Diamond Aircraft developing R44 competitor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Diamond Aircraft developing R44 competitor
A more credible new market entrant than some of the other attempts we've witnessed in recent years, given Diamond's solid track record in new product introduction. The reference to a "four stroke, jet fuel engine" suggests a diesel powerplant, possibly an SMA.
From Flight:
I/C
From Flight:
Pitched against the Robinson R44, the composite four-seat DART (Diamond Aircraft Rotary Trainer) 280 is projected to have an MTOW of 2,500 lb, a payload of 1,235 lb, energy absorbing retractable landing gear, a shrouded, electric tail rotor, and a 280 shp four-stroke jet-fuel engine.
First flight is scheduled in about 18 months, leading to certification about 12 months later.
The program will provide a stepping-stone to a family of rotorcraft, including a hybrid-electric quad tiltrotor.
First flight is scheduled in about 18 months, leading to certification about 12 months later.
The program will provide a stepping-stone to a family of rotorcraft, including a hybrid-electric quad tiltrotor.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a Thielert / Continental engine or an Austro Engine one.
Diamond used to mount both types on their DA40/DA42/DA62 fixed wings.
They run with normal car diesel or with jet A1, whatever you have access too.
Diamond used to mount both types on their DA40/DA42/DA62 fixed wings.
They run with normal car diesel or with jet A1, whatever you have access too.
At last 30-40 KVA genset add on piston engine, plus 30 KVA electric motor, than DC/AC converter and extra battery = much weight penalty
Or they use some new technology which can go under CS27 certification.
Or they use some new technology which can go under CS27 certification.
JOKE "Solar panels! They will cover the AC with solar panels! Night flight or IMC may be a problem." JOKE
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The electric tail rotor is interesting - but the above suggestion of 30-40Kva power generation requirement, and a 30Kva electric motor requirement, is not realistic.
I'd suggest perhaps 3-4Kva power generation requirement, and 2-3Kw electric motor would be quite adequate for a rotary aircraft of this size and weight.
Both of which are quite feasible, and coupled with a capable lightweight battery, would provide all the power and backup needed.
I'd suggest perhaps 3-4Kva power generation requirement, and 2-3Kw electric motor would be quite adequate for a rotary aircraft of this size and weight.
Both of which are quite feasible, and coupled with a capable lightweight battery, would provide all the power and backup needed.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Thaïland
Age: 67
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember, A turbine is a linear 4 stroke engine :
@onetrack
Can we agree that 4 seat helicopter of that size need approx 150 kW (201 hp) engine.
Your opinion is that just 2% of that power is enough in tail?!
More likely, you may need up to 20-30% of that power in tail... during hover or hover taxi.
Can we agree that 4 seat helicopter of that size need approx 150 kW (201 hp) engine.
Your opinion is that just 2% of that power is enough in tail?!
More likely, you may need up to 20-30% of that power in tail... during hover or hover taxi.
I thought that the benefits of retractable landing gear were in streamlining, something that is only warranted for high speed craft?
Or could the attraction be that retractable gear is lighter than skids?
Given Diamond Aitcraft has significant experience with integrating gimbals, I'm interested to see the ground clearance.
Height adjustable gear would be innovative!
Mickjoebill
Or could the attraction be that retractable gear is lighter than skids?
Given Diamond Aitcraft has significant experience with integrating gimbals, I'm interested to see the ground clearance.
Height adjustable gear would be innovative!
Mickjoebill
I would love to see this project come to market, but its unlikely to do so with any of the existing or soon-to-be launched 4-stroke diesel engines...they are simple too heavy. If they do use any of the existing diesels then it will be a very expensive helicopter (in R44 terms).
I have spent a lot of time over the last few years looking in detail at all of the realistic engine options for a helicopter of this weight and the existing diesels simply don't work in helicopters. While on the face of it some of them appear to look comparable with Lycomings, by the time you de-rate them enough to be reliable they are very heavy. The 4-cylinder SMA engine is unlikely to ever be released above its current power rating as its reliability drops off very quickly above the current design point. The 6-cylinder unit will offer more power, but will be heavy and expensive.
Similarly they are claiming, 1235/2500lb =49.4% useful load out of a piston powered helicopter! Many of the turbine machines don't achieve this! Robinson and Guimbal are at around 40% with relatively light Lycoming engines. A suitably de-rated diesel engine will be significantly heavier, as will retractable landing gear.
It is theoretically possible to have a diesel engine that is light enough to work in a helicopter, but it wouldn't be the same configuration as would be used in an aeroplane and hence they would need to develop it themselves.
If they move forwards with this it will likely end up with the Lycoming IO-540-AE1A5 (R44 Raven 2's engine) or similar and a 1000lb payload.
Similarly, with all the resources in the world, they will not be ready in 18 months with the technical development they are proposing...maybe in 60 months.
Good luck chaps, look forward to seeing it flying.
CRAN
I have spent a lot of time over the last few years looking in detail at all of the realistic engine options for a helicopter of this weight and the existing diesels simply don't work in helicopters. While on the face of it some of them appear to look comparable with Lycomings, by the time you de-rate them enough to be reliable they are very heavy. The 4-cylinder SMA engine is unlikely to ever be released above its current power rating as its reliability drops off very quickly above the current design point. The 6-cylinder unit will offer more power, but will be heavy and expensive.
Similarly they are claiming, 1235/2500lb =49.4% useful load out of a piston powered helicopter! Many of the turbine machines don't achieve this! Robinson and Guimbal are at around 40% with relatively light Lycoming engines. A suitably de-rated diesel engine will be significantly heavier, as will retractable landing gear.
It is theoretically possible to have a diesel engine that is light enough to work in a helicopter, but it wouldn't be the same configuration as would be used in an aeroplane and hence they would need to develop it themselves.
If they move forwards with this it will likely end up with the Lycoming IO-540-AE1A5 (R44 Raven 2's engine) or similar and a 1000lb payload.
Similarly, with all the resources in the world, they will not be ready in 18 months with the technical development they are proposing...maybe in 60 months.
Good luck chaps, look forward to seeing it flying.
CRAN
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few years back Robinson took a long look at installing a recip diesel in their R44, but concluded it was not worth the trouble.
Personally, I think we will soon see a new generation of small turboshaft engines coming to market that will be a much better option.
Personally, I think we will soon see a new generation of small turboshaft engines coming to market that will be a much better option.
It's almost unbelievable, that in 2017 we are talking about installing 1940's technology (Lycoming aircooled opposed reciprocating donk) in a new design.
What other industry, full of technology would use a two valve pushrod engine?
Surely with modern design/manufacturing/ECU technology we could have turbine engines in any new designs.
What other industry, full of technology would use a two valve pushrod engine?
Surely with modern design/manufacturing/ECU technology we could have turbine engines in any new designs.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9Aplus - O.K., maybe I was being a little over-optimistic as regards the design improvement potential of the Diamond engineers electric-powered fenestron tail rotor.
However, Prof. J. Gordon Leishman at the University of Maryland tells us in his helicopter aerodynamics writings, that the typical open tail rotor of your average helicopter consumes around "5% to 10% of the engine power".
It's not unreasonable to presume that an electrically-driven shrouded tail rotor of a perfected new design, would be able to halve that power requirement. Therefore 2.5% to 5% of engine power required for the tail rotor could be possible.
However, Prof. J. Gordon Leishman at the University of Maryland tells us in his helicopter aerodynamics writings, that the typical open tail rotor of your average helicopter consumes around "5% to 10% of the engine power".
It's not unreasonable to presume that an electrically-driven shrouded tail rotor of a perfected new design, would be able to halve that power requirement. Therefore 2.5% to 5% of engine power required for the tail rotor could be possible.
riff raff
Tend to agree regarding new turbo shaft engines
With the excessive costs of present suppliers\ manufacturers mature designs (old paid for) it should encourages new companies.
PBS - Aircraft Engines
Tend to agree regarding new turbo shaft engines
With the excessive costs of present suppliers\ manufacturers mature designs (old paid for) it should encourages new companies.
PBS - Aircraft Engines