View Full Version : SR20 Diesel
I don't remember if this was posted before...
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/DeltaHawk%20Diesel-Powered%20SR20%20Announced.pdf
DeltaHawk Diesel Engines (http://www.deltahawkengines.com/Firewall%20Cirrus.shtml)
I wonder how they isolate the prop from the torque pulses of the diesel cycle. If they use a clutch, like Thielert do, the running costs will be high.
Should I
1) Buy a new diesel engine
or
2) Bet on the FTSE100 being above 7500 by the summer?
Answers on a postcard.
Ok, I know, I know, somebody has to support new technology "otherwise there would not be any innovation" ;)
To be fair Deltahawk seem to have the resources and more particularly the persistence to get their engine certified.
Of course how well it will work once the general pilot population get let lose on it who knows? Regettably the answer is probably there will be a few snags, which will probably cost customers money. Such are things aeronautical.
The power pulse issue may be significantly less with this engine, compared with a Theilert, as it is a 2 stroke which will make it a lot smoother.
lotusexige
8th Mar 2010, 15:05
I wonder though, just how bad the torque pulses are? It is a 4 cylinder 2 stroke so it should be like an 8 cylinder 4 stroke as regards that.
Carbon Cristal
8th Mar 2010, 15:15
They talk about turbine like reliability, is this possible from a two stroke. They are certainly setting the bar very high.
lotusexige
8th Mar 2010, 15:21
I thought that a lot of the big marine diesels were 2 stroke. I don't think that we should think in terms of 2 stroke motor cycle engines or lawn mower engines.
Still looks heavey compared to Mr. Lycomeing's products. Though I suppose we should add fuel weight and engine weight for the mission to be fair.
Yes the large marine engines are all 2 stroke. The only thing which hurts their reliaiblity is starting (compressed air so clyinder cracking) and clyinder lubrication (lots of individual lubricator quills - blockage leads to rings going and cylinder wear). But 100,000 hrs is not exceptional.
If the mechanical aspects of the engine are good then turbine reliability is a possibility.
The Deltahawk engine is water cooled but can produce a reasonable level of power (30 odd percent) without cooling. So compression ignition, mechanical fuel pump - it has all the ingredients - if the mechanical engineering is good.
A and C
8th Mar 2010, 18:41
I have to say that I am cynical about this whole diesel thing, about five years back when one of the hopeful new diesel companys was saying that they were on the brink of launching the much talked of engine on the market we offerd them a deal to put the engine into a popular aircraft that is used for touring and (of more interest to us) glider tugging.
We would do all the airframe & instalation work to get the STC as we were assured that it would get certification.
With over 2000 of these aircraft in Europe you would think that they would have jumped at the chance....just think of the engine sales!..........but No! they would not provide us with an engine (they would still own it) for test flying, they said we would have to buy the engine dispite the fact that we would have to put in work that far exceeded the value of the engine.
As that point I got to thinking that the whole project was a scam to get goverment R & D funding and the thing would never get further than a few research aircraft.
The deltahawk engine looks by far the best aviation deisel that I have seen so far and I hope that it can meet the expectations of the makers but I cant help thinking that the future is with the Lycoming FADEC mogas engine.
As that point I got to thinking that the whole project was a scam to get goverment R & D funding and the thing would never get further than a few research aircraft.
I think Thielert gave a whole new meaning to the word "scam" - well to the extent actually possible in the aviation business :)
The deltahawk engine looks by far the best aviation deisel that I have seen so far and I hope that it can meet the expectations of the makers but I cant help thinking that the future is with the Lycoming FADEC mogas engine.
I agree. The tax hike on private use avtur has put paid to the retrofit market.
Carbon Cristal
8th Mar 2010, 19:16
Think of the positive side though, Avtur costs a lot less here in ireland than 100LL and it should be a lot more stable in the event of a crash. Added reliability of an engine is something that should definitely be looked forward to especially when we live on an island, although this new hybrid idea might have benefits too.
According to Aviation Consumer the engine would drive the propeller directly (no gearbox) and due to the reduced coupling pulse even metal propellers are possible. Also according AC (but it's an article from june 2009) the main problems would be high oil consumption and of course the failing of some of the more sensitive components now and then.
I really hope they get the job done and bring out a class A product. You can argue endlessly about the need for an aerodiesel engine, but if I see that petrol companies
nowadays don't have the slightest interest in distributing lead-free avgas when it already exists then I know I shouldn't expect anything from them. Too bad for Hjelmco and GAMI who do an excellent job...
A and C
9th Mar 2010, 07:54
I have looked at the Deltahawk website and cant see why oil consumption should be an issue, may be you can expand on that statement?
I think what will happen is what has always happened which is that the US market will drive developments.
So we will have the existing engines running off unleaded avgas, with FADEC or whatever.
GAMI are apparently dragging their heels on certification but they would be fools to run ahead of the market. Nobody in the USA will run ahead of the market demand.
Here in Europe, despite the "EU consumer protection" firms can bring out barely tested products and have them fail all over the place, and wash their hands of it for the most part (thus protecting the main business) because here you can sue for your economic loss only, which in most private GA scenarios is by definition not a lot and anyway most people don't have the stomach for it. I have just managed to force a conman builder to repair a job worth 4 digits; he is an expert and knew exactly how long to string it out for; only a surveyor's report made the penny drop that a CCJ would be the next step. An aviation company - any aviation company - will be equally adept at this game because most face unhappy customers on a daily basis.
The diesel market is of marginal relevance in the USA because of their very good avgas distribution.
Here in Europe, avtur still makes sense for GA but only for a small number of pilots that do serious touring around the more southern parts; the rest of the avtur/piston case hangs on tax concessions, but only a fool will want to build a long term business model, with substantial capital investment, on a tax break. Exploiting tax breaks is fine for making a fast buck where there is a quick and easy controlled-liability exit strategy if it all falls apart.... hmmmm I may be describing an existing engine/airframe manufacturer a bit too closely there ;)
may be you can expand on that statement?
I can't. I'm just quoting an article published by Aviation Consumer last year. My impression was that they did a thorough job with their research on diesel projects besides Austro Engines.
I didn't crosscheck this statement or anything but generally, I like AC's follow-up on this matter.
Fuji Abound
9th Mar 2010, 09:14
I think it is remarkable that Diamond survived the issues they had with Theilert. It will be interesting whether they have learnt from Thielert's mistakes with the Austro engine.
In my mind there is no doubt that the Diesel concept has many advantages. Whether it is a characteristic of diesel engines or not I dont know but everyone who can should experience how quiet and smooth the diesels are in a DA42. Swap from a DA42 to any other twin or single and the difference is remarkable.
Diesel has of course other advantages. Like it or not the day will come I guess when lead is banned and if GA continues to diminsh in the way it has more and more airports will be reluctant to stock Avgas. Diesels are more fuel efficient and, at least in theory, should be more robust.
Time will tell and doubtless there will be a few more disasters along the way. Sad to say innovation is a dangerous game in aviation.
I think it is remarkable that Diamond survived the issues they had with Theilert. It will be interesting whether they have learnt from Thielert's mistakes with the Austro engine.
I think they survived it because any "business" owner was not protected by EU consumer regs and had to accept Diamond's Ts & Cs which separated the engine and airframe liability. I would bet that the majority of European DA40/42 buyers are either training ops, or private flyers buying the plane via a company (or even a business "name") to rent it out and/or to reclaim the VAT. Anybody buying via Denmark would AFAIK have been a "business" buyer because the lawyer out there is obviously a business.
Only a Private Joe Bloggs buying in his own name would have had the whole-plane under one warranty. And then this has any meaning only if you are actually willing to SUE.
Speaking to some owners, the Diamond factory has been extremely pro-active in keeping cold-feet customers on the side and to stop cash p*ssing out of every corner no matter what it takes. A friend of mine who ordered a DA42 but wanted out because they could not deliver it (with working engines), and was able to cancel, was offered the earth and everything on it by Diamond's boss face to face, including a special discount on the D-Jet. The man could obviously have a 2nd career selling ice to Eskimos; expecting somebody to show such a piece of faith... in this case it didn't work and the chap (a smart businessman himself) got out.
And those who had nowhere to go were (in every case I have spoken to) treated the way one would expect to be treated by a company which has to conserve cash totally regardless of the long term hit on its reputation. I know several DA42 owners personally, quite well. All would AFAIK jump ship instantly, but it is always cheaper for them to throw 5 (nearly 6) digits at their plane than to take the hit on offloading it at a derisory price. Only those going personally bankrupt will be doing the latter.
I can see renters being happy with the plane. I have flown in a DA42 and it is a nice plane. Smoother than my TB20 but then I would expect that of a twin. A slick modern cockpit with a significantly lower noise level than unpressurised avgas burners. But, like a grandparent, you hand the kids back in the evening :)
I've been in a manufacturing business for 31 years and would never treat my customers in this way. It stinks. I can see Diamond had to do it because a businessman's 1st duty is to protect the business even if it means shafting everybody outside, but he should not have put himself in that position in the first place. He should have tested the product properly. The failures appeared very early on so it's obvious that very little real testing went on. The certification process means nothing when it comes to long term reliability; it is a set of exercises done by a test pilot. He should have built a dozen planes and gave them to a sample of the user base, monitoring them constantly, and ran that for a year.
But then I am in B2B where long term reputation and solid products and customer service are 100% of the game.
1800ed
9th Mar 2010, 10:42
It seems they have designed a bespoke engine? I hope they succeed because I think that one of the issues with other attempts was trying to get an automotive engine to work in an aircraft. You're trying to achieve something very different in a car and you're just increasing your modes of failure with gearboxes and clutches.
I don't think there is any automatic "destiny to fail" by using a car engine as the starting point.
What is needed is somebody who is going to build a batch of these, give them away to a bunch of real users, and see what breaks, for a year or two.
Nobody is likely to do this, however, because it drives a 1-2 year hole into the business plan on which the vulture capitalists who are prob99 backing them are banking :)
The financiers are looking for a well defined exit, not too far in the future, and certainly before any problems start to show up. They are not interested in delivering a proven product, or indeed any product.
The cost of doing a real usage test is going to be 1 or 2 million quid.
That is what Delta Hawk did, although on a small scale. They fitted two privately-owned SR20s with the firewall-forward kit and they are now used as the testbed.
Privately owned is not good enough. They probably fly under 50hrs/year, and in the hands of (given the a/c type) not too dumb pilots who probably can spell e n g i n e m a n a g e m e n t :)
One needs to hand out a few to some flying schools, with financial incentives (like FOC maintenance and financial guarantees (penalty clauses i.e.) on the availability) to make sure they thrash them properly.
The Thielerts started to fall apart in the school fleets; private ones lasted a lot better.
1800ed
9th Mar 2010, 14:32
I'm surprised that they can get away with only testing two engines on two aircraft. I guess they must to a lot of bench testing?
What are the requirements to get engine certification?
Fuji Abound
9th Mar 2010, 14:40
It is the renter that has the propensity to break anything that could be broken so they are ultimately the best test bed. Moreover an aircraft is put through its paces in short thrift if it is going to earn its keep. You should watch the renters for example who cant be bothered to let the turbos on Thielerts cool, ramp up and immediately turn the engine off.
It is very easy to be lulled by new technology - I got as close as writing a cheque out for a new DA42 having canvassed all sorts of opinions. As it turns out I am very glad I didnt. I could easily be tempted with the Austro engined DA42 because I still believe it is a fine aircraft but every time I am I have only to remind myself that just as the Theilerts they need a few years to prove themselves with hard use by the schools. The trouble is I am not sure how many they are selling into the schools at the moment - probably not a lot. On the plus side at least the rest of the systems are now pretty well proven and the pitfalls are well known.
What are the requirements to get engine certification?You would be suprised. Very suprised.
Theilerts they need a few years to prove themselves with hard use by the schools. The trouble is I am not sure how many they are selling into the schools at the moment - probably not a lot. I think a school would be after an uptime contract with liquidated damages, to bend over the same barrel again :)
Anyway, their sales are very low now. I saw some figs the other day - about 30 in 2009.
On the plus side at least the rest of the systems are now pretty well proven and the pitfalls are well known.
Yes, it's a nice plane. Very classy.
They need to thicken the tin on the tinplate brackets a little... :) Attention to detail is very cheap... but most don't know how to do it. In my business, we pay say 20p for a moulding. Most people would stick a 5p label on it. We stick a high quality 40p label on it - it sets it apart in quality (and doesn't come off when the sun shines on it :) Diamond need to learn that.
It's not just the two Cirri that you have to take into consideration. That is important for the Cirrus STC.
They operate this engine now already for some time in the experimental/self-build class. OK, it is the 160 HP version but still.
I don't know the exact number of ACFT flying with a Delta Hawk already but I think it is save to say they already have a significant amount of experience...
I'm not an expert, but I sure would love to fly a SR20 up to FL180 + @ 1000 FPM. I couldn't even care if it was slower than a SR22... :p
BackPacker
9th Mar 2010, 16:41
You should watch the renters for example who cant be bothered to let the turbos on Thielerts cool, ramp up and immediately turn the engine off.
Thielert does specify two minutes, so that's what I'm doing. But I've heard a contrary opinion (here, no less) from someone who heard somebody else doing testing on this, and who found out that the turbos are at their coolest right after landing (low power, high cooling airflow), and that they would *heat up* during the taxi-in and during the "ramp down".
I don't know the exact number of ACFT flying with a Delta Hawk already but I think it is save to say they already have a significant amount of experience...
I don't think Deltahawk have a single customer engine flying.
Dave.
FWIW I have one of the six RV-9A's flying with a Wilksch diesel. I love it; 120 kts on 16 lts/hr.
I've heard a contrary opinion (here, no less) from someone who heard somebody else doing testing on this, and who found out that the turbos are at their coolest right after landing
My understanding is that it's not a cooling issue, but rather one of lubrication. The turbo takes a long time to spin down from 50,000rpm, so it's best to keep the oil pressure up while it does so.
Fuji Abound
9th Mar 2010, 18:07
Soay - yep, that is what Diamond told me as well.
Mickey Kaye
9th Mar 2010, 19:49
"FWIW I have one of the six RV-9A's flying with a Wilksch diesel. I love it; 120 kts on 16 lts/hr."
Please tell us more I heard development on this engine had stopped
"FWIW I have one of the six RV-9A's flying with a Wilksch diesel. I love it; 120 kts on 16 lts/hr."
Please tell us more I heard development on this engine had stopped
The WAM-120 engine is still available but is not being actively marketed.
Development work is continuing on a "bored out" version with a revised combustion system which is likely to develop 140 hp. For certified aircraft Wilksch are hoping that the proposed ESA 1 and 2 standards will provide them with an entry route into the certified market.
Dave
A and C
9th Mar 2010, 22:06
So even in this economic climate the government R & D grants are still avalable?
rokami93
9th Mar 2010, 22:30
The Delta Hawk looks great on paper, but again: not ONE engine delivered to the customers and this very same thread can be found here:
Deltahawkengines - VAF Forums (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=310)
Funnily enough that thread was about deltahawks in 2005 and it seems that DH already promoted then to take downpayments and orders. Here is what they said in 2005:
"The DeltaHawk engine is in production with the first non certified 160HP engines available by May 2005, this first batch have all been sold.
The 200HP will be available by October 2005, however all production until December 2005 has been allocated to buyers.
Currently you will need to allow up to 6 months between a signed purchase agreement and the availability of the production engine.
We hope that within the next 12mths that the engine will obtain it's FAA certification."
horizon flyer
10th Mar 2010, 21:12
Any 4 stroke Diesel Aero engine is bound to fail, either being to low a power density ie to heavy like the SMA and to many harmonics and complicated, the Theilert. In a 4 stroke 4cyl the prop drives the engine 30% of the time, very hard on the prop. 3 or more cyl externaly scavenged 2 stroke has no reverse torque, smaller torque pulses , makes a far better engine.
The Delta Hawk has been in developmet for 10 years and they are being sold to the US armed forces for UAVs and Deltahawk has had one in the back of a Rutan Long Easy for years. It is well designed, no gear box or electronics and the 200hp is the same weight as a 200hp Lycoming IO360.
The German Zoche 8 cyl 2 stroke radial is the best at the 300hp (equivalent to a 16cyl 4 stroke) is the same weight as the IO360, but I think it's a scam to get EU development grants.
There are about 3, 4 strokes and 7, 2 strokes Aero Diesels in varying stages of development.
The other things to consider is fuel supply, Mogas does not have the quality control standards or the right specifications for serious aviation use and Avgas is difficult to find world wide and the US could ban it, plus the lead additive is only made by one UK company for the world, if they go bust, what then. So Avtur it has to be, which means Diesel.
The SR20 is a good example of what a diesel can do for performance. Range increase for the same fuel load or reduce fuel/weight for the same range, which increases the pay load. Better high altitude performance as well.
Infact the Diesel SR20 is better than both SR22 models, only just down on climb rate and max cruise, and they 22 was the best selling light aircraft last year.
So I think the Diesel SR20 will be the most modern aircraft flying once on the market.
A and C
11th Mar 2010, 10:12
I very much hope that the deltahawk engine meets the paper spec, for those who don't like plastic just look at what the delta hawk would do for the Robin DR400.
However I have yet to see one of these oil burners that is reliable to make it worth the trouble of taking out the Lycoming
rokami93
14th Mar 2010, 14:29
The Delta Hawk has been in developmet for 10 years and they are being sold to the US armed forces for UAVs and Deltahawk has had one in the back of a Rutan Long Easy for years.
The US armed forces use Thielert. THIELERT Aircraft Engines GmbH - News (http://web.thielert.com/typo3/index.php?id=512&backPID=512&tt_news=1818&L=0)
There are about 3, 4 strokes and 7, 2 strokes Aero Diesels in varying stages of development.
I hope they will bring in fresh wind into the issue. Any links or further information available?
The SR20 is a good example of what a diesel can do for performance. Range increase for the same fuel load or reduce fuel/weight for the same range, which increases the pay load. Better high altitude performance as well.
Infact the Diesel SR20 is better than both SR22 models, only just down on climb rate and max cruise, and they 22 was the best selling light aircraft last year.
Not one flying as far as I am informed. Not even a single experimental conversion. For right now they need to prove that they can fly, then it will take years to show their reliability. From where did you get the performance data and information?
horizon flyer
8th May 2016, 14:33
rokami93 they have one in a 172 plus a Rutan Veryeasy and in a SR20 that out performs the avgas SR20, so it is flying, just seems to be taking a long time to certify.
Note the Twin with the highest sales is the DA42 with diesel which are not Thielerts any more, Diamond makes them for it's self.
Fly4Business
9th May 2016, 13:39
Wow, revitalizing a 6 year old post on Diesel engines, how the hell did you find that old stuff?
horizon flyer
9th May 2016, 23:32
Fly4Business I think I googled it and it came up, was wondering how Delta Hawk was doing. I believe they are the best hope for replacing the bloody horrible Lycoming 360 which if you know anything about engineering is a mess.
Fly4Business
10th May 2016, 12:24
I agree the Lyco360 is not a lovable one, but since Continental is now building sufficient Diesel aviation engines and raised TBR to 2,100 hours for 155 HP, I do not see DeltaHawk as a big player in the future.
horizon flyer
10th May 2016, 13:17
Fly4Business, maybe but Continentals diesels are a bit dubious one needs the harmonic damper changed frequently and a good battery voltage or the injectors stop working. A DA42 found this out when the wheels where retracted and the engines stopped and then went into reboot. It had been started on external power and the Pilots had not read the POB about take off with a flat battery and the extra current draw on retract lowered the battery voltage which is critical for the electronics on the engines.
The SMA is brut force engineering to overcome the harmonics and peek torque forces, read overweight.
They both are not elegant solutions the Delta Hawk and the other 2 stroke engines are and follow the KIS principle keep it simple.