chflyer wrote:
Looks like this is now well beyond the vapourware stage.
Actually, I would agree this time re: Deltahawk – TC is finally in the FAA Database (it was not for a long time, after all the announcements):
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID129316670820230720180841.0001
So what’s the edge of this engine over the Conti CD155? A bit more power but also heavier. Less fuel consumption? No gearbox and simpler design I suppose.
I’m not sure I understand the RPM numbers as mentioned in ‘Ratings’.
aart wrote:
No gearbox and simpler design I suppose.
4 diesel pumps, a compressor and a turbo is hardly a “simple design”. The only simple thing about it is no valve train. This is of course a huge simplification, but it still doesn’t really do anything vs weight compared with a NA Lycoming.
A 4 cylinder 2 stroke diesel should be really smooth in theory. No hard pulses on the shaft/prop. I have still not seen any reports of how it is to operate other than “different” which doesn’t say very much. This is a bit odd, and perhaps suggests issues that aren’t fully resolved ?
Actually the one diesel pump per cylinder is or was common on the Lister or Petter type engines. Absolutely dead simple, adjust the timing of each cylinder by means of shims under the pump body. The pump body being little more than a cylinder with a piston that was operated by a cam.
aart wrote:
So what’s the edge of this engine over the Conti CD155? A bit more power but also heavier. Less fuel consumption? No gearbox and simpler design I suppose.
Lot’s of advantages over the Conti CD155. Much simpler operation with fewer moving parts and much better fail-safe operation (nothing electrical). They claim 40% fewer parts total, no valves or valve train, no TBR only on-condition and easy cylinder removal for maintenance or replacement. Reliability needs to be proven, but the bar is quite low considering the CD155 record.
