diesel 160-200HP engines

[geo]

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

--
How Dubya stole the election: http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

[Morgans]

"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
>
> --
> How Dubya stole the election: http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

We've been waiting for these engines for a long time, but if you think that
they will be here when promised, then you might think Bush stole the
election, too. What a moron.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.629 / Virus Database: 403 - Release Date: 3/17/2004

[Rob Turk]

"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
>
> --

When we looked for a suitable engine two years ago we came across this too.
They had about the same availability table up, except it read '2002', not
'2004'.

Rob

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:00:32 +0100, "Rob Turk"
> wrote:

>"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
>>
>> --
>
>When we looked for a suitable engine two years ago we came across this too.
>They had about the same availability table up, except it read '2002', not
>'2004'.
>
>Rob

Unlike the mythical Zoche engine, the Deltahawk diesel has now flown,
and continues to build time in the Cozy test mule. At least we can
see that progress is being made. It's still hard to tell exactly when
the engine will be made available but it's hard to deny that that date
is within reach now.

Corky Scott

[geo]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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
> >
> > --
> > How Dubya stole the election: http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html
>
> We've been waiting for these engines for a long time, but if you think
that
> they will be here when promised, then you might think Bush stole the
> election, too. What a moron.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
And you think that's ok. What a moron.
George in NY

[Jay]

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

[Steve Campbell]

That is a pretty over the top link, but politics aside, how many
homebuilders will spend that much for an engine? The cost of Deltahawk's
200 hp version was originally projected to be around 12 k$. (It was also
going to weigh about 100 lbs less than an IO-360.) It is now close to 30 k$
and who knows what it will be by the time that you actually buy one. There
may well be significant reliability advantages, much lower operating cost
advantages, and just the basic coolness of the gadget, but still, I don't
have that kind of money for an engine with no service record, no parts
network, no experienced repair stations, etc. etc. God bless for getting
this thing as far as they have, but I would expect that if this thing ever
goes into production, its primary application will be in a certified
aircraft where the cost of the powerplant is a small part of the total cost.
Steve

"geo" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "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
> > >
> > > --
> > > How Dubya stole the election: http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html
> >
> > We've been waiting for these engines for a long time, but if you think
> that
> > they will be here when promised, then you might think Bush stole the
> > election, too. What a moron.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
> >
> And you think that's ok. What a moron.
> George in NY
>
>

[Mike Wanninger]

Yet just this week they posted the requirements for the first orders. First
deliveries will be in late 2004. It appears they are now finally ready.
You may also look at the report of a 6+ hour over-redline stress test. They
finally broke it - the prop that is. The engine survived without a problem. I
hope they succeed since Thielert of Germany is all ready in production of a 150
HP certified diesel engine. They need to catch up.

Mike


Rob Turk wrote:
>
> "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
> >
> > --
>
> When we looked for a suitable engine two years ago we came across this too.
> They had about the same availability table up, except it read '2002', not
> '2004'.
>
> Rob

[Rob Turk]

"Mike Wanninger" > wrote in message
...
> Yet just this week they posted the requirements for the first orders.
First
> deliveries will be in late 2004. It appears they are now finally ready.
> You may also look at the report of a 6+ hour over-redline stress test.
They
> finally broke it - the prop that is. The engine survived without a
problem. I
> hope they succeed since Thielert of Germany is all ready in production of
a 150
> HP certified diesel engine. They need to catch up.
>
> Mike
>
>

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

[Pete Schaefer]

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
>
>

[Ernest Christley]

Steve Campbell wrote:
> That is a pretty over the top link, but politics aside, how many
> homebuilders will spend that much for an engine? The cost of Deltahawk's
> 200 hp version was originally projected to be around 12 k$. (It was also
> going to weigh about 100 lbs less than an IO-360.) It is now close to 30 k$
> and who knows what it will be by the time that you actually buy one. There
> may well be significant reliability advantages, much lower operating cost
> advantages, and just the basic coolness of the gadget, but still, I don't
> have that kind of money for an engine with no service record, no parts
> network, no experienced repair stations, etc. etc. God bless for getting
> this thing as far as they have, but I would expect that if this thing ever
> goes into production, its primary application will be in a certified
> aircraft where the cost of the powerplant is a small part of the total cost.
> Steve
>

I'll have to agree there. When I drove big trucks, one of the old time
guys was fond of saying that not just anyone could be a diesel mechanic.
For all the supposed simplicity, those things are finicky creatures.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[Del Rawlins]

In > Ernest Christley
wrote:

> I'll have to agree there. When I drove big trucks, one of the old
> time guys was fond of saying that not just anyone could be a diesel
> mechanic. For all the supposed simplicity, those things are finicky
> creatures.

I agree. What will be needed are mechanics who will be required to have
a certain level of training and/or experience, maintain a level of
currency, and receive adequate training on the specific equipment before
they can work on it. Sounds kind of like an A&P mechanic.

FWIW, the "current" technology aircraft engines can also be finicky
creatures, for all their supposed simplicity.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Dave Driscoll]

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
>
>
>

[Pete Schaefer]

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.

[Bill Daniels]

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
> >
> >
> >
>

[Dave Driscoll]

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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

[Dave Driscoll]

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.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[Bill Daniels]

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

[jpollard###mnsi.net]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:26:50 -0600, Dave Driscoll
> wrote:

> I'd be happy to answer any questions that
>people may have regarding the project.
>

Hi Dave

How do you get a diesel restarted in the air if you happen
to have multiple fuel tanks and run one dry so the injection
system gets air in it? Is there a way around this problem?

Jim

[Dave Driscoll]

Jim,

The engine is designed to be fairly fault tolerant of air bubbles in the
low pressure fuel lines (the returns from the pump element gallery are
positioned above the high pressure gallery inlet etc.) and will continue
to deliver solid fuel through the high pressure lines even with bubbles
in the low pressure ones. It will also repurge the high pressure lines
even in the event that you run them completely dry. You simply have to
reintroduce fuel to the system and keep spinning the prop at greater
than 150 rpm. How long it takes for a restart is based upon how dry the
system was and how fast you can spin the prop. 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.

Dave Driscoll
DeltaHawk LLC

jpollard###mnsi.net wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:26:50 -0600, Dave Driscoll
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'd be happy to answer any questions that
>>people may have regarding the project.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Hi Dave
>
>How do you get a diesel restarted in the air if you happen
>to have multiple fuel tanks and run one dry so the injection
>system gets air in it? Is there a way around this problem?
>
>Jim
>
>

[Dave Driscoll]

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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Corky Scott]

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

[Bill Daniels]

"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

[Dan Youngquist]

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

[Dave Driscoll]

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
>
>

[Scott Gettings]

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
> >
> >
> >

[Regnirps]

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

[Pete Schaefer]

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.....