Delta Hawk DHK180 for my Socata Tampico TB9, I just paid the deposit

Kiddo's Driver

Kiddo's Driver

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
1,500
Location
Somewhere in the Southeast
Display Name
Display name:
Jim
Edit: 180hp for 5 minutes, then 135hp continuous. "Ideal cruise power 135hp".
I’m not a home builder, it’s not for a sport aircraft, but my plane will pass through Experimental along the way.
I’m not sure if this is the right area to post, but here it is. :)
Current engine is a 160HP Lycoming O320-D2A with a fixed pitch prop.
The delta hawk is a 180HP turbo/super charged 2 stroke diesel with a constant speed prop.
I see working with the FSDO to develop and earn a STC for the install in my future.

https://www.avweb.com/ownership/engines/deltahawk-dhk180-receives-faa-certification/
 
Last edited:
Whoa...I hope you can make it work. Keep us updated on your progress, please.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
I see working with the FSDO to develop and earn a STC for the install in my future.
Click to expand...
FYI: while its always good to initially contact your local FSDO, you'll actually be working with an Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) for the STC. However, I'd first look for a DAR-T with the right function codes before starting. He/she will be able to walk you through process and usually provide a network of other DARs and DERs to complete your project. Also you may want to look at a One-Only STC at first. While you couldnt sell this STC it will keep costs down substantially plus give a solid foundation for any future plans. There are a number of FAA docs that explain the process in more detail which can give you a better understanding. Sounds like a great project. Good luck.
 
Care to share why you are doing this? For various reasons, this is not obvious.
 
Lndwarrior said:
Care to share why you are doing this? For various reasons, this is not obvious.
Click to expand...
Because you can back out at any time up to start of manufacture of your engine, so low risk on the $1,000 down.
Because 180HP from sea level to 17,500 feet is awesome.
180HP at take off on hot days is important.
Jet A is generally cheaper than 100LL.
I may be able to get D1 & D2 included as part of the STC, making fueling even cheaper. Especially if off road diesel is included.
The engine is 35-40% more efficient than a normally aspirated engine meaning that it should use about 70% of the fuel that a gas engine would for the same amount of power. So not only is the fuel cheaper, you don't need to use it as fast.
My current engine has around 5700 hours on it. It is at about 1500-1700 hours since the last major overhaul and that overhaul was probably 25 years ago. Its time.
The on paper 20 more horse power and constant speed prop are a great improvement. The effective more than 20HP that doesn't go away up to 17K feet is really attractive. (Meaning any day that I am not taking off from sea level on a STP day I am gaining more than 20HP over what my existing engine would put out.)
Lastly, look at the TB series. They run from:
TB9: 160HP, fixed prop, and fixed gear.
TB10: 180HP, CS prop, and fixed gear.
TB200: 200HP, CS prop, and fixed gear.
TB20: 250HP, CS prop, and retractable gear.
TB21: 250HP turbo, CS prop, and retractable gear.
I pretty much run around at full throttle every where I go and can't get above 8,000 feet on a hot day. An O-320 makes about 112HP at 8,000 feet. The Delta Hawk will still be making 180HP there.
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
FYI: while its always good to initially contact your local FSDO, you'll actually be working with an Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) for the STC. However, I'd first look for a DAR-T with the right function codes before starting. He/she will be able to walk you through process and usually provide a network of other DARs and DERs to complete your project. Also you may want to look at a One-Only STC at first. While you couldnt sell this STC it will keep costs down substantially plus give a solid foundation for any future plans. There are a number of FAA docs that explain the process in more detail which can give you a better understanding. Sounds like a great project. Good luck.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the summary. I looked at this about 8 years ago when I thought about going to an O-360 & cs prop in my Tampico. Socata did the TB series as separate Type Certificates so I couldn't just swap the engine & prop under a minor alteration. (The differences between the TB9 & 10 are the engine, propeller, and larger fuel tanks in otherwise identical wings.)
 
Don't see anything about W&B. Is the new engine heavier or lighter than your existing engine? And what effect does hanging that CS prop have on CG?
 
Just this morning I was thinking about this topic.... well really the more general diesel vs spark....my context is daydreaming about homebuilt...
still your decision tree list is interesting

I was asking myself why more folks aren't using diesels?....
generally cheaper, as you said
jet A is a bit heavier per gallon, so that's a hit
but Jet A has more BTU's energy per gallon, and I recon that's what drives the increased efficiency. I haven't done the math, but could you could carry fewer gallons of jet A at the same weight as full gasoline for equal energy.... so it would be a wash?

you seem to be weighting the constant power to altitude heavily in your equation.... couldn't you get the same (or at least similar) from a turbo gasser?

Does a diesel have the same 'simple' set-up in that a traditional Av engine will keep running without electrical power, etc..?
 
Brad W said:
I was asking myself why more folks aren't using diesels?....
Click to expand...

In the E-AB world its simply because no one has brought one to market for our community, for one reason or another. The projected price point will continue to be a barrier for most, regardless of the operating pros.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Don't see anything about W&B. Is the new engine heavier or lighter than your existing engine? And what effect does hanging that CS prop have on CG?
Click to expand...
Heavier than mine. Slightly heavier than an O-360 with a cs prop. I have the W&B data for a comparably equipped TB10. (TB9 & 10 share identical part numbers for everything except the engine, propeller and wings. The wings are identical except for the larger tanks in the 10 vs 9.)
W&B is still good from what I have seen so far.
 
tsts4 said:
In the E-AB world its simply because no one has brought one to market for our community, for one reason or another. The projected price point will continue to be a barrier for most, regardless of the operating pros.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I'm at a good point for a change. If I go back with what I have now I will need a factory reman or new, and I will still have my same old underpowered TB9. If I go to an O-360 or IO-360 I will have to do an STC. I was considering an IO-390, but that would still require an STC and would gobble fuel.
Socata did each of the models as their own Type Certificate. You can't just swap the engine to a larger HP one that was available at time of sale. You HAVE to do an STC.
 
Last edited:
Brad W said:
Just this morning I was thinking about this topic.... well really the more general diesel vs spark....my context is daydreaming about homebuilt...
still your decision tree list is interesting

I was asking myself why more folks aren't using diesels?....
generally cheaper, as you said
jet A is a bit heavier per gallon, so that's a hit
but Jet A has more BTU's energy per gallon, and I recon that's what drives the increased efficiency. I haven't done the math, but could you could carry fewer gallons of jet A at the same weight as full gasoline for equal energy.... so it would be a wash?

you seem to be weighting the constant power to altitude heavily in your equation.... couldn't you get the same (or at least similar) from a turbo gasser?

Does a diesel have the same 'simple' set-up in that a traditional Av engine will keep running without electrical power, etc..?
Click to expand...

Turbo gassers tie you even tighter to 100LL. Their higher compression rations mandate 100LL. Yes, I know there is a magical fuel out there that has been approved and we just need everyone to buy it so that the price will come down and all of the airports will stock it. Not holding my breath.

The DH engine WILL keep running after loss of electrical power.

Help me out on the fuel densities. My google fu keeps telling me Jet A and 100LL are essentially equal density. My gut tells me diesel is more dense, but I haven't found that number yet.
 
I think your Vne is around 165 knots, isn't it? I'm guessing you won't really be able to use those extra ponies once in cruise, but you'll be dragging around the weight. Might still be worth it for the climb performance.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
Turbo gassers tie you even tighter to 100LL. Their higher compression rations mandate 100LL. Yes, I know there is a magical fuel out there that has been approved and we just need everyone to buy it so that the price will come down and all of the airports will stock it. Not holding my breath.

The DH engine WILL keep running after loss of electrical power.

Help me out on the fuel densities. My google fu keeps telling me Jet A and 100LL are essentially equal density. My gut tells me diesel is more dense, but I haven't found that number yet.
Click to expand...

according to a google point to foreflight, Jet A is 6.75#/gallon
and a similar search points to foreflight saying 100LL is 6.00#/gallon...(other hits say 100LL is 6.01#/gallon and 6.02#/gallon)
seems to be more variability reported for no. 1 diesel...7.0 to 7.5 #/gallon shown on the 1st page of google hits....
 
Brad W said:
according to a google point to foreflight, Jet A is 6.75#/gallon
and a similar search points to foreflight saying 100LL is 6.00#/gallon...(other hits say 100LL is 6.01#/gallon and 6.02#/gallon)
seems to be more variability reported for no. 1 diesel...7.0 to 7.5 #/gallon shown on the 1st page of google hits....
Click to expand...
Thank you!
That’s what I was thinking, but I kept seeing right at 6 for both. It just didn’t jive with my old memories on this.
6.75/6 = 1.125, so the higher efficiency beats the weight increase, but you still have to account for it in W&B. It ain’t free.
 
Salty said:
I think your Vne is around 165 knots, isn't it? I'm guessing you won't really be able to use those extra ponies once in cruise, but you'll be dragging around the weight. Might still be worth it for the climb performance.
Click to expand...
My swag is 135-140 if I clean up the airframe.
I’ll dig into the TB10 manual this weekend. Cruise wise 65% of 180 is still 65% of 180.
It should be a climb monster though!

Edit: looks like I need to lower my expectations. TB9/10 are REALLY draggy. It will climb great, but its not going to pick up much speed. Maybe 125kts in cruise.
 
Last edited:
Brad W said:
Jet A has more BTU's energy per gallon, and I recon that's what drives the increased efficiency. I haven't done the math, but could you could carry fewer gallons of jet A at the same weight as full gasoline for equal energy.... so it would be a wash?
Click to expand...
No, in general Diesels have a higher compression ratio and a higher thermal efficiency - so you would carry less fuel weight for the same power / range.
 
donjohnston said:
As will any Lycoming or Continental with magnetos.
Click to expand...
No one is disputing that. I was answering a question.

Edit to include the question I was asked:
Brad W said:
Does a diesel have the same 'simple' set-up in that a traditional Av engine will keep running without electrical power, etc..?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dhk180- 357 pounds dry. Without cooler and water. So say 385 pounds plus constant speed prop weight

Your o320-d2a is 278 pounds.

The o-360-a1ad is 289 pounds.

The io-540 c4d5d of the tb20 is 410 pounds, but I suspect the retract added some aft weight to help with cg.

I don't think 100lbs is "slightly heavier". Considering both engines want a constant speed prop. I think some weight/cg maneuvering is in order. Maybe a composite prop helps shave 20 pounds. No clue where the battery is on the tb's, but an earth x saves another 20 pounds

I sincerely wish you the best and applaud the enthusiasm. We need guys like you to take one for the team if we ever want nice things. Personally I'd buy a tb-20 for 220k and avoid all the headaches. Sure it burns more of a more expensive fuel. But the fuel savings would be a pittance compared to the engineering cost, whatever the cost of the dhk180 might be (I suspect low 6 figures), and the downtime it's going to entail.

But ...we need trailblazers like you and applaud the effort.
 
Racerx said:
Dhk180- 357 pounds dry. Without cooler and water. So say 385 pounds plus constant speed prop weight

Your o320-d2a is 278 pounds.

The o-360-a1ad is 289 pounds.

The io-540 c4d5d of the tb20 is 410 pounds, but I suspect the retract added some aft weight to help with cg.

I don't think 100lbs is "slightly heavier". Considering both engines want a constant speed prop. I think some weight/cg maneuvering is in order. Maybe a composite prop helps shave 20 pounds. No clue where the battery is on the tb's, but an earth x saves another 20 pounds

I sincerely wish you the best and applaud the enthusiasm. We need guys like you to take one for the team if we ever want nice things. Personally I'd buy a tb-20 for 220k and avoid all the headaches. Sure it burns more of a more expensive fuel. But the fuel savings would be a pittance compared to the engineering cost, whatever the cost of the dhk180 might be (I suspect low 6 figures), and the downtime it's going to entail.

But ...we need trailblazers like you and applaud the effort.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind I am two days into research. At this stage I'm throwing out +/-30% to +/-50% estimates. Production won't start until 2024 (or at least first deliveries won't be until 2024). Prior to production start the $1000 is fully refundable. This is a thought exercise with a hard stake in the ground. If it doesn't look promising I can back out. I am honestly hoping they release a 200HP version before I get locked into the 180HP version.

Speed isn't as huge of a driver as climb rate is for me. 125 knot cruise is fine by me. Remember, I'm in a TB9. 105-110 knots...

I have no idea which CS prop it comes with. I'm sure I'll find out in the next couple of months.
To answer one of your questions, the battery is on the firewall.
 
I’m on vacation & working off my phone, forgive me.
9gph * 2000 hours = 18,000 gallons
18,000 / 1.375 (35-40% more efficient) = 13,090 gallons of Jet A
Call it 5000 gallons at $7/gallon = $35,000
The remaining 13,000 gallons are .8 the cost of 100LL so the savings is:
13,000 x .2 x $7 = $18,200
$35,000 + $18,000 = $53,000 fuel savings over 2,000 hours. Time value of money eats away at this since you are buying the more expensive engine up front and the savings are spread out over the time it takes to fly 2,000 hours.
Much larger savings if you don’t have to use Jet A.
 
Last edited:
Until one of these things is flying in an unbiased customers plane, fuel figures should be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe I'm just jaded from all the bogus speed mod claims.

I thought I remember hearing them say they were shooting for engine cost of around 100k plus the time and engineering to make it work to get approval. The payoff isn't there for me to want to do all that work. By the time you're all said and done after 2000 hours if you do actually save 50k in fuel, you still have a 100k Capital investment. Or you could just overhaul for 30k and be done. Or upgrade to an o360 for 40-45k. And it's a wash. Plus I abhor the smell of jet a after you spill some on you.

My point on fuel being one of the cheaper parts of plane ownership, if I fly 100 hours a year. It'll take 20 years before tbo. During those 20 years. Overall fixed costs...ballpark

Insurance 40k at 2k a year
Hangar- 144k at 600 a month
Annual- 70k at 3500 a year (average... hopefully)
Total fuel cost- 88k of 100ll or 66k for jet a which is currently 3.66 a gallon at BUU!

So I'm spending 254k over 20 years just to own an airworthy plane before I put fuel in it to fly. So fuel isnt as big a factor to me. But unlike you I have time to make a decision.

Now if a saint like you already did the stc work, I'd consider it. Or if I was going the EAB route and the new engine cost is already sunk without all the regulatory bs to make it work.
 
Last edited:
Racerx said:
Until one of these things is flying in an unbiased customers plane, fuel figures should be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe I'm just jaded from all the bogus speed mod claims.

I thought I remember hearing them say they were shooting for engine cost of around 100k plus the time and engineering to make it work to get approval. The payoff isn't there for me to want to do all that work. By the time you're all said and done after 2000 hours if you do actually save 50k in fuel, you still have a 100k Capital investment. Or you could just overhaul for 30k and be done. Or upgrade to an o360 for 40-45k. And it's a wash. Plus I abhor the smell of jet a after you spill some on you.

My point on fuel being one of the cheaper parts of plane ownership, if I fly 100 hours a year. It'll take 20 years before tbo. During those 20 years. Overall fixed costs...ballpark

Insurance 40k at 2k a year
Hangar- 144k at 600 a month
Annual- 70k at 3500 a year (average... hopefully)
Total fuel cost- 88k of 100ll or 66k for jet a which is currently 3.66 a gallon at BUU!

So I'm spending 254k over 20 years just to own an airworthy plane before I put fuel in it to fly. So fuel isnt as big a factor to me. But unlike you I have time to make a decision.

Now if a saint like you already did the stc work, I'd consider it. Or if I was going the EAB route and the new engine cost is already sunk without all the regulatory bs to make it work.
Click to expand...
I hear you, but a better comp would be a TO—360 with a CS prop.
 
10-12 years from now and 12-18" think doc stack later... let us know how it turned out.

On a more serious note... what is the TBO for this engine?
 
Racerx said:
No clue where the battery is on the tb's, but an earth x saves another 20 pounds
Click to expand...

If its in the back, you want a heavier battery. So maybe even put in a larger one.
 
It’s an interesting project. I suspect you are going to have a more severe CG issue than you think. A custom engine mount bringing the motor as close to the firewall as possible might help. You will also lose that 100 to 120 lbs of useful load. Reduced fuel load could offset that a bit. If you shift the engine back you are going to need a new cowling. That’s going to cost a bit.
The last concern is VNE. VNE for a low powered aircraft is often simply a IAS number. Actual VNE is based off true airspeed. If you’re heading up to 17,500 you are going to need to either reduce your VNE based off true airspeed or conduct flutter testing which won’t be cheap. You will also need a O2 system and the useful load drops even further.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
Keep in mind I am two days into research. At this stage I'm throwing out +/-30% to +/-50% estimates. Production won't start until 2024 (or at least first deliveries won't be until 2024). Prior to production start the $1000 is fully refundable. This is a thought exercise with a hard stake in the ground. If it doesn't look promising I can back out. I am honestly hoping they release a 200HP version before I get locked into the 180HP version.

Speed isn't as huge of a driver as climb rate is for me. 125 knot cruise is fine by me. Remember, I'm in a TB9. 105-110 knots...

I have no idea which CS prop it comes with. I'm sure I'll find out in the next couple of months.
To answer one of your questions, the battery is on the firewall.
Click to expand...
A 15-20 kt gain would be huge, and if it required great altitudes, largely of no value.
 
Jeff767 said:
It’s an interesting project. I suspect you are going to have a more severe CG issue than you think. A custom engine mount bringing the motor as close to the firewall as possible might help. You will also lose that 100 to 120 lbs of useful load. Reduced fuel load could offset that a bit. If you shift the engine back you are going to need a new cowling. That’s going to cost a bit.
The last concern is VNE. VNE for a low powered aircraft is often simply a IAS number. Actual VNE is based off true airspeed. If you’re heading up to 17,500 you are going to need to either reduce your VNE based off true airspeed or conduct flutter testing which won’t be cheap. You will also need a O2 system and the useful load drops even further.
Click to expand...
Gaining 20 HP should allow for a higher max takeoff weight. TB10s have a bit over a 200 pound higher weight limit and net out around a 100 pounds of extra useful load compared to a TB9.
Vne is 165 knots. The only way to hit that is in a dive.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
I recently got some documentation.
180hp for 5 minutes…
135hp continuous.
I’m still going to run some numbers, but that is pretty much a deal breaker.
Click to expand...

Do you have the power performance curve for the Delta Hawk? It would be interesting to compare that against the Lycoming’s curve to see if even with the max power limitation, the DH produces more power at altitude.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
I recently got some documentation.
180hp for 5 minutes…
135hp continuous.
I’m still going to run some numbers, but that is pretty much a deal breaker.
Click to expand...
Hm, so the O-320 puts out 160hp max at sea level on a standard day and 135hp at around 5000DALT. Figure that's 135hp at around 3000-4000MSL on a warm day. If you can get 600-800FPM climb to that altitude at 180hp, then the Delta Hawk still beats the Lycoming.
 
asicer said:
Hm, so the O-320 puts out 160hp max at sea level on a standard day and 135hp at around 5000DALT. Figure that's 135hp at around 3000-4000MSL on a warm day. If you can get 600-800FPM climb to that altitude at 180hp, then the Delta Hawk still beats the Lycoming.
Click to expand...
I just sat down to do a spreadsheet analysis of a few engines. In my head you are a winner as long as you can get to where they cross in those minutes of elevated power. The issue is that I have NO experience dealing with convincing the FAA that it is acceptable. After 5 minutes you are running at a deficit compared to the stock engine, IF you happen to still be down low. The other issue is the weight penalty of the diesel engine.
I'm literally just sitting down with my cup of coffee to try to find a way to quantify the differences. (I've been traveling for the last two weeks and just got the document from Deltahawk three days ago. I've been looking at the multipage spreadsheet on a phone.)
I feel like the Rotax 916 needs to be thrown in here too. 160hp for 5 minutes, 135 (EDIT: 137hp) max continuous, years of similar designed engine's field data, MOGAS friendly, its LIGHTER than my O-320-D2A, and it is also more fuel efficient than the legacy engines.
In an ideal world the Deltahawk would be a 200-210HP engine that could put out 160hp continuously. Then it would be an improvement in every way except for a reasonable weight penalty that could be offset with a max weight increase under the STC.
 
Last edited:
Kiddo's Driver said:
I just sat down to do a spreadsheet analysis of a few engines. In my head you are a winner as long as you can get to where they cross in those minutes of elevated power. The issue is that I have NO experience dealing with convincing the FAA that it is acceptable. After 5 minutes you are running at a deficit compared to the stock engine, IF you happen to still be down low. The other issue is the weight penalty of the diesel engine.
Click to expand...

Who is responsible for getting the STC? I assume DeltaHawk? If so, why do you need to convince the FAA of anything?
 
jrcox19 said:
Who is responsible for getting the STC? I assume DeltaHawk? If so, why do you need to convince the FAA of anything?
Click to expand...
DeltaHawk got the engine approved for certified aircraft. It's up to whoever wants to do the engineering and paperwork to get the FAA to sign off on the stc. DeltaHawk may have very little if anything to do with the actual stc
 
jrcox19 said:
Who is responsible for getting the STC? I assume DeltaHawk? If so, why do you need to convince the FAA of anything?
Click to expand...
Lol. Me. If I want to change my certified aircraft, I either have to buy someone else's STC or do one myself. No one has, or will have, and STC to put another engine into a Socata Tampico TB9. The fleet is too small to justify investing the money. STCs come in two different flavors: STC and a One-Only STC. One only is easier, but it means that I cannot sell the design to other people for them to do the same thing.
Not so lol. The more I look at this the more I want to sell my plane & buy/build something else... :)
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/fieldapproval_stc
EDIT:
I wonder if I could field approval a Rotax 916 in since the HP is within 10% of stock...
I wonder if I could derate the DHK180 to 176hp and field approval it since the HP would be within 10% of stock... maybe get 6 minutes instead of five at a slightly lower HP...
 
Ah somehow I totally missed that you were doing this yourself. That's a very significant amount of work, and without some experience/guidance it seems like it could literally take 5+ years.

Best of luck, this definitely isn't for me faint of heart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top