Maybe Cirrus will approve of this?

DeltaHawk Diesel-Powered SR20 Announced
Racine, WI – 08/07/2009 -- DeltaHawk Engines, Inc. and LoPresti Speed Merchants have begun work on a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) to install a DeltaHawk Turbo-Diesel engine in a Cirrus SR20. The SR20 will be the first aircraft certified with the DeltaHawk engine.
The Jet-A fueled DeltaHawk Turbo-Diesel engine has the highest power-to-weight ratio of any aero-diesel engine. Its extraordinarily simple design provides high reliability and very low maintenance. On a typical mission it burns 30-40% less fuel than a gasoline engine, and it develops 100% of rated horsepower to 18,000 feet. When matched with the SR20 airframe, the package will offer higher payload and greatly enhanced range and speed. In addition, with Jet fuel available worldwide, the newly powered SR20 can be fueled anywhere in the world now and after 100LL is no longer available.
LoPresti Speed Merchants is known for making airplanes go fast. LoPresti’s expertise will offer a highly efficient and attractive cowl matched to DeltaHawk’s compact engine, bringing aerodynamic performance not available with a conventionally powered SR20.
“We are excited to be teamed with LoPresti for this project,” said Diane Doers, CEO of DeltaHawk. “The DeltaHawk-LoPresti collaboration is leading the way to the future of general aviation. The performance and value of the SR20 aircraft is going to be greatly enhanced. And this is just the first of many STCs that will be coming.”
“Our intention is to bring the DeltaHawk STC to market as fast as a bunny rabbit,” added Rj Siegel of LoPresti. “We are rabid fans of this engine and although it may seem that we have a wild hare up our butts, actually we just want to high tail it to market.”
Development work on the STC has been progressing for several months. SR20 Owners Tom Noonan and Steve Hart of Rochester, NY are providing their SR20 for the project, which is expected to be completed within a year.
DeltaHawk Engines brings “The Freedom to Fly ... Higher, Farther, Faster for less” to the General Aviation world.
About DeltaHawk:
DeltaHawk Engines, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, is designing and building a family of direct drive liquid-cooled diesel cycle aviation engines from 100 to 650 hp. Four- cylinder engine models (160-200 hp) are in pre-production and higher horsepower models are in development. The engines are designed to use commercial jet fuels (Jet A, Jet A-1), military diesel fuels (JP-5, JP-8) or commercial diesel fuels (including biodiesel). Type Certification of the first model is expected in 2010. DeltaHawk’s innovative light-weight fuel-efficient engines, providing turbine-like reliability at a fraction of the cost, will lead to a “green” future for general aviation.
Contact:
Diane E. Doers, CEO 262-634-9660 DeltaHawk Diesel Engines

Looks pretty good. Cessna had over a hundred orders for a Thielert diesel equipped C172 the latter went bankrupt due to poor management. The airplane had pretty good performance and did not cost a lot more. Word was it had a lag in the power response curve which threw the pilots who flew it off a little bit. They probably could have solved that problem and it is a shame the airplane was never put in production. If they had intended to try another diesel engine after that, a severe lack of funds for R&D in 2008 nixed the plan. Of course, replacing the GA fleet with Jet A burning aircraft is only a partial solution to the leaded-fuel problem- but every bit helps.

The turbo/diesel lag should not be a big deal...turbjet drivers get used to longer lags. Add power to a 707 on short final and you'll have that power available by the time you reach the gate.

I assume dieselhawk is part 23 approved? With 160-200 HP that should cover the middle of the GA spectrum.

EDIT: OK looks like not certified yet but working on it. They are also working on larger engines. Hopefully this pans out, there are lots of advanttges to diesel (jet A).

Anybody know what auto engine it's based on? I poked around but couldn't find it. This is exciting, makes me want to start building my own airplane now...

The Deltahawk is a 100% clean sheet design. They've been working on this for over a decade, but are nearing the actual certification. Manufacturer will be in MSP. STC's are in the works for many planes.

I'd like two of them for a Baron. 450hp ought to work :D

No Tetra Ethyl Lead... using existing aviation fuel (Jet-A, -A1, JP-5, etc) or diesel.... even kerosene in a pinch. Even "green" biofuels. No petroleum at all !!! Burns 30% less fuel per given horsepower than a petrol powered (100LL) machine. 100% hp to 18,000 feet (that ought to wake up your Cessna 172).

No valves, camshafts, rocker arms, valve springs.... the ONLY moving parts are the crankshaft, rods, pistons, oil pump, fuel pump, supercharger and turbocharger. It's direct drive, so no gear reduction like the certified Mercedes Benz engines. It requires no electricity to operate (although it does have electric start... why no air start option?).

It has been tested operating the crankshaft in either direction. The entire engine can be turned upside down, or vertical for helicopters.

Look at the pic below, and see how there's no cylinder head attachment.... they are cast as one. No bolts, threads, gaskets to blow out, nothing.

http://www.deltahawkengines.com/imag...0800shot02.jpg

Politics in Fuel...

Quote from Cirrus dude in this thread:

Cirrus President "...let me be clear: Cirrus Aircraft does not believe that a 94UL solution is desirable for its owners or the health of the industry, and will strive for a better replacement fuel..."


And now the Cirrus engine manufacturer:

(7/27/09) Teledyne Continental Motors President Rhett Ross seems single-handedly determined to showcase how committed his company is to getting the lead out of avgas. As a demonstration of that commitment, Ross flew a turbocharged Cirrus SR22 from the company headquarters in Mobile, Ala., to EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wis., at FL240 burning only UL94 avgas. UL94 is basically 100LL avgas without the lead component. With ASTM actively working the certification of UL94, TCM has shifted from testing the fuel to preparing its engines for its eventual introduction. Ross claims that bymid-2010, TCM will have equipped its entire product line of engines to run on unleaded fuel.

Oh, just thought of another certified auto engine... the Toyota V-8. I believe the rating was 350hp.

DeltaHawk is an interesting engine design. We will probably see more of them. But you have to realize a major GA manufacturer always wants control over any part assembly they must have in order to make their airplanes. They will carefully avoid single-source suppliers for major assemblies. As long as there is a choice of some kind well ok, but as soon as only one engine works they tend to back off until they can either buy the STC from the original manufacturer or just buy the company that makes the engine. Cessna and Lycoming are allies under Textron, for example. When Cessna tried to buy the STC for putting Frank Thielert's 160hp turbodiesel into a Skyhawk and Thielert demurred on the deal, Cessna slowed development on the project to a crawl. The diesel Skyhawk was begun in the early 2000s and was barely done by 2008 when it was dropped. They were not happy about a single source engine supplier.

Tony, those two stories don't quite jibe do they? TCM and Cirrus seem to clash on whether Conti's will work without the normal octane rating. Curious disagreement there.

-----------------

Groups Ask for More Comment Time on EPA Avgas ANPRM

(Flying Magazine eNewsletter, 6/24/10) A group calling itself the Avgas Stakeholder Group has asked the Environmental Protection Agency to extend the comment period on its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking an additional 120 days. Originally scheduled for comments to close on June 28, the ANPRM addresses lead content in aviation fuels, and the implications of removing that lead are huge. Flying Editor in Chief Mac McClellan addressed the issue in his Left Seat column last week. AOPA president Craig Fuller calls it, "… one of the most complicated tasks our industry has ever faced." And Cirrus CEO Brent Wouters (who chairs an industry working group) points out that the issue is far from new, but that the EPA's Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has launched a regulatory decision-making process that could have major implications. At issue is how to get the lead out of 100 Low Lead aviation fuel. AOPA estimates that simply removing the lead (and reducing the octane rating) of current aviation fuel would have no affect on 70% of the GA aircraft in the fleet. But operators of the larger engines that need the higher octane to make their rated power fly proportionately higher numbers of hours, and tend to be aircraft used for charter, business flying and other missions that could be interpreted as more economically vital than those flown by operators of lower-power aircraft. In addition to AOPA, the Avgas Stakeholders Group includes: the American Petroleum Institute; the Experimental Aircraft Association, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, National Air Transportation Association, National Business Aviation Association and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.

I'm curious about vibration on the DeltaHawk.

Mounted inverted would give great visibility and a smaller cowling would likely ad 5 kts.

A quick glance would assume an upright mounting on twin Cessnas and Beeches.

Now all you have to do is have locking fuel caps and monitor every fueling to prevent a Jet A/100LL/100UL mix up. You just KNOW it will happen.

Another question is if the turbo and super charger will actually make it to 2000 TBO. Will it require a 2 minute spin down like the 421/414?

It's a 4 cylinder (and soon to be 6 and 8 cylinder) two cycle engine. It fires twice as often as a four stroke (virtually every other piston airplane engine except ultralight). I'm going to guess it will have far lower vibration than a 4 cylinder Lyc.



It already has happened many, many times. One plane was fueled with Jet A when the line boy saw that it said "turbocharged" on the cowling. When asked how he got the big Jet nozzle in the small gasoline opening, he said that he had to go very slowly to get it filled up ! Plane crashed.

Cessna 441 and 421.... plenty of screw ups there. Aero Commanders (didn't Bob Hoover once get Jet A in his piston plane?)



It's a liquid cooled engine. Based on the pics, the turbocharger is not liquid cooled (Turbonetics on the turbo casting is a southern California company that sells turbochargers for performance cars). So, will probably require a cool down, like any metal tool that operates at 1650F, and is then exposed to something significantly less. So, who knows. Even if it doesn't require a two minute cool down, the FAA might require it.

Turbochargers are VERY simple. The only moving parts are the impeller wheels and the common shaft they are mounted to, and the bearings. So, what fails? The bearings. Why? Look at that filthy oil those bearings are exposed to. Imagine if a clean burning engine with no TEL (not exactly a trait of diesel engines) was using state of the art synthetic motor oil to lubricate those bearings?

The other turbocharger failures are junk going through the impellers. With no valves to break off and get ejected through the turbo, and with a good air cleaner on the intake side, and a good clean oil, I think the turbo has a greater chance than with an air cooled, carbon deposited, soiled dinosaur oil engine.

The supercharger will probably not go to TBO based on the belt drive. That will probably need to be replaced (with a prop removal $$$$$). Also, not crazy about the same belt running the alternator, because now a seized alternator will take out the supercharger. Also, no current room for a belt driven air compressor for a/c.

When I started this thread a year or two ago I thought it would go very slow, and it did for a while. The news clips often had months between them. The subject of which fuel or equipment is going to replace 100LL is heating up now though, and the pace has gone to about 5 articles a week from various sources. So, to keep this thread from being inundated by news clips I am reading all of them and only clipping those which say something important. The following story does not say anything terribly important, but it indicates some of the parties who are involved in the decision to make the change. FAA and EPA are probably going to make a deadline for the change in the next year. An ANPRM (advanced notice of proposed rule making) has already been issued. We are going to see some answer to the issue of discontinuing 100LL avgas pretty soon.

AOPA and GAMA talk with clubs about avgas solution

(AOPA 6/25/10) Now is the time to be looking at all avgas alternatives—not ruling any out—AOPA and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association explained to a coalition of type clubs representing aircraft with high-compression engines during a meeting in Dayton, Ohio, on June 19. AOPA President Craig Fuller, along with Rob Hackman, AOPA vice president of regulatory affairs, and Walter Desrosier, GAMA vice president of engineering and maintenance, met with the owners’ groups to discuss the issue. Prompted by the anticipated Environmental Protection Agency mandate to reduce or remove lead from aviation gasoline, the type clubs, including American Bonanza Society, the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association, the Malibu/Mirage Owners and Pilots Association, the Mooney Aircraft Pilots Association, and the Twin Cessna Flyers, are worried about a possible transition to a lower octane fuel replacement that could reduce their aircraft engines’ performance...