I was in Racine last month, and stopped by the Deltahawk headquarters to tour through their hangar. I saw this V-twin Velocity in a disassembled state while they worked on mounting the engine to it, as well as a couple other test beds (including a Cessna 337). I got to inspect the engine up close and personal, and asked a LOT of questions to the very friendly and talented people there. I am SO impressed with this engine. It has far less moving parts (it's literally a diesel two-stroke, which means no camshaft, no pushrods, no valves, no lifters) - FAR less moving parts to fail. It's turbocharged AND supercharged, and will continue to produce full normalized output at altitude. I'm thinking that when my IO-360 reaches TBO, a Deltahawk engine may be in my future.
@@demagescod9657 It is non-FADEC, as it is simple enough operation not to require it. It's has a single mechanical linkage for speed control - no complex mappings, simple reliable mechanical fuel injection. No valves, no spark plugs, no magnetos. TBO is 2000 hours, I didn't ask about overhaul cost or oil. It can supply full rated takeoff power up to 12,000 feet, with critical altitude of 17,500 feet.
@@ScottsSynthStuff Thanks for the reply...I am confused though... Critical altitude is alt at which full power can still be made. So I dont understand the distinction you are making between 12k and 17.5k If the critical altitude is 17.5k, then full power should be available up to 17.5k
Two things that stuck out for me. One: for the majority of the GA fleet we're flying naturally aspirated engines. Therefore 180 horse in a turbocharged engine is certainly going to stomp all over The equivalent NA, at cruising altitude or high DA takeoffs. Two: the number one expense in flying your own aircraft is fuel. If this cuts fuel by roughly 40% over normal avgas that is going to be a considerable savings within a 5 to 10 year span. I'd be curious to put some numbers into a spreadsheet and see what it actually looks like. Either way exciting to see a great option onto the market to give us more choices
Also diesel/jet A piston engines can be easily adapted to use methanol or DME, not so easily to use ethanol, hydrogen and many other fuels. Those can be easily made by many different processes and energy sources, being viable alternatives to SAF (which will probably always cost a fortune).
The complete firewall and engine package will be around 90k. Only the same people who buy solar systems for their home thinking they save money who are also bad at math will think this leads to cost savings.
@@savethedeveloper Either this company will have to increase the power output or reduce the price, because they aren't competitive with existing diesel engines as it is.
Hello to you from overseas. It is very happy news. I have been waiting for this news for about two years, until I book an engine for my plane. Thank you. The most beautiful thing I read in the morning.
This is exciting. GA is long overdue for new power plant technology. Just eliminating the chance of a dropped valve sounds good. And not having to baby the engine is way better.
I was there and we asked technical questions on the Cirrus-mounted engine to one of the engineers there, they apparently only mounted the engine for Oshkosh and don’t have any real specs on it yet other than the show ones.
Yeah, I wanted to see a DIY airplane video. Lol. There’s info out there. It’s actually pretty promising for a diesel, but it is a diesel so it’s heavy.
I agree - this is a pitch to go with a "news" event, not a technical presentation at all. The technology and specs haven't changed for years, so other videos and the Deltahawk website and sources for that.
Look what Diamond is doing with Austro, this is basically the equivalence here in North America. Absolutely AMAZING, and I’d love to see one in a 172/182. Surprised Textron doesn’t actually buy these guys and give a Lycoming or DeltaHawk option for their new 172 build.
Sounds awesome, I just hope it doesn't have as many issues or teething problems as the Thielert or Austro engines. Love the concept and I'm glad to see more GA jet-A piston engines on the market.
Would like to see the dyno curves, or as close as possible from this vs the 180 horse conventional. They talk all about the power curve, that’s just what every salesman does when confronted with a more powerful engine. Let’s see it!
Americans don't care for diesels (in anything other than trucks) because of the GM "Giesel" disaster (a diesel based on a spark engine) and then, more recently, the VW emissions scandal (Dieselgate).
@@jwish29 Continental have a TBR of 2,000 hours but experience has shown very little wear after that time. Diesel and Jet-A have lubricating qualities, unlike AvGas, which lubricate the piston in the cylinder.
Interesting thing, I once had a line guy in Duluth ask if I needed a top off with Jet A in a DA40, mistaking it for a DA40 NG. Which is sort of the opposite of what you'd expect. In the end, yes, if you have one of these relatively common aircraft that may need Jet A or may need 100LL, refuel it yourself or watch while it is being refueled.
I’m glad someones finally engineering a more robust engine for cirrus pilots. Their Continental engines have a tough time handling redline rpm seconds upon initial startup
Water cooled V-4. Seems to have inverted and upright configurations. I wonder how much it weighs, including the radiator and coolant......A V-6 version should provide 270hp. There will probably be a weight penalty compared to Lyc's and Cont. of similar HP. For those in the U.S. it won't make sense if we can get avgas. But in areas where only jetfuel is available, then it's a good option. So many diesels have fallen flat so far, so to get one that hangs in there would be nice.
As with all jet-A piston engines they weigh more but the lower fuel burn usually offsets while still producing similar torque to the propeller meaning you effective cruise speeds remain similar. Hell let's compare a da40ng to a cirrus sr20 g6, it's not a super fair comparison for the diamond but why not. At 135KTAS at 10,000 feet the diamond will burn 6.6GPH and the cirrus 9.0GPH. Keep in mind the cirrus is at 50% power and the diamond is at 75%. For context at 60% the diamond will burn 5.1 GPH. 1.5 GPH less or 23% less. The cirrus at 75% burns 11.2 and at 60% burns 10. 1.2 GPH or about 11%. Airframe wise the cirrus and diamond are more comparable than say diamond vs piper/cessna. An equivalent jetA piston engine in its economy cruise band will burn about 40% less than typical 100LL burning aircraft
Who else is imagining one of these engines on a Vans RV? Though you’d have to beware of exceeding the flutter speed. This engine would also do amazing on the Lancair 360, Glasair I/II/III, and a lesser known EAB called the Revolution RAI Tango.
20 times the remark, that the engines burns jet fuel does not counterweight the fact, that these guys are waaaaaay late. - In addition, I would like to see a REAL price tag too (not an estimated one) ...... A F T ER I have taken a seat to calm down before I will read the figures........!
Congrats, I posted a comment on your Web site many years ago about how the cost savings transfer to the uk 🇬🇧 petrol here now is close to $10 a gallon 😮 Hedley Pepper
To slightly oversimplify, automotive hp is peak, aviation hp is continuous. Auto engines don't last long when they have to put out even 85% of peak for hours at a time. The TBO for race cars is usually "one race".
@@Thankz4sharing This year MotoGP has 20 races. So they have to be able to complete up to 160 sessions on track with 7 engines that are sealed at the beginning of the season and can't be opened up.
@@A.J.1656 What I had in mind was NASCAR long ago. I lost interest when they stopped having any relationship to actual production cars. What is this "MotoGP" to which you refer? Just kidding. I know it's an extravagantly expensive international entertainment enterprise. Bernie Ecclestone's baby.
Even if deltahawk does make more torque at whatever low rpm compared to lyconental gasoline engines that would be marginally relevant only when both are driving fixed pitch props. I suppose you could put a fixed pitch prop on this very expensive 180hp engine and leave a lot of performance and efficiency on the table but i strongly suspect most buyers/airframers would go for constant speed prop as are many lyconentals in similar power range already. In that case both engines of differing torque curve but with the same peak power at same peak rpm would put out exactly the same hp as delivered to the prop. This deltahawk guy either doesn’t know what he’s talking about(unlikely) or he is willing to obscure the picture to try to make up for the fact that his engine is on the heavier side(more likely). Also I find their claim of 40% lower fuel burn disingenuous and misleading. Lyconentals operating lean of peak are already doing 0.38bsfc. The austro diesels are supposedly doing 0.36bsfc a far cry from 40% lower fuel burn.
You're not running it at lean of peak during take-off and during climb maybe it burns less there. I know with my diesel pickup towing max load up grades I can get better MPG putting out more HP and Torque then a larger gas engine under the same load conditions diesel engines is more efficient. I do agree with a fixed pitch might not get same advantage. This would be perfect with the new LSA rules changing soon which gives the LSA pilot adjustable propeller.
Idk why you're using horsepower specific fuel burn numbers to compare engines that will make the difference in torque not horsepower. The fuel burn gph of the austro engines has been about 40% less.
@@slpater1 if the astro folks are comparing their diesels against lyconentals operating in rich maayyyybe their 40% claim is not too far off the mark. But in constant cruise power setting if operated in lean of peak mode the difference would be more like 10~15%
This is what every airplane engine should be! Please exchange the starter and alternator with a large diameter pancake starter/generator/motor when you are designing your V6! Any chance of a V12 down the road?!
this is a two stroke 4 cylinder V engine, if the manufacturer redesigned the boxer 2 stroke 6 cylinder engine it would be better I really enjoyed your show
Why? More cylinders for the same displacement and same operating speed just means more weight, complexity, and fuel consumption for no more power. Also, a boxer 2-stroke makes no sense at all, since it would fire opposite cylinders together, instead of spaced for smooth running.
I am very much behind diesel for aircraft! I would love a C170 or Maul with this engine! Too bad this was not available for aircraft like the Cessna 414 and Navajo!
So many other new engine types have not had the planning to get certifications. However, I hope they are not drawing too thin in focus in developing the hydrogen engine. Personally I wold like to see real world reliability figures for this particular diesel engine and hope they do that well. A part that's good about the old technology is its reliability. What's the need for deposits? Seems like many "new" engine manufacturers don't deliver when they ask for these things. Why the need? If it's really legit there is plenty of money around to put behind good stuff. This aspect increases the risk in my view. One possibility for the deposit need is big money has lately been tending to the green EV travel restrictive agenda being rolled out by ICE automakers. Better just to get one after the hours have been flown. In my view, the business/economics side of this needs to work just as well and maybe even better than the engine itself. There are ALOT of forces moving in the opposite direction to MORE freedom of travel currently, the EV nightmare lie being one of them. So there will be no doubt very smh type of roadblocks along the way for this company, I can only hope those in charge at Deltahawk are mentally prepared for that. This is the deposit risk, if that amount of deposit money matters to people. Perhaps depositors would be better off qualifying deposits as and angel investment instead of a legit gonna get my engine deposit. As demonstrated, this engine has the potential to be a huge leap for General Aviation. Its business success could set the path for more companies with similar goals. The climate nonsensicalers will likely be all over the diesel aspect of this, not for engineering facts and factual data on emissions and output, but to further their climate lie that really has, at its core, restrictions of travel . This engine company will be successful only as it overcomes, goes around, or blows through this potential (and likely) harsh resistance. Another point for me is their wording of their homepage to the effect that they have already "turned the aircraft industry upside down." Im not into this kind of output. Has this been demonstrated in actuality (numbers of hours flown, in a significant percentage of aircraft?) Hubris is usually always lethal. Why can't a new company just focus on making great products that will be so demanded by consumers that it needs no boasting? Of course it isn't my company, just sayin, when you are good, you don't need to say to anyone but yourself. And if you believe you have the potential to be good, of course that self talk is a critical aspect of success. I'm not saying they are not all that, just from what Ive read learned so far in life, publicly humble but solid is a good approach to use. This company's success lies in their product. It's up to time and numbers to say if the aircraft industry has ACTUALLY been so effected as to be "turned upside down" in that scale. There are equally important aspects of this success that are not related to the efficacy of the engine itself. Let's hope Deltahawk navigates these well.
yes,@@A.J.1656, but that 100LL is not "low lead" unless you are comparing it to highly leaded gasoline of very long ago. It has almost as much lead as the regular leaded gasoline of the early 1970's, and far more than the leaded gasoline available at the end of the 1970's. Yes, we're talking about fuels from half a century ago.
I wonder why it’s got mechanical injection you’d think common rail computerised fuel injection would be the go as for reliability but there must be a good reason for it you would expect and it looks like it’s a two stroke diesel that runs essentially on kerosene which was basically the jet engine fuel from the De-Havilland Comet days and I take it the supercharger is a scavenger blower ? And exhaust gas turbocharged for power? But hey what would I know!
I don't have a big problem with the use of belt drives, but running a critically required component with a belt and not providing any protection for that belt seems unwise... note the blower belt in front.
interest has been overwhelming since the Zoche 30 years ago. I know it's hard to design an engine but come on! We have been building diesels for well over 80 years.
I wonder how a hot V version of this engine would work, it would simplify exhaust plumbing and make a more compact package. The the turbo could be mounted above the supercharger. The exhaust ports could also be made into a single integral port on the cylinder so there is only a single exhaust opening on each bank.
The reason why the FAA certification requirements are so difficult is because the FAA and GAMA want to keep new innovative products out of the market. To protect the stagnant obsolete technology of general aviation.
"Operate this engine like you would your car". This is how it should be, but it is a shame that the FAA made it so difficult and expensive to certify. Let's see how long they stay in business.
Yes. 60 is an expensive egg beater. Lets see how this "next greatest thing for GA" will pan out. I'm not feeing optimistic at ALL. They may as well advertise now about how they're being bought by the chinese now and get it over with.
$60k... kind of spendy. but still WELL within the park, considering a factory NEW lycoming io360 WITH A CORE EXCHANGE is $56,410.00! deltahawk is going to blow lycoming & continental OUT of the water in sheer sales volume. gone are the days where they can keep building & selling overpriced briggs & stratton motors with no one to put their a55 in check. suck it lycontisaurus- YOU EARNED IT.
Unfortunately, the switch to DeltaHawk is not so simple . . . . you need a new engine mount, new cooling baffles for the radiator, new cowling, new propeller . . . . and an STC if the aircraft is certified . . . . so that will be $100,000 plus . . . . unless DeltaHawk decides to provide all this at a massive loss, for say $10,000, to get owners to switch. It will only make economic sense for operators who fly 2,000 hours in 5 to 10 years, that as flight schools. Possibly it will work for experimental aircraft builders, where the cost of the mount, propeller and cowling may be the same and STC is not required.
@@PhilipFly11 ....mmm yes & no. they already offer several models with STC installed. see the websight. the retrofit for the certified craft they offer comes with EVERYTHING, INSTALLED- for around the 100k mark as you said- but that's what it would cost if you were retrofitting to ANY liquid cooled engine. personally? I'd order it with a cirrus or a pipe from the factory- piper? soon. cirrus- already available. or just order a velocity from the factory with one.
@@jaybee3165 I would order a new Cirrus with DeltaHawk power if I was in the market to drop $1M on a new 4 seat unpressurised piston engine, however, I am not. If you have $1M to spend, you can find a pressurised turbine Piper Malibu with 6 seats for that money. It will be about 15 years old but pretty reliable and get you from A to B more reliably in bad weather, more quickly in all weather and more comfortably in a larger pressurised cabin. For half that money, one would be able to find a Diamond DA42, with run out engines, and upgrade to DeltaHawk. It would have the sea-level performance of a Lycoming engined DA42, high altitude performance of an Austro AE300 engined DA42 and better reliability and running costs than both of them.
Cant wait for Paul Bertorelli to nail down the information that really matters. Such as, TBO. cruise speed in that Cirrus as opposed to the turbo continental Cirrus. WEIGHT. Availabilty. So far, every diesel offering in aviation was dead on arrival.
the more torque, the greater amount of power an engine can produce. If your engine has a lot of torque, your can accelerate more quickly when is beginning to start excellent power ratio for take of at very low revs
It's not supercharged. The supercharger is only a scavenging pump. The turbo might supply a little excess air, which is good but you CANNOT supercharge a port valve engine! But marketing and most pilots don't know that, so keep calling it super/turbocharged. Not knocking the engine; two stroke Diesels are the way to go. But the management of this decades long saga has been a joke.
That's a real mess of hose on top of the engine in the Cirrus. And I mean "mess": not just a lot of hose, but hose running everywhere, over and under the mount, some not well supported, nothing labeled...
Note he never says "diesel." "Compressed ignition" is a nice friendly term, right? Well this is a diesel. But that's a *good* thing. Horsepower is not everything. This thing has *massive* torque compared to a gas engine. Diesel engines are ideal for piston powered aircraft. Low RPM, high torque. The only problem is they are usually (very) heavy. I'd be very interested in the weight of this engine, although it can't be far off of a fas engine because there goes your weight and balance.
Diesel engines typically produce much higher torque at lower RPM than gasoline engines. More torque at lower RPM means you can turn a larger prop, or more blades and produce more thrust at that lower RPM. The torque curves are so different it's not really an apples to apples comparison. The diameter or number of blades and pitch will be different for the diesel vs the gasoline for each engine to transform the power into forward thrust at peak efficiency. Very likely the diesel will climb faster but cruise slower when compared to an equivalent power gasoline engine.
@@billstevens3796 Horsepower is literally everything in an aircraft application. At 2,700 rpm, ANY 180 hp engine will be producing exactly the same amount of torque, gas or diesel, unless it has managed to break the laws of physics. Diesel engines make LESS torque than gasoline engines at the same manifold pressure. Diesels are the absolute worst choice for aircraft. This engine is not significantly heavier than the old avgas burning dinosaurs, but it has a terrible power to weight ratio relative to a modern gasoline engine.
@@ulbuilder "Diesel engines typically produce much higher torque at lower RPM than gasoline engines." Only if they're boosted significantly higher. "More torque at lower RPM means you can turn a larger prop, or more blades and produce more thrust at that lower RPM." 180 hp at 2,700 rpm is 350 lb-ft of torque, ALWAYS, without exception. "Very likely the diesel will climb faster but cruise slower when compared to an equivalent power gasoline engine." This was proven to be a false assumption by the diesel engine used in the Cessna 172.
Horsepower is a measurement of power, calculated as torque over time. If two rotating objects put out the same amount of torque, the faster rotating one puts out more power, measured in horsepower. This engine has MUCH higher torque than a standard 100LL engine, which means it can put out much more of its 180 HP rating at much lower engine RPM's. An example: you will need 2800 RPM on your O-360 to produce its rated 180 hp - and it does not have sufficient torque to do this sitting on the ground, so your static power is limited by the torque, say 2500 RPM. This means that your O-360 is putting out much less than 180 hp when you are sitting at the threshold, and you need to accelerate and gain sufficient airspeed in order for the prop to speed up enough that the engine is producing its rated 180 HP. In comparison, this engine puts out much more torque, at much lower RPMs, so it can drive the prop to its full static RPM with full torque even when sitting at rest. Sitting at the threshold, you push your throttle open, you are getting a full 180 HP made right from 0 kts (as opposed to maybe 150 HP from your O-360), which means you're going to accelerate much faster and have a much shorter takeoff roll as a result.
Was so excited until I checked the weight. I get that the high torque makes it more suitable for heavier aircraft than a typical 180hp would, but the weight is a tad much for a lot of experimental aircraft. W&B won’t work for me. Bummed. Everything else sounds so badass so I don’t mean to take anything away from their accomplishment. Great engine if you have the right application. So exciting to see a promising new engine hit the market! About damn time!
Can we stop calling diesels compression ignition? Rudolf Diesel didnt invent high compression - he invented TIMED injection. Lets call it injection ignition. Mechanics EVERYWHERE will join us.
As per their website: 180hp x 0.402 bhp / 6.7 lbs. x Gallon Diesel = 10.8 gph at 400+ lbs. installed weight ($60,000+, Overhaul $25k+ maybe more) Honda Viking 195T engine 195hp x 0.425 / 6.1 lbs. x Gallon Premium gas = 12.1 gph - 260lbs weight ($20,000, Overhaul $6k+) you can carry 23+ extra gallons for same engine weight. 140lbs less in weight, $40k less in price? You need to flight hundreds of hours per year to offset the cost of diesel. Jet-A it's a lot more expensive than Auto Gas and sometimes 20% more than 100LL, as 01/06/2024 prices are: Gasoline Premium 93 Octanes = $4 x Gal, KBCT airport prices: 100LL $7.67 - Jet A $7.91. 1000 hours flight time with an average 75% power DHK180 - 7.3 gph x 0.362 bhp = 7300 gallons of fuel x $6 ($43,000) Viking195T - 8.5 gph x 0.400 bhp = 8500 gallons of fuel x $6 same price as diesel, I know, it's impossible but trying to help deltahawk ($51,000) $8,000 do not justify the expense and extra weight. It only makes sense if the price is competitive. About reliability? Well Honda looks like a good option. Please if I'm wrong we can modify those numbers, just trying to see the big picture here. How you can call this a clean engine? ruclips.net/video/Ss670TC4F70/видео.htmlsi=BOvrccIBxnLkn9pf
So it only makes 134 KW, but continuous is only 101kw. It weighs 162kg, so a power to weight 0.83-0.62kw/kg. A modern piston engine runs around 1.5KW/kg. It's fuel burn is about the same as a modern petrol engine at 217g/kwh but it runs on more expensive jet fuel which is about 50% more than 98Ron. Do people actually look at the numbers?
@@slpater1 When you say Avgas I assume you are talking about leaded petrol (100 Lots of Lead). Modern engines don't use or need leaded petrol. Leaded petrol is for air cooled engines that run very hot and need the extra octane to simply prevent detonation without adding more power. A modern engine runs on 95-98RON unleaded petrol. Petrol is cheaper than 100LL or Jet fuel, and about equivalent to diesel here in Australia.
This reminds me of Ford and Chevy resting on their laurels while Honda and Toyota came along and stole their lunch in the 80’s and 90’s. Lycoming and Continental better pay attention. They have screwed us for years with 1940’s technology and very little innovation. 😂
🤜⚡💥⚡🤛 We have the innovations to make the most efficient, low cost, quiet, power dense turbo engines possible...without a recuperator, even for microturbines. Talk?🤜⚡💥⚡🤛
These companies rape the consumer. 60k for an engine? Just seems ridiculous considering you can get a much more technically complex automotive engine for 10-20. Not that you would run that in an aircraft but I’m talking the actual material and machining to build.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I was in Racine last month, and stopped by the Deltahawk headquarters to tour through their hangar. I saw this V-twin Velocity in a disassembled state while they worked on mounting the engine to it, as well as a couple other test beds (including a Cessna 337). I got to inspect the engine up close and personal, and asked a LOT of questions to the very friendly and talented people there. I am SO impressed with this engine. It has far less moving parts (it's literally a diesel two-stroke, which means no camshaft, no pushrods, no valves, no lifters) - FAR less moving parts to fail. It's turbocharged AND supercharged, and will continue to produce full normalized output at altitude.
I'm thinking that when my IO-360 reaches TBO, a Deltahawk engine may be in my future.
Did you ask about TBO? Overhaul cost? Synthetic oil (for longer oil change intervals?) are they FADEC ? Max operating altitude?
@@demagescod9657 It is non-FADEC, as it is simple enough operation not to require it. It's has a single mechanical linkage for speed control - no complex mappings, simple reliable mechanical fuel injection. No valves, no spark plugs, no magnetos. TBO is 2000 hours, I didn't ask about overhaul cost or oil. It can supply full rated takeoff power up to 12,000 feet, with critical altitude of 17,500 feet.
@@ScottsSynthStuff Thanks for the reply...I am confused though... Critical altitude is alt at which full power can still be made. So I dont understand the distinction you are making between 12k and 17.5k If the critical altitude is 17.5k, then full power should be available up to 17.5k
What's burn per hr like?
Looks like a dry sump oil injected 2 stroke diesel. How does it work with amsoil interceptor oil.
I love that he says it's a 'jet fuel burning, compression ignition engine.' In the automotive world we call that a diesel.
it's a diesel. And so far, every single diesel in aviation was dead on arrival.
It is a 2 cycle diesel rather than a traditional 4 cycle diesel. (some of the large ship engines were also 2 cycle)
@@Top10VideosOnTheWeb as were a lot of the Detroit diesel engines used in trucks and busses.
@@friedclutch97 I'm curious about how this one will pan out. I know earlier ones had problems with prop harmonics among other things.
@@792slayer It may be why they are marketing it with a prop.
It's been a long time coming. So happy to see this finally get certified! Great job!
Two things that stuck out for me.
One: for the majority of the GA fleet we're flying naturally aspirated engines. Therefore 180 horse in a turbocharged engine is certainly going to stomp all over The equivalent NA, at cruising altitude or high DA takeoffs.
Two: the number one expense in flying your own aircraft is fuel. If this cuts fuel by roughly 40% over normal avgas that is going to be a considerable savings within a 5 to 10 year span. I'd be curious to put some numbers into a spreadsheet and see what it actually looks like.
Either way exciting to see a great option onto the market to give us more choices
Also diesel/jet A piston engines can be easily adapted to use methanol or DME, not so easily to use ethanol, hydrogen and many other fuels. Those can be easily made by many different processes and energy sources, being viable alternatives to SAF (which will probably always cost a fortune).
The complete firewall and engine package will be around 90k. Only the same people who buy solar systems for their home thinking they save money who are also bad at math will think this leads to cost savings.
@@savethedeveloper Either this company will have to increase the power output or reduce the price, because they aren't competitive with existing diesel engines as it is.
@@savethedeveloperdon’t buy one then.
Not to mention not dumping lead over peoples heads...
Fascinating engine indeed. The economical fuel burn, and power to spare is intriguing. This would be an interesting 180 hp conversion for the 172.
What fuel burn? No fuel burn data were presented for either aircraft shown.
"We got it certified, but it took a lot longer than expected"
Brother, I don't know what you were expecting : )
probs not 20 years
Promoters of new engine designs all seem to expect a year or two, and it typically takes a decade or two... .if it ever happens.
FAA defends their constituents. Teledyne, Textron, and P&W.
1) what is the engine weight compared to a Lycoming or Continental? 2) What is the TBO? 3) What is the cost to overhaul????????????
Hello to you from overseas. It is very happy news. I have been waiting for this news for about two years, until I book an engine for my plane. Thank you. The most beautiful thing I read in the morning.
Best aircraft video of 2023 .
This engine is a game changer for long range
This is exciting. GA is long overdue for new power plant technology. Just eliminating the chance of a dropped valve sounds good. And not having to baby the engine is way better.
I would’ve like a more technical discussion than a salesman’s pitch.
I was there and we asked technical questions on the Cirrus-mounted engine to one of the engineers there, they apparently only mounted the engine for Oshkosh and don’t have any real specs on it yet other than the show ones.
Same. Weight? GPH? Interesting, exciting, yes, but not informative.
Yeah, I wanted to see a DIY airplane video. Lol. There’s info out there. It’s actually pretty promising for a diesel, but it is a diesel so it’s heavy.
I agree - this is a pitch to go with a "news" event, not a technical presentation at all. The technology and specs haven't changed for years, so other videos and the Deltahawk website and sources for that.
YES, I HOPE THAT IS COMING. DOES THIS ENGINE COME WITH AN (INTERCOOLER) & (WASTE GATE) ?
I wish you guys the BEST!!!!
This engine looks amazing.
Nick is already thinking about putting one in a Porsche.
@@johnharrison1429 180 HP?, Chick says your Porsche sounds like a tractor?
Thanks Avweb
Look what Diamond is doing with Austro, this is basically the equivalence here in North America. Absolutely AMAZING, and I’d love to see one in a 172/182. Surprised Textron doesn’t actually buy these guys and give a Lycoming or DeltaHawk option for their new 172 build.
There was a 172 diesel. They decided to cancel the program.
Sounds awesome, I just hope it doesn't have as many issues or teething problems as the Thielert or Austro engines. Love the concept and I'm glad to see more GA jet-A piston engines on the market.
What’s the performance of it on that SR20??
One of the videos I’ve been looking forward too.
Would like to see the dyno curves, or as close as possible from this vs the 180 horse conventional.
They talk all about the power curve, that’s just what every salesman does when confronted with a more powerful engine. Let’s see it!
and honestly it doesnt matter, you spend 90% of the time in cruise anyway.
@@tommyhairyeah7726 I think you can use smaller rated engines this way because the lower range of the torque vs RPM curve is more useful.
@@tommyhairyeah7726 yeah this is a big part of it. the best selling point should be efficiency at cruise
It's funny that he's avoided the term turbodiesel for this engine, presumably because Americans have an aversion to diesel engines in things.
Americans don't care for diesels (in anything other than trucks) because of the GM "Giesel" disaster (a diesel based on a spark engine) and then, more recently, the VW emissions scandal (Dieselgate).
Looked at trucks lately?
@@Dan-xt8kiI haven't seen any in the sky.
Conceptually the Jumo 204 was doing this almost a century ago!
More excitement for general aviation aircraft. Looks great.
Didnt find the weight (wet)... to compare with any 180 hp AC engine
AWESOME!!!!
What's TBO?
They announced 2000hr TBO from the start, plans to go longer later. Found on other sites (instagram and website)
2000 is the goal, the FAA dictates the TBO, which one has not been given yet which is probably why they don't advertise one yet.
@@jwish29
Continental have a TBR of 2,000 hours but experience has shown very little wear after that time.
Diesel and Jet-A have lubricating qualities, unlike AvGas, which lubricate the piston in the cylinder.
Jet A in a Cirrus....better watch the line guys like a Hawk...
Interesting thing, I once had a line guy in Duluth ask if I needed a top off with Jet A in a DA40, mistaking it for a DA40 NG. Which is sort of the opposite of what you'd expect. In the end, yes, if you have one of these relatively common aircraft that may need Jet A or may need 100LL, refuel it yourself or watch while it is being refueled.
I’m glad someones finally engineering a more robust engine for cirrus pilots. Their Continental engines have a tough time handling redline rpm seconds upon initial startup
what's TBO? some actual data would be nicer than how excited they are to charge $60k and how soooooo many people expressed interest.
and what's the cost of an overhaul?
Water cooled V-4. Seems to have inverted and upright configurations. I wonder how much it weighs, including the radiator and coolant......A V-6 version should provide 270hp. There will probably be a weight penalty compared to Lyc's and Cont. of similar HP. For those in the U.S. it won't make sense if we can get avgas. But in areas where only jetfuel is available, then it's a good option. So many diesels have fallen flat so far, so to get one that hangs in there would be nice.
It is around 450 lbs.
As with all jet-A piston engines they weigh more but the lower fuel burn usually offsets while still producing similar torque to the propeller meaning you effective cruise speeds remain similar. Hell let's compare a da40ng to a cirrus sr20 g6, it's not a super fair comparison for the diamond but why not. At 135KTAS at 10,000 feet the diamond will burn 6.6GPH and the cirrus 9.0GPH. Keep in mind the cirrus is at 50% power and the diamond is at 75%. For context at 60% the diamond will burn 5.1 GPH. 1.5 GPH less or 23% less. The cirrus at 75% burns 11.2 and at 60% burns 10. 1.2 GPH or about 11%. Airframe wise the cirrus and diamond are more comparable than say diamond vs piper/cessna. An equivalent jetA piston engine in its economy cruise band will burn about 40% less than typical 100LL burning aircraft
The engine is installed inverted, the upright is when it's on a stand for viewing.
Never say never.
Congrats Delta Hawk
… Never!
Who else is imagining one of these engines on a Vans RV? Though you’d have to beware of exceeding the flutter speed.
This engine would also do amazing on the Lancair 360, Glasair I/II/III, and a lesser known EAB called the Revolution RAI Tango.
Can wait for the 260 hp for the RV10
This may be the perfect drone engine.
why inverted? that seem to lead to oil getting in the heads when not in use.
20 times the remark, that the engines burns jet fuel does not counterweight the fact, that these guys are waaaaaay late. - In addition, I would like to see a REAL price tag too (not an estimated one) ...... A F T ER I have taken a seat to calm down before I will read the figures........!
Still no word on how it's lubricated?
Congrats, I posted a comment on your Web site many years ago about how the cost savings transfer to the uk 🇬🇧 petrol here now is close to $10 a gallon 😮 Hedley Pepper
Curious to know what the performance will be with 180hp.
It only took 35 years. The more powerful engines will probably come long after we are dead and gone.
Oh come on. It only took 25 years
Check the weight before you get excited.
Cool.
Honda makes a 600 HP three cylinder turbo charged 1L engine. I can’t wait until aviation catches up.
They also make a +300hp N/A 1L V4 engine.
Some guys are getting 1400hp+ out of Honda 4 cylinders But I don't think they have a reduction box that will hold that yet.
To slightly oversimplify, automotive hp is peak, aviation hp is continuous. Auto engines don't last long when they have to put out even 85% of peak for hours at a time. The TBO for race cars is usually "one race".
@@Thankz4sharing
This year MotoGP has 20 races. So they have to be able to complete up to 160 sessions on track with 7 engines that are sealed at the beginning of the season and can't be opened up.
@@A.J.1656 What I had in mind was NASCAR long ago. I lost interest when they stopped having any relationship to actual production cars. What is this "MotoGP" to which you refer? Just kidding. I know it's an extravagantly expensive international entertainment enterprise. Bernie Ecclestone's baby.
Even if deltahawk does make more torque at whatever low rpm compared to lyconental gasoline engines that would be marginally relevant only when both are driving fixed pitch props. I suppose you could put a fixed pitch prop on this very expensive 180hp engine and leave a lot of performance and efficiency on the table but i strongly suspect most buyers/airframers would go for constant speed prop as are many lyconentals in similar power range already. In that case both engines of differing torque curve but with the same peak power at same peak rpm would put out exactly the same hp as delivered to the prop.
This deltahawk guy either doesn’t know what he’s talking about(unlikely) or he is willing to obscure the picture to try to make up for the fact that his engine is on the heavier side(more likely).
Also I find their claim of 40% lower fuel burn disingenuous and misleading. Lyconentals operating lean of peak are already doing 0.38bsfc. The austro diesels are supposedly doing 0.36bsfc a far cry from 40% lower fuel burn.
You're not running it at lean of peak during take-off and during climb maybe it burns less there. I know with my diesel pickup towing max load up grades I can get better MPG putting out more HP and Torque then a larger gas engine under the same load conditions diesel engines is more efficient. I do agree with a fixed pitch might not get same advantage. This would be perfect with the new LSA rules changing soon which gives the LSA pilot adjustable propeller.
More torque means the same prop RPM but taking a bigger bite of air so more power even with a constant speed propeller.
@@joshuashackelford6696 It doesn't make more torque.
Idk why you're using horsepower specific fuel burn numbers to compare engines that will make the difference in torque not horsepower. The fuel burn gph of the austro engines has been about 40% less.
@@slpater1 if the astro folks are comparing their diesels against lyconentals operating in rich maayyyybe their 40% claim is not too far off the mark. But in constant cruise power setting if operated in lean of peak mode the difference would be more like 10~15%
Aviation is safe ?
DOES THIS ENGINE COME WITH AN (INTERCOOLER) & (WASTE GATE) ?
Привет! Это мерседес ом640 с ременным редуктором? Не пойму что за автоконверсия? Спасибо!
For the LSA market, make a 120 HP version. You will sell more engines than ALL of the other manufacturers COMBINED.
It's got Wiggins clamps
This is what every airplane engine should be! Please exchange the starter and alternator with a large diameter pancake starter/generator/motor when you are designing your V6! Any chance of a V12 down the road?!
This is the future. Finally.
I'd be interested in a 260-300 hp variant, for sure.
probably a million dollar plane too.
That all 😅 regular working stiffs not gonna fly but oh well
@ivoryjohnson4662 we don't deserve fuel efficient aircraft with updated panels and a parachutes.
60k starting price so target market will be 500k and up aircraft.
Tecnam p2010
Very Cool!
So it's a diesel?
Yes.
I’ve never heard one running
How much?
The number for the complete engine installation was reported at $115,000.
@@davem5333 Time to buy a lotto
this is a two stroke 4 cylinder V engine, if the manufacturer redesigned the boxer 2 stroke 6 cylinder engine it would be better
I really enjoyed your show
I don’t think so.
Convert a Continental 540 CID into a 2 stroke as there is lots of room to cut ports in the air cooled jugs!
Why? More cylinders for the same displacement and same operating speed just means more weight, complexity, and fuel consumption for no more power.
Also, a boxer 2-stroke makes no sense at all, since it would fire opposite cylinders together, instead of spaced for smooth running.
Castor 927 maxima 2T oil in her.
357lbs dry for only 180hp. welp...
apon more recherch 7gph at 135hp is pretty good. lets see the higher hp versions to touch that power to weight.
@@nick4506 rated for 180 initially, but 235 is possible.
I am very much behind diesel for aircraft! I would love a C170 or Maul with this engine! Too bad this was not available for aircraft like the Cessna 414 and Navajo!
So many other new engine types have not had the planning to get certifications. However, I hope they are not drawing too thin in focus in developing the hydrogen engine. Personally I wold like to see real world reliability figures for this particular diesel engine and hope they do that well. A part that's good about the old technology is its reliability. What's the need for deposits? Seems like many "new" engine manufacturers don't deliver when they ask for these things. Why the need? If it's really legit there is plenty of money around to put behind good stuff. This aspect increases the risk in my view. One possibility for the deposit need is big money has lately been tending to the green EV travel restrictive agenda being rolled out by ICE automakers. Better just to get one after the hours have been flown.
In my view, the business/economics side of this needs to work just as well and maybe even better than the engine itself. There are ALOT of forces moving in the opposite direction to MORE freedom of travel currently, the EV nightmare lie being one of them. So there will be no doubt very smh type of roadblocks along the way for this company, I can only hope those in charge at Deltahawk are mentally prepared for that. This is the deposit risk, if that amount of deposit money matters to people. Perhaps depositors would be better off qualifying deposits as and angel investment instead of a legit gonna get my engine deposit. As demonstrated, this engine has the potential to be a huge leap for General Aviation. Its business success could set the path for more companies with similar goals. The climate nonsensicalers will likely be all over the diesel aspect of this, not for engineering facts and factual data on emissions and output, but to further their climate lie that really has, at its core, restrictions of travel . This engine company will be successful only as it overcomes, goes around, or blows through this potential (and likely) harsh resistance.
Another point for me is their wording of their homepage to the effect that they have already "turned the aircraft industry upside down." Im not into this kind of output. Has this been demonstrated in actuality (numbers of hours flown, in a significant percentage of aircraft?) Hubris is usually always lethal. Why can't a new company just focus on making great products that will be so demanded by consumers that it needs no boasting? Of course it isn't my company, just sayin, when you are good, you don't need to say to anyone but yourself. And if you believe you have the potential to be good, of course that self talk is a critical aspect of success. I'm not saying they are not all that, just from what Ive read learned so far in life, publicly humble but solid is a good approach to use. This company's success lies in their product. It's up to time and numbers to say if the aircraft industry has ACTUALLY been so effected as to be "turned upside down" in that scale.
There are equally important aspects of this success that are not related to the efficacy of the engine itself. Let's hope Deltahawk navigates these well.
2 stroke diesels flew in WW2. I have been waiting for this to happen, now I am too old to get involved.
Will it use diesel fuel
Does it run on diesel too?
Not this year. On water next year.
Yes, it will Kerosene and Jet fuel are like race gas on a diesel.
It will be a good engine for $400-600k aircraft.
What’s the difference between jet fuel and avgas?
Jet A is closer to kerosene/diesel and avgas is typically 100 octane low lead gasoline.
@@A.J.1656 OK, thanks!
yes,@@A.J.1656, but that 100LL is not "low lead" unless you are comparing it to highly leaded gasoline of very long ago. It has almost as much lead as the regular leaded gasoline of the early 1970's, and far more than the leaded gasoline available at the end of the 1970's. Yes, we're talking about fuels from half a century ago.
Can't wait to see one in a Cosy/ Velocity etc...... 😅
I wonder why it’s got mechanical injection you’d think common rail computerised fuel injection would be the go as for reliability but there must be a good reason for it you would expect and it looks like it’s a two stroke diesel that runs essentially on kerosene which was basically the jet engine fuel from the De-Havilland Comet days and I take it the supercharger is a scavenger blower ? And exhaust gas turbocharged for power? But hey what would I know!
Yes, the "supercharger" is just a scavenger blower, and a turbocharged version is available for power.
I don't have a big problem with the use of belt drives, but running a critically required component with a belt and not providing any protection for that belt seems unwise... note the blower belt in front.
interest has been overwhelming since the Zoche 30 years ago. I know it's hard to design an engine but come on! We have been building diesels for well over 80 years.
Try 100 years.
I wonder how a hot V version of this engine would work, it would simplify exhaust plumbing and make a more compact package. The the turbo could be mounted above the supercharger. The exhaust ports could also be made into a single integral port on the cylinder so there is only a single exhaust opening on each bank.
When can I put a stronger version of this in a Cherokee 6?
About 2043.
The reason why the FAA certification requirements are so difficult is because the FAA and GAMA want to keep new innovative products out of the market. To protect the stagnant obsolete technology of general aviation.
"Operate this engine like you would your car". This is how it should be, but it is a shame that the FAA made it so difficult and expensive to certify. Let's see how long they stay in business.
Interesting development. Time will tell.
Well, it's nice that you think that $60K is a "very attractive" price. For $60k I want roundy roundy not up and downy.
Yes. 60 is an expensive egg beater. Lets see how this "next greatest thing for GA" will pan out. I'm not feeing optimistic at ALL. They may as well advertise now about how they're being bought by the chinese now and get it over with.
For $60K you may want "roundy-roundy", but for that much you're not getting a new turbine engine.
$60k... kind of spendy. but still WELL within the park, considering a factory NEW lycoming io360 WITH A CORE EXCHANGE is $56,410.00! deltahawk is going to blow lycoming & continental OUT of the water in sheer sales volume. gone are the days where they can keep building & selling overpriced briggs & stratton motors with no one to put their a55 in check. suck it lycontisaurus- YOU EARNED IT.
Unfortunately, the switch to DeltaHawk is not so simple . . . . you need a new engine mount, new cooling baffles for the radiator, new cowling, new propeller . . . . and an STC if the aircraft is certified . . . . so that will be $100,000 plus . . . . unless DeltaHawk decides to provide all this at a massive loss, for say $10,000, to get owners to switch.
It will only make economic sense for operators who fly 2,000 hours in 5 to 10 years, that as flight schools.
Possibly it will work for experimental aircraft builders, where the cost of the mount, propeller and cowling may be the same and STC is not required.
@@PhilipFly11 ....mmm yes & no. they already offer several models with STC installed. see the websight. the retrofit for the certified craft they offer comes with EVERYTHING, INSTALLED- for around the 100k mark as you said- but that's what it would cost if you were retrofitting to ANY liquid cooled engine. personally? I'd order it with a cirrus or a pipe from the factory- piper? soon. cirrus- already available. or just order a velocity from the factory with one.
@@jaybee3165
I would order a new Cirrus with DeltaHawk power if I was in the market to drop $1M on a new 4 seat unpressurised piston engine, however, I am not.
If you have $1M to spend, you can find a pressurised turbine Piper Malibu with 6 seats for that money. It will be about 15 years old but pretty reliable and get you from A to B more reliably in bad weather, more quickly in all weather and more comfortably in a larger pressurised cabin.
For half that money, one would be able to find a Diamond DA42, with run out engines, and upgrade to DeltaHawk. It would have the sea-level performance of a Lycoming engined DA42, high altitude performance of an Austro AE300 engined DA42 and better reliability and running costs than both of them.
Excellent
Not to be cynical but what is the price now - $100? 150k?
You have every right to be cynical, they have earned it!
Cant wait for Paul Bertorelli to nail down the information that really matters. Such as, TBO. cruise speed in that Cirrus as opposed to the turbo continental Cirrus. WEIGHT. Availabilty. So far, every diesel offering in aviation was dead on arrival.
Is that why Diamond is doing so well?
@@Dan-xt8ki check out that video from AV web on diesels in airplanes. Yes they are flying but look out if you have a problem. Very heavy too.
1:48 Shock cooling is a myth.
Depends on how high you get your CHT’s before chopping power and pointing the nose down, maybe?
the more torque, the greater amount of power an engine can produce. If your engine has a lot of torque, your can accelerate more quickly when is beginning to start excellent power ratio for take of at very low revs
Cirrus -- the all new doctor killer
Exciting! A bit pricey.
turbosupercharged, yes please
Weighs about 50lbs heavier than the current IO-390
A reliable engine burning a cheap easily available.fuel without any lead content and at high altitudes..... what's the catch?
Heavy compared to the competition.
It's not supercharged. The supercharger is only a scavenging pump. The turbo might supply a little excess air, which is good but you CANNOT supercharge a port valve engine! But marketing and most pilots don't know that, so keep calling it super/turbocharged. Not knocking the engine; two stroke Diesels are the way to go. But the management of this decades long saga has been a joke.
That's a real mess of hose on top of the engine in the Cirrus. And I mean "mess": not just a lot of hose, but hose running everywhere, over and under the mount, some not well supported, nothing labeled...
180 hp is 180 hp, what on Earth is he talking about?
Note he never says "diesel." "Compressed ignition" is a nice friendly term, right? Well this is a diesel. But that's a *good* thing.
Horsepower is not everything. This thing has *massive* torque compared to a gas engine.
Diesel engines are ideal for piston powered aircraft. Low RPM, high torque. The only problem is they are usually (very) heavy.
I'd be very interested in the weight of this engine, although it can't be far off of a fas engine because there goes your weight and balance.
Diesel engines typically produce much higher torque at lower RPM than gasoline engines. More torque at lower RPM means you can turn a larger prop, or more blades and produce more thrust at that lower RPM.
The torque curves are so different it's not really an apples to apples comparison. The diameter or number of blades and pitch will be different for the diesel vs the gasoline for each engine to transform the power into forward thrust at peak efficiency.
Very likely the diesel will climb faster but cruise slower when compared to an equivalent power gasoline engine.
@@billstevens3796 Horsepower is literally everything in an aircraft application. At 2,700 rpm, ANY 180 hp engine will be producing exactly the same amount of torque, gas or diesel, unless it has managed to break the laws of physics.
Diesel engines make LESS torque than gasoline engines at the same manifold pressure. Diesels are the absolute worst choice for aircraft.
This engine is not significantly heavier than the old avgas burning dinosaurs, but it has a terrible power to weight ratio relative to a modern gasoline engine.
@@ulbuilder "Diesel engines typically produce much higher torque at lower RPM than gasoline engines."
Only if they're boosted significantly higher.
"More torque at lower RPM means you can turn a larger prop, or more blades and produce more thrust at that lower RPM."
180 hp at 2,700 rpm is 350 lb-ft of torque, ALWAYS, without exception.
"Very likely the diesel will climb faster but cruise slower when compared to an equivalent power gasoline engine."
This was proven to be a false assumption by the diesel engine used in the Cessna 172.
Horsepower is a measurement of power, calculated as torque over time. If two rotating objects put out the same amount of torque, the faster rotating one puts out more power, measured in horsepower. This engine has MUCH higher torque than a standard 100LL engine, which means it can put out much more of its 180 HP rating at much lower engine RPM's.
An example: you will need 2800 RPM on your O-360 to produce its rated 180 hp - and it does not have sufficient torque to do this sitting on the ground, so your static power is limited by the torque, say 2500 RPM. This means that your O-360 is putting out much less than 180 hp when you are sitting at the threshold, and you need to accelerate and gain sufficient airspeed in order for the prop to speed up enough that the engine is producing its rated 180 HP.
In comparison, this engine puts out much more torque, at much lower RPMs, so it can drive the prop to its full static RPM with full torque even when sitting at rest. Sitting at the threshold, you push your throttle open, you are getting a full 180 HP made right from 0 kts (as opposed to maybe 150 HP from your O-360), which means you're going to accelerate much faster and have a much shorter takeoff roll as a result.
Was so excited until I checked the weight. I get that the high torque makes it more suitable for heavier aircraft than a typical 180hp would, but the weight is a tad much for a lot of experimental aircraft. W&B won’t work for me. Bummed. Everything else sounds so badass so I don’t mean to take anything away from their accomplishment. Great engine if you have the right application. So exciting to see a promising new engine hit the market! About damn time!
" I get that the high torque makes it more suitable for heavier aircraft"
It's not a car and Continental engines make more torque anyway.
It takes another 10 years until they ship engines 😂😢😅🎉
Give me 300 reliable HP and I’ll trade in my new IO550 tomorrow.
Can we stop calling diesels compression ignition? Rudolf Diesel didnt invent high compression - he invented TIMED injection. Lets call it injection ignition. Mechanics EVERYWHERE will join us.
As per their website: 180hp x 0.402 bhp / 6.7 lbs. x Gallon Diesel = 10.8 gph at 400+ lbs. installed weight ($60,000+, Overhaul $25k+ maybe more)
Honda Viking 195T engine 195hp x 0.425 / 6.1 lbs. x Gallon Premium gas = 12.1 gph - 260lbs weight ($20,000, Overhaul $6k+) you can carry 23+ extra gallons for same engine weight.
140lbs less in weight, $40k less in price? You need to flight hundreds of hours per year to offset the cost of diesel. Jet-A it's a lot more expensive than Auto Gas and sometimes 20% more than 100LL, as 01/06/2024 prices are: Gasoline Premium 93 Octanes = $4 x Gal, KBCT airport prices: 100LL $7.67 - Jet A $7.91.
1000 hours flight time with an average 75% power
DHK180 - 7.3 gph x 0.362 bhp = 7300 gallons of fuel x $6 ($43,000)
Viking195T - 8.5 gph x 0.400 bhp = 8500 gallons of fuel x $6 same price as diesel, I know, it's impossible but trying to help deltahawk ($51,000) $8,000 do not justify the expense and extra weight. It only makes sense if the price is competitive. About reliability? Well Honda looks like a good option. Please if I'm wrong we can modify those numbers, just trying to see the big picture here.
How you can call this a clean engine? ruclips.net/video/Ss670TC4F70/видео.htmlsi=BOvrccIBxnLkn9pf
Show me the type certificates for Viking engines
350 hp diesel with diesel prices at 2.50 per gallon... until then , shove it
You do a lot of talking but I’ve yet to hear this engine run or fly . Start it up before we lose interest.
next up on things that will never happen
So it only makes 134 KW, but continuous is only 101kw. It weighs 162kg, so a power to weight 0.83-0.62kw/kg. A modern piston engine runs around 1.5KW/kg. It's fuel burn is about the same as a modern petrol engine at 217g/kwh but it runs on more expensive jet fuel which is about 50% more than 98Ron. Do people actually look at the numbers?
Idk where you are but jet fuel is almost always cheaper than avgas
@@slpater1 When you say Avgas I assume you are talking about leaded petrol (100 Lots of Lead). Modern engines don't use or need leaded petrol. Leaded petrol is for air cooled engines that run very hot and need the extra octane to simply prevent detonation without adding more power. A modern engine runs on 95-98RON unleaded petrol. Petrol is cheaper than 100LL or Jet fuel, and about equivalent to diesel here in Australia.
I've never seen avgas cheaper than jet A.
@@kazansky22 Petrol is cheaper than jet fuel, just go to your local petrol station and look.
Australians being robbed by their government. 😅
This reminds me of Ford and Chevy resting on their laurels while Honda and Toyota came along and stole their lunch in the 80’s and 90’s.
Lycoming and Continental better pay attention. They have screwed us for years with 1940’s technology and very little innovation. 😂
🤜⚡💥⚡🤛 We have the innovations to make the most efficient, low cost, quiet, power dense turbo engines possible...without a recuperator, even for microturbines. Talk?🤜⚡💥⚡🤛
These companies rape the consumer. 60k for an engine? Just seems ridiculous considering you can get a much more technically complex automotive engine for 10-20. Not that you would run that in an aircraft but I’m talking the actual material and machining to build.