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

Any updates about the delivery of your engine?

I want to put the 230hp variant into my C182. Hoping they give some news on their STC progress soon!
 
Katamarino said:
Any updates about the delivery of your engine?

I want to put the 230hp variant into my C182. Hoping they give some news on their STC progress soon!
Click to expand...
I've quit tracking it for now. They have my deposit. I'm going the O-320 to O-360 route right now. In a low production aircraft like a Tampico the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
 
Maybe these will actually be available by the time I'm ready for an engine
 
I still have my reservation and I keep dreaming about what to put it in. With the Mosaic changes I think I want to go EAB. I have my LSRM-A, so I can do my own condition inspections.
 
donjohnston said:
Might have had a really old MT prop that didn't have a metal leading edge (I'm only guessing that such an MT prop existed).
Click to expand...
I've never heard of a problem with any MT props, but I do remember seeing an LSA with a wood/composite prop (brand was "Woodcomp" too) that got ruined by rain - And it didn't even need to fly in rain to get ruined, it was just parked outside, water got inside and the wood swelled and the forces that caused split both the composite and the wood. It wasn't pretty.

But again, I've never heard of any issues like that with MT.
 
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...
Why would that be a deal breaker? 75% * 180hp = 135 HP. So you take off, climb for 5 minutes, and reduce to cruise power.

Now, if you can't get usefully high in those 5 minutes, yeah... But if you can get to 7,000 feet you'd be down to 135hp normally aspirated anyway.

But reading this thread makes me want to convert/build some sort of twin with a Rotax or a Delta Hawk. Reading the comments on weight, I'm thinking more like a Twin Comanche with a Rotax 916 and a Hartzell Kestrel C/S prop. Since the original Twinkie also used 160hp engines there shouldn't be that much re-engineering, and that engine/prop combo weighs just 189 pounds compared to 303 pounds for the original Lycosaur/Hartzell. So, that's 114 pounds lighter PER ENGINE, which would represent a total useful load increase of around 20%. It'll certainly outrun a normally aspirated Twin Comanche in the low teens, while the original Rajay-equipped Turbo Twin Comanche will start to run away from it above 15,000 because that one had a critical altitude of 20,000 feet.

No, I'm not gonna do it for the same reasons... But it sure is fun to think about the alternate timeline where I have the time and money for such things.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
Those are old numbers. The latest, or at least 6 months ago, certified engine can do 180 hp to 5 or 6K, then drops to 150 at 12,000!
Click to expand...
At 12,000, a 230hp engine is only making slightly less than that, so that's really good. That said, if you can live without burning diesel/Jet-A the weights seem better on the Rotax.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
... if you can live without burning diesel/Jet-A ...
Click to expand...
I can't imagine buying anything requiring a fuel containing TEL and expecting that to be available beyond 2030. Rotax/Mogas, maybe, if one can source it. I'm far more likely to be able to land somewhere JetA is pumped than mogas.
 
DJTorrente said:
I can't imagine buying anything requiring a fuel containing TEL and expecting that to be available beyond 2030.
Click to expand...
FAA’s EAGLE team would have you believe that all engines will be able to run on unleaded of some form or other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top