, but still) TP, then what’s the point.

The elephant is the circulation
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top