Yes they are the right size and power for a 172. There would be significant fuel system changes for Jet-A. No it is not FADEC, it has a mechanical fuel pump (no electricity required).
You don’t have to change anything on the aircraft fuel system. Tanks are the same. Seals and gaskets and o rings are the same. No fuel pumps. Gauges read quantity not pounds by specific gravity.
Interesting, its been a few years since we heard anything from them. Glad to see there is a new player in the Jet-A recip market. Wish we had more spec. info tho _ weight for one. Edit; From their website - Engine dry weight is approximately 340 lbs., including turbocharger, turbo-to-engine exhaust system,alternator and starter. Additional weight-reducing innovations: Assembly - approximately 80 lbs. for most installations Smaller cowling - reduces weight and drag Fully installed engine is anticipated to weigh equal to or less than equivalent engines being replaced.
@yurmig253. Jet A is more refined so that it doesn't collect water the way diesel does. Which makes sense, the last thing you want at 25,000 ft is to have water in your fuel
He said they finally have some serious FINANCIAL backing! They may succeed this time. I want one for my RV-14 and maybe a 6 cylinder for a future RV-10 We will see.
I work on the Airbus A380 Platform where a lot of high-pressure high-temperature bleed ducting has v-band clamps that are far better than that stamped sheet metal version attached at the flange of the exhaust flex coupling. Few other things I see that are not commercial aviation standard. Is this because of the engine being shown is a prototype or display model?
180hp! Would be prefect for a Cessna considering how well the CD-155 performed with less HP. They need to get on the STC ASAP with an engine like that!
Torque is very important for aircraft also besides power. You can swing a more powerful prop with higher torque. These engines have better torque than Av-gas engines. German engineers in WWII wanted to design Desiel Aircraft engines and had a few but Hitler wanted other stuff.
Automotive with a gearbox is your option in that price range. Some people with RV-10s use GM LS engines and around a 2x reduction with takeoff power between 5100-5400 RPM, but not sure what size aircraft you have.
@Logan ce2uh Wrong ! Saab had a few of their models use a V4. My father owed a 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe that had a V4, and there were other manufacturers that used them too. Do your research before you post ignorant comments.
The drawbacks of a V4 are less relevant for aircraft because max prop speed is commonly 2700 rpm, assuming they run these things without a gear reduction box, it's not a lot of RPM.
Cannot ever see this product turning a profit. In development for about 25 years. A lot of time and money spent. Don't believe there are enough sales and service dollars out there.
cheap operation, near ENDLESS lifespan & 2x the profit of a lycontisaurus engine are PRECISELY why the FAA is stalling them. WHAT? you think the 100LL fuel scam & the lycontisaurus heads are just going to take it lying down?
@@galactictomato1434 …Indeed and we will see a lot more powerful engines from these folks than just the current 180 horsepower !!! I am loving it !!! 👍👍👍
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 85 | คู่เอก "ยอดเหล็กเพชร vs ผึ้งหลวง"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qq_19bnnxEo/mqdefault.jpg)
I really hope they meet their 2019 release date. Along with a "reasonable" price.
If a tuner went wild with boost and fuelling, like they do with motors like the honda K series that push 500+ hp, what horsepower would destroy it?
This here is basically a baby Detroit diesel
a detroit diesel has exhaust valves and a roots type blower not a twin screw
this has intake and exhaust ports on the cylinders
Will this be able for replacing an engine in a Cessna 172? Is it FADEC controlled???
No the small engine u can use for seccna is 80hp n more, hope u get.
Yes they are the right size and power for a 172. There would be significant fuel system changes for Jet-A. No it is not FADEC, it has a mechanical fuel pump (no electricity required).
You don’t have to change anything on the aircraft fuel system. Tanks are the same. Seals and gaskets and o rings are the same. No fuel pumps. Gauges read quantity not pounds by specific gravity.
Yes and Yes although I am not a DELTA HAWLK Rep. I just read their web site.
@@Bartonovich52 you're going to have flush out your tanks at least.
this thing is a beast. it doesnt even require an electric injector.
NO MAGNETO NEEDED! NO ELECTRIC INJECTOR TO FAIL (at least electrically) NO AV-GAS,... SOUNDS PROMISING
Mount this in a yamaha banshee for the nest bike rideout! I heard the deltahawk 2 stroke run the amsoil interceptor oil in dry sump oil injection.
Good news
Love everything about this this far, very awesome! Thank you very much!
This probably sounds like a flying yamaha banshee!
Interesting, its been a few years since we heard anything from them. Glad to see there is a new player in the Jet-A recip market. Wish we had more spec. info tho _ weight for one.
Edit; From their website -
Engine dry weight is approximately 340 lbs., including turbocharger, turbo-to-engine exhaust system,alternator and starter.
Additional weight-reducing innovations:
Assembly - approximately 80 lbs. for most installations
Smaller cowling - reduces weight and drag
Fully installed engine is anticipated to weigh equal to or less than equivalent engines being replaced.
Would like to know if it would be possible to convert for a full-size truck
Sure for $90,000. This is for aircraft use and is only 180HP.
Might be possible depending on the power and torque curve.
Probably better in a Mid sized truck like a Ford Ranger, Toyota Tacoma, or Nissan Frontier
Jet A? Is it Diesel lower grade compatible???
@yurmig253. Jet A is more refined so that it doesn't collect water the way diesel does. Which makes sense, the last thing you want at 25,000 ft is to have water in your fuel
Badass🤙💪🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
:)),,, thats one big turbo lol
He said they finally have some serious FINANCIAL backing! They may succeed this time. I want one for my RV-14 and maybe a 6 cylinder for a future RV-10 We will see.
I work on the Airbus A380 Platform where a lot of high-pressure high-temperature bleed ducting has v-band clamps that are far better than that stamped sheet metal version attached at the flange of the exhaust flex coupling. Few other things I see that are not commercial aviation standard. Is this because of the engine being shown is a prototype or display model?
180hp! Would be prefect for a Cessna considering how well the CD-155 performed with less HP. They need to get on the STC ASAP with an engine like that!
Until you see the price 1 Let me know what your limit is on this install ?
Torque is very important for aircraft also besides power. You can swing a more powerful prop with higher torque. These engines have better torque than Av-gas engines. German engineers in WWII wanted to design Desiel Aircraft engines and had a few but Hitler wanted other stuff.
Sound like a $100,000 engine. My “experimental budget” is sub-$20,000 for an engine.
Sounds like your stuck with a lawnmower engine then. Hell, a new IO390 is $60k these days. And that's without any upgrades or firewall forward kit
Automotive with a gearbox is your option in that price range. Some people with RV-10s use GM LS engines and around a 2x reduction with takeoff power between 5100-5400 RPM, but not sure what size aircraft you have.
Don't like the use of belt drive
This was 4 years ago. Still....no engines.
It just passed FAA certification
A v4 is one of the worst engine layout that exists, that’s why no cars use them. But at least you guys are doing something.
@Logan ce2uh Wrong ! Saab had a few of their models use a V4. My father owed a 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe that had a V4, and there were other manufacturers that used them too. Do your research before you post ignorant comments.
The drawbacks of a V4 are less relevant for aircraft because max prop speed is commonly 2700 rpm, assuming they run these things without a gear reduction box, it's not a lot of RPM.
Cannot ever see this product turning a profit. In development for about 25 years. A lot of time and money spent. Don't believe there are enough sales and service dollars out there.
cheap operation, near ENDLESS lifespan & 2x the profit of a lycontisaurus engine are PRECISELY why the FAA is stalling them. WHAT? you think the 100LL fuel scam & the lycontisaurus heads are just going to take it lying down?
FAA just certified it.
@@galactictomato1434 …Indeed and we will see a lot more powerful engines from these folks than just the current 180 horsepower !!! I am loving it !!! 👍👍👍
All that and they use a plane power alt. Seriously