New DELTA HAWK diesel engine for C172

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

Met these guys at OSH and wondered how many owners would swap their OE C172 or C182 engine for a new Deltahawk diesel. Here's the latest on expected cost

C172 firewall forward kit is planned at $120K (180 HP) and $125K for 200 HP version.
Prop and governor planned at $10k-30K
Engine monitor cost unknown at this time

They do not have a cost on scheduled maintenance or overhaul yet, so no way to calculate operating costs.
No cost yet on installation at this time.

It seem you would be about $150K-$170k with entire install. That's a lot of money for a C172 airframe. With the minimal performance increase, I think it would be hard to justify the cost compared to overhauling your original engine and have some 200 HP STC kit installed. But where AVGAS is $12-20/gal in some parts of the world it may seem viable. In comparison, the continental diesel for the C172 is about $110k-$115k installed, and that's already to install whereas Delta is not expecting STC for at least a year. I wish them luck as GA needs new tech, but price point for converting older planes is just too high for most considering alternatives, and not likely to keep old planes flying at cost most of us are will or able to pay.

When we set out to build an engine solution (a GM aluminum V8 based conversion) our focus was cost and environmental (eliminating leaded gas). A primary design criteria was to have it affordable and make sense compared to factory overhauling original engine, as well as significantly reduce operating costs.... otherwise, few would buy it, at least in the beginning. So, our total cost needed to be about $40k....this was about $12K more than factory O360 overhaul at the time, but we partnered with a large overhaul shop that would buy original cores for about $8k-14k ...which lowered cost to often less than factory overhaul, and incentive to convert especially if you were getting a whole new everything and your aircraft performance would increase with the 220HP and operating cost would be less than half. WHen we had potential customers fly our C172 demo plane, they were amazed at the upgrade in FADEC, performance, but mostly cost,,,this is what drove most fleet operators, especially those reaching TBO every 9-12 months. However, I think it would be a hard sell at a cost close to $150k.... the time to break even with $28k overhaul costs is too long unless AVGAS is not cheaply or readily available in their op area. Our TBO was 3k hrs but data showed closer to 5k if engine was set to less than 200HP (engine is software controlled and settable 160-220HP for C172 airframe, up to 400HP for other types), with TBO replacement cost of about $15k, which will likely be far less than Delta Hawk, which appealed to customers looking at leven short term economics.

Alot of interest in our C172/C182 conversion came from foreign operators where AVGAS and OE engine parts were prohibitively expensive and scarce. Our engine is flex fuel so it could consume regular car gas, rec gas, avgas, ect....cheap and available in most parts.... We obviously could not burn diesel which many wanted, so diesels will have the upper hand in those markets for sure. This is where the continental diesel sales excelled. We decided on a GM engine block for many reasons, one being parts are already distributed worldwide and relatively cheap, so Delta will have same struggle supplying parts quick and reducing down time as Continental has. Domestic C172 operators didn't see the advantage of the Continental engine with our AVGAS cost lower than most and a domestic parts supply so it didn't sell well here, which will likely be same for Delta.


Anyway, wondering what others think of the commercial viability of an engine at this price point. I know the FAA gauntlets they are up against but expect they have the funding to pay their way through a GA resistant FAA leadership far more than we had. Our obstacle wasn't certification costs as we could meet the G1 forecasted cert cost, but FAA policy and seemingly anti GA attitude. I hope they can overcome this and maye be able to lower cost over time to make a real difference in keeping GA alive.

Would you buy this engine for your Piper or Cessna? Why, why not.

 

[MountainDude]

I am very disappointed that many other areas of life have seen exponential improvements in price-to-performance, while aviation goes the opposite direction. We have seen so many articles promising affordable diesel and turbine developments for our 4 seaters, yet we are here, potentially having to pay $200K for a C182 engine.

I am hoping the initial high price is 1. to get the high profit margins from those really needing 100LL-free ops, and 2. recoup 20 years of R&D. Hopefully in 5-10 years these will be competitive with lycons and rotaxes.

 

[pfarber]

Without an STC your just dreaming. How close is approval? What kind of MX support do you have built out?

you sshould dump the the of supporting a 172 and get VANs to recommend your V8. They sell more kits/planes per year than cessna and have a more active base. Catering to flight schools is a losing proposition as they will go for cost first.

 

[Bell206]

Our obstacle wasn't certification costs as we could meet the G1 forecasted cert cost, but FAA policy and seemingly anti GA attitude.

You continuously bring this up but the facts do not support that. Based on your past articles and discussions it appears your main issue is the FAA wont allow you to use the amatuer built category to market your V8 Corsair. And given you also stated that you would not market your STC in the US due to liability issues how is that an FAA problem?

Regardless, the FAA has never stopped approving and certifying new products/articles for the GA market. So no, its not the FAAs attitude that is holding things up especially with all the changes they have made in the past 10+ years to make it easier to get new items to market. Its the market attitude and by extension the legacy OEMs who dont see a viable ROI in the private recreational side of the market.

 

[tspear]

Not sure where the numbers are from.
But here is a rebuilt engine for a C172: https://www.airpowerinc.com/renpl-rt10437
That is $55K

With anecdotal info, a fuel card program, Jet-A is around $3 bucks a gallon cheaper than avgas. Add in the unleaded avgas formulations which will add a few bucks to each gallon.
And the cost delta between rebuilding the Lycoming and installing the DH in price is a lot less than people think. A new Lycoming is pushing upwards to 70K based on posts on VAF.

The real question on the math side will be, what is the TBO? Without lead, DH has no sludge concerns, only wear concerns. And producing around 0.5HP per pound (roughly), DH is likely not pushing the material limits. I would not be surprised if the TBO 3K hours or higher; and with many fewer parts, I would expect overhauls to be much cheaper. Same for operations, much simpler engine, should have a much lower MX cost. Are these enough to make the numbers pencil out? Maybe. But I doubt they are as far apart as stated by the OP.

Tim

 

[WDD]

At these numbers, I don't know why they think they are even close to having a product to release to market.

Come back when the replacement option offers more benefits than what I currently have and is less than what I currently have to pay.

 

[eman1200]

At these numbers, I don't know why they think they are even close to having a product to release to market.

Come back when the replacement option offers more benefits than what I currently have and is less than what I currently have to pay.

Send in your non refundable deposit now!!!

 

[Steamflyer]

If you have a run out avgas restart 172 in a part of the world where avgas is becoming unaffordable or unobtainable, a 125k engine might make sense.

Car engines in aircraft have had a generally poor track record; OP appears to have pushed it further than many conversions, but in the end the high revving, non-oversquare engines are expected to put out maybe 10% of rated horsepower driving down the road, and we want 60 to 75% continuous and generally no gearbox.

Propeller aircraft also want copious torque for takeoff and climb; hp is not the be all and end all save for energy available during cruise. But there the aerodynamics of the designs flown at relatively low dense-air altitudes prohibits serious speed gains from increased hp.

 

[Sierra1]

At these numbers, I don't know why they think they are even close to having a product to release to market.

Come back when the replacement option offers more benefits than what I currently have and is less than what I currently have to pay.

This right here. The cost of that swap seems extremely high.

 

[Bill]

I am very disappointed that many other areas of life have seen exponential improvements in price-to-performance, while aviation goes the opposite direction.

Someone is making a killing on our GA engines. One can buy a reman Ford 3.5 EB, which is a twin turbo V-6 with variable cam timing and other complexities for <$6k, and it will be warranted for 100,000mi. That our dinosaur GA engines cost $40-50k+ to reman is criminal. But hey, we’re all rich aircraft owners.

 

[tspear]

If you have a run out avgas restart 172 in a part of the world where avgas is becoming unaffordable or unobtainable, a 125k engine might make sense.

Car engines in aircraft have had a generally poor track record; OP appears to have pushed it further than many conversions, but in the end the high revving, non-oversquare engines are expected to put out maybe 10% of rated horsepower driving down the road, and we want 60 to 75% continuous and generally no gearbox.

Propeller aircraft also want copious torque for takeoff and climb; hp is not the be all and end all save for energy available during cruise. But there the aerodynamics of the designs flown at relatively low dense-air altitudes prohibits serious speed gains from increased hp.

You can search on YT and find thousands of videos showing auto engines being run harder and longer then our vaunted aviation engines. The downside to auto engines is we have a very limited knowledge base in their use in an aviation settings. e.g. few people know how to maintain them. A few examples:
1. Diamond/Austro and Theilert/CMI have proven auto conversions work well; if engineered. Where those two companies have had failures has largely been on manufacturing or management side.
2. Rotax, these engines are adapted from small recreational vehicles, and they have done well and last much longer; to the point traditional aviation engines such as the CMI O-200 are effectively no longer in production because CMI could not compete.

As for HP and Torque, I believe you are very wrong. There is a tight relationship between these two, as for which one is more critical to a specific design depends on many factors. Such as fixed versus constant speed propeller, optimized for cruise or climb....

Someone is making a killing on our GA engines. One can buy a reman Ford 3.5 EB, which is a twin turbo V-6 with variable cam timing and other complexities for <$6k, and it will be warranted for 100,000mi. That our dinosaur GA engines cost $40-50k+ to reman is criminal. But hey, we’re all rich aircraft owners.

If there was such a killing, there would be a many more people chasing it. The reality is aviation engines are a boutique product, largely hand made, with very tight process controls which require significant overhead.... We are lucky that these business continue to survive. The reality is our aviation engines could be made significantly cheaper, but the volume to reduce the per unit costs are so low, and the capital costs to reduce manufacturing costs are so high, it so far has never penciled out for someone to do so.

Tim

 

[flyingron]

That's twice what a brand new IO-550 cost me a couple of years back.

 

[Racerx]

I'm more interested in what Kawasaki comes up with than this beast.

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

That "minimum performance increase" comment ignores the fact that they are turbo/supercharged & make rated power to 6,000 feet, then taper off from there. The 180 HP version is still making 150 HP at 12,000 feet.

 

[Racerx]

That "minimum performance increase" comment ignores the fact that they are turbo/supercharged & make rated power to 6,000 feet, then taper off from there. The 180 HP version is still making 150 HP at 12,000 feet.

Unless it takes into account a vast majority of 172's are trainers and never require the complexity and maintenance of a turbo or supercharger engine.

I like the thing. Just not at 170k all in. That's buy a better plane pricing.

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

You continuously bring this up but the facts do not support that. Based on your past articles and discussions it appears your main issue is the FAA wont allow you to use the amatuer built category to market your V8 Corsair.

Not sure where or what you are reading, but you are respectively mistaken. Never sought amateur built category as regulations and policy are clear on the topic and nowhere in any of our posts. Our original design was for owners to convert older planes to exp exhibition which is allowed under Regs and 8110.2, and often used. But FAA cited a 1950s policy that they do not want manufactured kits to convert from standard to exp, not regulation but merely policy, so thus, the reason we sought STC and got G1 issue paper for certification. Not going to get off topic here about obstacles that were placed in our way as they are detailed in other post and our website.

Regardless, the FAA has never stopped approving and certifying new products/articles for the GA market. So no, its not the FAAs attitude that is holding things up especially with all the changes they have made in the past 10+ years to make it easier to get new items to market.

You state that FAA has never stopped new GA products from reaching market….. FAA has indeed changed certified methods, but what meaningful result has GA piston realized in terms of costs, emissions, safety to legacy fleet-which makes up the vast majority of ga. We did indeed get glass panels that certainly increase safety, but most are too costly for average legacy airframes… especially considering experimental market has same for a fraction of costs to a smaller market where its end benefits are limited in scope compared to certified. My experience with FAA’s benevolence is different than yours, and would like to hear your personal experience as you seemed to have gotten further than us in this regard.

Even a new c172 is the same as as its 1960’s grandfather aside from nicer interior and panel, but its performance is the about the same, its noise and tailpipe emissions are the same, still requires leaded gas just as the Wright brothers did. Its cost, even adjusted for inflation, does not reflect what a 50 year old design should cost in any other segment. Imagine paying premium for a 1974 Ford Pinto produced new, same car and engine, better radio, upgraded avocado green interior, same seat belt and safety features as new c172, but you would have to go to an airport to find gas for it, and it is now illegal to put the leaded gas in it. New younger students are dismayed at the old clunker they are climbing to to fly and disillusioned about what they thought would be high tech…. Contrast that to parents dropping kid off for driving lessons in a 1974 Ford pinto, most wouldn’t.

FAA’s own study shows basic auto pilots would make significant decrease in crashes and lives lost, same FAA studies that state the main reason we don’t have them is due to high FAA certification cost….yet they did nothing to address this issue in fast tracking or working with industry for solutions. They watched for decades as accidents continued as if there was nothing they could do other than support a wings presentation. Under your objectiveness, it’s not the FAA as they have made changes to promote new tech; so GA’s lack of progress is simply due to few, if any, entities coming to FAA with new meaningful targeting solutions that lower costs, lower emissions, improve safety, ECT…. Many companies tried building a simple retro fit autopilot after such reports, but none got anywhere. I think anyone in GA for a while will back my position that there was never a lack of entrepreneurs wanting in on GA, and many new and useful tech came from such small entities in the 1960s-1970s, not so much there after.

Same with larger artificial horizon, even though these solutions are readily available in the non cert/exp world with long reliable service histories and manufactures that would like to sell them the certified world… what do you think the reason? How many spatial disorientation crashes could have been prevented with a cheap leveling autopilot or a bigger colorful HSI? Although some manufacturers stay in the exp market solely due to liability concerns in certified segment, most, like Dynon, with help from EAA made the jump and GA is better off for it. Imagine if FAA actually reached out to industry and small companies soliciting a partnership-like relationship (similar to FDA and needed drugs) to bring viable solutions quickly to market, how many crashes could have been avoided over just the last few decades?

WHY don’t we have air bags in GA? Why are we still burning lead gas when it was outlawed in late 1970s early 80’s? Why does it cost more to rebuild a simple 1950’s engine than a brand new Toyota Prius? Why are airplanes still crashing because they simply run out of gas….cars have low fuel warnings, why can’t a C150? (T41 c172’s had this and more than a few folks installed a simple float switch used in cars but gave up when trying to get FAA approval and had to remove it even though it worked). Again, fuel starvation continues to be problem yet FAA will not do anything to promote a solution regardless how simple fail passive the solution. Our initial design used a float switch that grounded out a wire to a red lamp in cabin …the switch was used in GM cars for decades, fool proof and cheap, yet cost of cert and liability deemed it a no-go. Many have tried to make such simple differences.

Under your stated belief the FAA has made changes in their attitudes and brought new regs that facilitate new tech to GA….. please list a few that are meaningful to average GA pilot or owner, that makes his flight safer or economically feasible ….i am not saying there are not, just most new tech is aimed at expensive upgrades that don’t often make sense to old aircraft. The pilot owners at my airport are more concerned about rationalizing keeping their plane as they fly it less often due to cost, and trying to rationalize the cost to keep it considering the cost of hanger, insurance, maintenance, ECT… I let a few c172 owners fly my c172 because it cost less than half to fly, even though they have a far nicer panel and interior than my c172. They are grateful and stay more current due to being able to afford to fly more. My hanger mate just sold his plane last week because he couldn’t afford to fly it enough to make sense and will be needing some work done. He figures his direct op cost is $84/hr with fuel and reserves…he figured out it’s cheaper to rent for the little amount he flies now.

If what you proclaim is right, then there has been just a few people wanting to certify new things to the eager to help FAA. Ridiculous considering 50 years after the Wright brothers first flight we had 4 engine jets flying at Mach .84 over oceans in pressurized cabins…..how far has GA piston come in just the last 50 years? I find it hard to believe FAA leadership is as benevolent as you do. I know of many, and heard from many more sharing stories similar to mine, that simply gave up on great ideas of commercial viability because of a less than welcoming FAA. The lack of progress in piston GA the last 30 years supports this view.

The reasons for lack of FAA interest are more complicated and outside intent of post topic.

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

Unless it takes into account a vast majority of 172's are trainers and never require the complexity and maintenance of a turbo or supercharger engine.

I like the thing. Just not at 170k all in. That's buy a better plane pricing.

I suspect that they are doing it as part of an effort to get the engines certified outside the US where Diesel fuel is a major advantage and cost savings.
Getting the STC here makes getting STCs elsewhere easier.

 

[frfly172]

I have been watching the development of the delta diesel engine for years. Was supposed to enter the market competitively priced. With jet fuel priced higher than 100ll and the price of a new engine and prop, not sure the initial cost is doable.

 

[AvNavCom]

I predict that we'll see Deltahawk engines as an increasingly common option in new aircraft that people are willing to drop clown-car money on, but I think the pricing will make it fall flat on its face in the retrofit market for classic certified aircraft. I could completely overhaul my current O-360 two to three times for what they're asking for their 180HP model. I don't see that math working unless fuel becomes a major issue. At that point, I'd be better off selling and moving to a LSA or EAB.

Frankly, I'm hoping we see some more action at the other end of the market, such as the Spirit SE-1 and its engine. Give me something that runs on regular mogas (preferably without an ethanol-free requirement if that can be figured out) and makes something approaching reasonable horsepower/pound for my aircraft. Again, I don't see that really happening to the current certified fleet due to regulatory obstruction, but if MOSAIC opens up manufacturing to industry-consensus standards and lets manufacturers avoid the certification cost, there's some slim hope.

 

[Bell206]

But FAA cited a 1950s policy that they do not want manufactured kits to convert from standard to exp, not regulation but merely policy,

The FAA policy (CAM 1) during that time frame that addressed "kits" was only applicable to amateur built aircraft which became legal in September 1952. And its basically the same “policy” that exists today. I inquired when you didn’t post the relevant policy in previous threads. So I don’t quite follow what the FAA is preventing you from doing with your V8 kit and nor did the people I inquired with.

Under your stated belief the FAA has made changes in their attitudes and brought new regs that facilitate new tech to GA….. please list a few that are meaningful to average GA pilot or owner,

The FAA was co-sponsor of NASA’s Advanced General Aviation Transport Experiments (AGATE) in the 90s that brought new developments, technologies, and equipment to the entire GA industry. For example, the foundation for all digital avionics (glass cockpits), new composite materials and production methods (Cirrus, Columbia), and advanced crashworthiness concepts (G-seats) to name a few.

On the regulatory side, the complete rewrite of Part 23 to specifically remove certification roadblocks and streamline the process. The EASA rewrote their CS23 in response to this move. The FAA has also issued a number of policy and guidance docs directed toward GA upkeep and safety, eg., AC 23-27, Policy Statement PS-ACE-23-08, and most recently MOSAIC.

However, the solution for the rest of your comments requires the one thing you don’t mention: a viable market. The FAA has done what it can to incentivize OEMs and other developers to address those concerns. But just as what happened after AGATE in 2000, no GA market materialized especially on the private recreational side. So all that technology and money followed a different path: eVTOLs and other e-aircraft. However, present a viable market to the manufacturers or developers and they will build it like the Beech Denali or the HX50.

Regardless, I think the expansion of MOSAIC will have a greater negative effect on the TC’d side of the private recreational world than anything else as new larger SLSAs hit that market where the owners can maintain them and so on. Time will tell.

My experience with FAA’s benevolence is different than yours, and would like to hear your personal experience as you seemed to have gotten further than us in this regard.

Based on your posts, articles, website, and input from several people who followed your project, your V8 project lacked a knowledgeable project manager. I’ve been involved with about two dozen STCs directly and indirectly using the same apparent route you did with none of the issues you described.

For example, in one article I believe, you or someone described a project goal of meeting with FAA leadership about this project. Why? For all the STC projects I was involved with, once the STC application was submitted we were assigned an ACO manager who was basically our main contact through the entire process. And in some cases, there was a requirement for MIDO participation so we were assigned someone there as well. At no time did we request or want "FAA leadership" involved as they offered zero assistance to our goal. And yes, these were complex projects dealing with engine alterations, major primary structure alterations, etc.

I think if you discuss your project with a good manager DER they could develop a plan that will get you in the right direction. But in all honesty, it will be quite the uphill battle with your engine selection on several levels which has been previously discussed in other threads. Now substitute it with a NASCAR or Indy or F1 engine, then a majority of the certification issues will disappear. However, the cost ratio will go out the roof.

 

[Bell206]

Someone is making a killing on our GA engines. One can buy a reman Ford 3.5 EB, which is a twin turbo V-6 with variable cam timing and other complexities for <$6k, and it will be warranted for 100,000mi.

FWIW: It used to be that way on the aviation side when airboats only used old aircraft engines. However, after a few notable accidents that relationship went south due to a handful of stupid people. And mountains of still useable spares simply went away and the costs went in the other direction on several levels.

 

[WDD]

Send in your non refundable deposit now!!!

Why do GA piston engines cost what they do? Can’t escape the math and economics of supply, demand, economies of scale, cost of liability, etc. This sums it up well. An oldie but still true.

 

[Steamflyer]

Car engines do not put out 75% power for 2000 hours. Aircraft engines do. Car engines are made in the millions per year, doubt more than 3000 entirely new aircraft engines are made a year. Basic economics. Have watched the auto engine substitute into aircraft saga for 40 years. Not good. Know several homebuilts that went from auto engine to aircraft.

There are something like 200,000 little airplanes in the country. Based on shop experience, about 50% fly more than 50 hours per year. Not a market a new entrant is going to succeed in. If you know anything about or have any experience in manufacturing, you understand that no one is making a killing on short run complicated machines that are cast, forged, machined, and put together.

 

[pfarber]

Car engines in aircraft have had a generally poor track record;

Poorly designed car engines have had a poor track record.

There are lots of car engines out there.. you just never notice them. They are not selling at air cooled engine rates because no one remembers the car motor that's been flying for 5+ years... only the ones that didn't.

Car motors and ethanol... plane owners are just so uninformed.

 

[Steamflyer]

Poorly designed car engines have had a poor track record.

There are lots of car engines out there.. you just never notice them. They are not selling at air cooled engine rates because no one remembers the car motor that's been flying for 5+ years... only the ones that didn't.

Car motors and ethanol... plane owners are just so uninformed.

Show me a car engine that has flown 250 hours/year for the past three years with only oil and filter changes in an experimental aircraft. Then find ten more. Aircraft engines do that all the time - some. Most do not, concur.

 

[tspear]

Show me a car engine that has flown 250 hours/year for the past three years with only oil and filter changes in an experimental aircraft. Then find ten more. Aircraft engines do that all the time - some. Most do not, concur.

Lmao, that is funny. I have yet to go over 500 hours before sending mags out for IRAN. Starter adapters anyone?
You are completely ignoring all the TLC that aviation engines require because they are known issues. You object to car engines purely due to FUD.

To be fair, I am not willing to invest the time/energy/research to gain said knowledge either. So, I will only go the route of the reasonable well trodden or supported. I will not be blazing my own way....

Tim

 

[Steamflyer]

Lmao, that is funny. I have yet to go over 500 hours before sending mags out for IRAN. Starter adapters anyone?
You are completely ignoring all the TLC that aviation engines require because they are known issues. You object to car engines purely due to FUD.

To be fair, I am not willing to invest the time/energy/research to gain said knowledge either. So, I will only go the route of the reasonable well trodden or supported. I will not be blazing my own way....

Tim

Mags get a 500 inspection. Often if they are Bendix, good to go with new points. Starter adapters with the regular starters last a long time. And they don't exist on Lycomings. Plugs get cleaned and rotated every 100 hours or so; grant you that.

The main issue with air cooled aircraft engines is lack of use. So they corrode and then may fail to a degree. When run routinely at the rates that they are warranted to (30 or 40 hours per month) they do fine. One commuter airline routinely runs TSIO-520s to 2800 hours with at most one cylinder replaced on average to that hour figure. Takes about five years though to get there.

Even the little car engines being substituted for 912s in some LSAs don't seem that robust, but the jury is still out since those aircraft unless trainers don't fly much either. I think there are Honda and Subaru based conversions.

 

[WDD]

Show me a car engine that has flown 250 hours/year for the past three years with only oil and filter changes in an experimental aircraft. Then find ten more. Aircraft engines do that all the time - some. Most do not, concur.

The stock Mercedes engine in the Paul B video above is actually certified for aircraft.

 

[Steamflyer]

The stock Mercedes engine in the Paul B video above is actually certified for aircraft.

So I can call local dealer, order stock engine, and there's an STC to put in into an airframe?

Several version of Mercedes based engines have been used by OEMs as Paul B notes. All are diesels. The issue in the US at least has been "why can't I buy a 6k car motor, or have Continental make me a 6k motor to replace my 70k air-cooled relic?" These are avgas. And Paul B notes, the current engines are used because they work. And because there is really no market for an alternative. There are probably more cars registered in many counties, even the rural ones, than four seat piston aircraft in the country.

Enjoy the ride while it lasts. It will bifurcate into turboprops and jets at one end, and tiny little LSA-like planes for just messing around at the other end. In how long, who knows. Heck the EAA president released a video yesterday at the start of Mosaic saying that 70% of its members just mess around and hence will be well served by the new regs. So I guess Rotax wins in the end. Maybe they'll be a nice car engine for the RVs at some point. Seem to be enough of them and the owners fly them a little more than the spam cans.

 

[Bell206]

Enjoy the ride while it lasts. It will bifurcate into turboprops and jets at one end, and tiny little LSA-like planes for just messing around at the other end.

When you throw powered lift and e-aviation into the mix, I don't think it will necessarily split in that manner. Will the 80 year old legacy aircraft start a slow decline as newer recreational aircraft become available and eVTOLs/eSTOLs start to fill the airspace. Sure, just as tube and fabric were replaced by aluminum aircraft. From what I've seen and heard, while I still don't see an increase in the numbers of private rec aircraft, I think there will be a shift from aluminum to composite and eventually e-versions as that market matures and moves into the private sector. But who knows, if the eVTOL/STOL OEMs play their cards right, they just might inspire a whole new generation into recreational flying just like the J-3 did in the 40s once that happens.

 

[Steamflyer]

I think there will be a shift from aluminum to composite and eventually e-versions as that market matures and moves into the private sector. But who knows, if the eVTOL/STOL OEMs play their cards right, they just might inspire a whole new generation into recreational flying just like the J-3 did in the 40s once that happens.

Don't tell that to places like CubCraters who will happily sell you a rag and tube bird for something north of around 400k. Composites' main advantage is for faster aircraft with compound curves; the SR22 is the prime example. So that train has left the station, and only is about 1M or so to have.

The eVTOL things are just fun toys equivalent to a jet ski. And you don't really fly them per se, you guide them or they are autonomous. They may find a tiny niche in some urban areas as slightly quieter helicopters, but there won't be hundreds flitting about with their high-pitched whining rotors above the cities. And the first crash or collision will have ramifications I think beyond an ordinary aircraft accident.

And there's little evidence that any sizable number of new generation people have any desire to pilot a plane. The WWII history that started and sustained the aviation mantra is pretty much over. Always exceptions, but remember Cessna sold 17,000 airplanes in 1977. That's a generation interested in flying (and by then old enough to afford the plane they always wanted to have). But what do I know?!

 

[Bell206]

Don't tell that to places like CubCraters who will happily sell you a rag and tube bird for something north of around 400k. Composites' main advantage is for faster aircraft with compound curves; the SR22 is the prime example. So that train has left the station, and only is about 1M or so to have.

Well, one of the points of MOSAIC was to get new 4 seaters into the recreational market and offer a replacement to the legacy Cessna and Piper 4 placers. The only thing unknown if the market responds. Regardless, most new non-pressurized designs below 12,500 are composite and once the airworthiness side of MOSAIC goes live next year I wouldn’t be surprised if some “new” SLSAs hit the market along with a SLSA helicopter or two.

The eVTOL things are just fun toys equivalent to a jet ski.

Interesting. Didn’t realize jet skis could carry 4 pax and operate Part 135. While the Chinese are operating commercially with autonomous eVTOLs, the FAA/EASA certified ones will still require a pilot who have been flying certifications runs in a number of countries.

As to noise and market, NASA has measured the sound signature of the top 2 eVTOLs and found them to be quieter than the ambient noise levels of NYC; and the market is projected to be worth north of $35B by 2032 with most top global transportation-based companies involved in some form or fashion. So hardly a niche market.

Don’t know where you get your info, but the eVTOL/STOL are here to stay with the Gen2 versions on the board capable of 9 pax and more which allows for a shift to turbo-generator use to power the electric engines. And the electric engine prototypes are hitting the 1MW performance levels which opens options for much larger airframes to use. Interesting times ahead.

 

[Racerx]

Well, one of the points of MOSAIC was to get new 4 seaters into the recreational market and offer a replacement to the legacy Cessna and Piper 4 placers. The only thing unknown if the market responds. Regardless, most new non-pressurized designs below 12,500 are composite and once the airworthiness side of MOSAIC goes live next year I wouldn’t be surprised if some “new” SLSAs hit the market along with a SLSA helicopter or two.


Interesting. Didn’t realize jet skis could carry 4 pax and operate Part 135. While the Chinese are operating commercially with autonomous eVTOLs, the FAA/EASA certified ones will still require a pilot who have been flying certifications runs in a number of countries.

As to noise and market, NASA has measured the sound signature of the top 2 eVTOLs and found them to be quieter than the ambient noise levels of NYC; and the market is projected to be worth north of $35B by 2032 with most top global transportation-based companies involved in some form or fashion. So hardly a niche market.

Don’t know where you get your info, but the eVTOL/STOL are here to stay with the Gen2 versions on the board capable of 9 pax and more which allows for a shift to turbo-generator use to power the electric engines. And the electric engine prototypes are hitting the 1MW performance levels which opens options for much larger airframes to use. Interesting times ahead.

I'm not as bullish.

 

[Bell206]

I'm not as bullish.

Well, for everyone who has posted about there needs to be new innovation and new aircraft and new whatever in the Part 91 recreational market, this is it. I don't think the industry or the FAA will attempt it again since there have been 2 previous attempts energize this market and both failed. So while you may not be bullish, I am and hope the LSA OEMs and to an extent the E/AB OEM sees the opportunity they have in front of them and react appropriately. However, if there are still people who think a $50K brand new aircraft with 1000 mile legs is a possibility under MOSAIC then maybe I shouldn't be as bullish. Time will tell.

 

[tspear]

Well, for everyone who has posted about there needs to be new innovation and new aircraft and new whatever in the Part 91 recreational market, this is it. I don't think the industry or the FAA will attempt it again since there have been 2 previous attempts energize this market and both failed. So while you may not be bullish, I am and hope the LSA OEMs and to an extent the E/AB OEM sees the opportunity they have in front of them and react appropriately. However, if there are still people who think a $50K brand new aircraft with 1000 mile legs is a possibility under MOSAIC then maybe I shouldn't be as bullish. Time will tell.

I am fairly bullish. I have a lot of hope at least!
I am aware of multiple planes that will be coming to the USA market in the next year or two which are the "big brother" versions of LSA or experimental aircraft that are already in production and the companies have been in business for at least a few years. This is a direct result of MOSAIC.

That there are so many that I have read about, or talked to the sales staff makes me much more of a believer in the general direction the market is going.

Tim

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

It seems most here don’t see many investing the Delta hawk solution, mostly for economic reasons. However, most here are seeing from a US home base perspective where AVGAS is relatively inexpensive and plentiful. I think this much mirrors the continental diesel appeal. So, it appears it won’t make much of a dent in GA’s turn around, but I suspect it will be as popular option for new planes where Deltahawk will sell at deeper discount to get them in markets that fleet operators will be overhauling them every 1-2 years, resulting in reoccurring revenue streams of parts and support ….considering how long ga planes stay operating, it may be a long term play. But I agree with prior comments, turbo props and electrical propulsion will likely be the option for new ga offerings in next 8-10 years, but not likely for repowering legacy fleet which will likely be around for decades to come if alternative propulsion cost come significantly down in meantime. New aircraft cost likely to remain beyond most except for fleet operators such as schools, which will also takes decades to work their way down to affordable used market for most personal ownership.

I still believe engine solution must be cheap to keep ga from shrinking, especially given increasing cost every year. As I mentioned, I see many owners selling planes simply because they can’t rationalize the $80 hour op cost with all other expenses. Fixed cost will only go up as ga shrinks and fewer players as insurance carriers and piston shops decrease. As new approved fuel distribution expands, AVGAS will so too disappear and many expect the cost to be close to $2 more, further hammering ga. If you can run mogas with STC, I’d get the STC. My experimental is flex fuel, so I pay currently about $2.65 gal for regular ethanol car gas, but local stations sell the non ethanol for about .35 more which I often use in winter as the plane flies a lot less and ethanol doesn’t like being stored for longer periods,…compared to AVGAS here being $5.80-7.40 /gal it adds up….. I hate putting AVGAS in my plane when forced on cross country flights due cost and emissions (also have to do a run-up if more than 50%), it should have been eliminated decades ago.

We did considerable market research when contemplating building our conversation engine, and the number 1 motivation for operators to convert was cost, 2nd was fuel other than AVGAS (many felt it was going to be outlawed sooner than later, especially when California did just that for a period). expect deltahawk will appeal to fleet market as AVGAS replacement here, but acquisition cost a tough sell in most valued GA markets like US. Op cost will have to be substantially low to offset. Regardless, I wish them luck as we need new tech and eventually planes powered by these engines will work their way down over time to be affordable for most.

I’m hearing good things about larger factory built LSA trainers….engines are able to burn mogas as well. My bet is on This market for growth using current engines. Buddy wants to get on buyer list then dry lease them to flight schools. Also think experimental clubs will emerge….they can really reduce cost and offer high tech cockpits at great value compared to piper and Cessna. I may put or sell my c172 to exp club which would rent out for $65-75/hr wet, significantly lower than the average $175/hr for same vintage ….club already has a exp twin that will likely cost $140-150/hr. There’s been enough interest in exp clubs that AOPA issued guidance on starting one up.

Thanks for all insightful comments. Interesting what this post might look like in 5-10 years.

 

[chflyer]

Interesting thoughts AlphaPilotFlyer (name?). I agree with a lot, but wonder why with aquisition cost is such a black & white element given the already high aircraft acquisition cost. If one looks at an airplace as a low-use disposable item that is swapped out every 2-3 years like many do with their cars, then I guess that makes sense. Any serious cost comparison with a traditional engine replacement needs to include a life-cycle cost analysis over various usage scenarios and timelines.

My TCM IO-360 is nearing overhaul or replacement. A new engine is listed as $85-90k. The prices I’ve seen suggested by Deltahawk are in the $110k range firewall forward (incl prop). The difference would be less if the current prop and perhaps other parts could be resold. The list of benefits with Deltahawk is long. Dramatically reduced lifecycle maintenance (no valve train, no spark plugs or mags, no electronics, AI is only oil and filter changes, est 3000hr TBO to start and possibly higher later) and reduced fuel consumption are just two which immediately impact the pocket book on an ongoing basis. Full-power climb to 12’000ft, no mag check, and simple car-like throttle management (forward go fast, back go slow) without mixture to play with are direct operational benefits (I know, some will say that they just set the mixture once and leave it there during cruise, but it’s never as simple as that overall).

Given the current FUBAR situation with the search for a universally usable unleaded replacement for 100LL Avgas, it’s looking increasingly more like a slow migration to UL94 for the lower compression engines that can use it and replacement of higher compression engines with diesel alternatives that can use JET-A. The Deltahawk 4-cyl 180/200/235hp and upcoming 6-cyl 350hp would address most of the latter market.

 

[MountainDude]

A new O-360 is $85-90K? Is that full installed price?

 

[chflyer]

No, a TCM IO-360. Price from air power website.

 

[Chris S.]

I’m hearing good things about larger factory built LSA trainers….engines are able to burn mogas as well. My bet is on This market for growth using current engines.

Almost every interesting new MOSAIC design (or existing amateur built design that now can be manufactured under MOSAIC) uses a Rotax 916. Are you looking at this area for your V8? Rotax seems to be hitting the top end of their range with the 916 (around 160 HP for a short time) so I would think there is a market for a more modern engine in the 180-200+ HP category. Do the MOSAIC rules make it easier to also get the engine approved (not certified)?