Jump to content

diesel helicopter


viking
 Share

Recommended Posts

Looks almost as cool as the Cabri G2. The first thing I saw that "looks" like be a small problem is the thick body corners at the doors and windscreen. Might be a line of sight concern??

 

The machine resemble's a MD 900 with Schw or Enstrom head.... Looks like the head turns counter clock??

 

Thanks for sharing the pics..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking with developer of this aircraft, which is being locally built in Queensland Australia.

He says thet someone in the design team is from formula 1 race car background, and the owner manufactures the rotor head, trans, and tail rotor assembly in his own engineering shop.

 

The empty weight is 580kg and max gross just under 1000kg running the delta diesel v4, main rotor blades ex Germany. I have closely inspected the craft and find the general engineering exceptional. Someone has quoted 140 liters diesel and 4 hour endurance, two up with some weight in the boot.

 

Flight tests begin next week and should have the flight figures available in the next couple of months and will be available in the kit form initially. The price quoted at the Avalon air show was AUS$180k.

 

I will be looking to fly it as soon as it is available for a test. Interesting times.

 

cheers

 

Viking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The diesel has a poor power/weight ratio. If you want simple, turbines are the way to go. The only moving parts are a few rotors, and as long as it's running, it needs no electricity or anything else but fuel, which is sucks from the tank via its self-driven pump, and the power/weight ratio is very high.

 

The other problem is that even if the power/weight ratio is made low enough, it's an enormously expensive proposition to get a new engine certificated by the aviation authorities around the world, especially one whose type hasn't been previously certified. Then you have to convince the aircraft manufacturers, who have to convince the pilots. Considering the huge cost vs the tiny market, it's a very risky proposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In saying power I assume you mean HP, however they have very high torque rating. As they say in the car world, HP sells cars, Torque moves them. The DeltaHawk is already certified for use in a few FW applications. The Theilert diesel was also in the Diamond twinstar and cessna was putting them in their new aircraft until they went out of business. Dont know what happened there with so many orders from those 2 manufactures but it was a fantastic engine that doubled the endurance of a C182 drinking only 5.5 - 6.5 gph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darkhorse-

The DeltaHawk isn't certified YET, although it is available for some experimental (homebuilt) FW designs. They state:

 

"Current estimates are to achieve Type Certification (TC) as early as the middle of 2009."

 

That's still blue sky at this point, but it sounds like they believe it will eventually happen.

 

Mechanic-

The DeltaHawk website has a pretty complete discussion of the advantages of a 2-stroke diesel if you click on the link at the left side if the home page that says:

 

Why aeroDIESEL?

 

or just use the link I embedded above. :D

 

A 2-stroke diesel is a VERY different animal than a 2-stroke gas (snomobile type) engine, but both of them have the BIG advantage of eliminating the valves, camshafts and other breakable parts that their 4-stroke cousins must have. As a result, 2-stroke engines have better power to weight ratios than most 4-stroke engines of the same type. In the case of the DeltaHawk, the 200HP version has an installed weight (including the radiator and coolant) of 20 pounds heavier than a 200HP IO-360 Lycoming, but when you factor in the lower fuel consumption of the diesel, the "mission weight" of engine plus fuel turns out to be lower for the diesel than for the Lycoming except for very short duration flights. :o

 

Gomer-

Sure, a turbine engine is lighter and more powerful, but a new RR300 is around $250,000, is it not? The estimated price for the DeltaHawk is $25,900 to $35,000 (depending on HP output and options, I suppose). If you're trying to build a small helicopter that could sell for less than a cool quarter mill, which would you choose?

Also, the diesel with a BSFC of .39 uses less fuel per horsepower than a turbine with a BSFC of around .75 - like slightly more than half as much fuel! A few months ago we were all a lot more interested in that, and we will be again, someday.

 

I'm really hoping the DeltHawk is a sucess, 'cause the aviation industry could use a new powerplant choice. The air cooled horizontally opposed piston engines we use now are fine, but don't take advantage of the last 50 years of technological evolution, and availabilty of avgas may become a problem in the future. Turbine are great, but way too costly for ordinary humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mechanic-

The DeltaHawk website has a pretty complete discussion of the advantages of a 2-stroke diesel if you click on the link at the left side if the home page that says:

 

Why aeroDIESEL?

 

or just use the link I embedded above. :D

 

A 2-stroke diesel is a VERY different animal than a 2-stroke gas (snomobile type) engine, but both of them have the BIG advantage of eliminating the valves, camshafts and other breakable parts that their 4-stroke cousins must have. As a result, 2-stroke engines have better power to weight ratios than most 4-stroke engines of the same type. In the case of the DeltaHawk, the 200HP version has an installed weight (including the radiator and coolant) of 20 pounds heavier than a 200HP IO-360 Lycoming, but when you factor in the lower fuel consumption of the diesel, the "mission weight" of engine plus fuel turns out to be lower for the diesel than for the Lycoming except for very short duration flights. :o

 

Thanks for the link. Yes, I am very familuar with 2 cycle engines of both diesel and gas versions. This Delta Hawk sounds like a hybrid engine. Runs on diesel but built like a gas engine. Detroit Diesel has many versions of their 2 cycle engines. They all use valves.. Gas engines tend to not use valves either piston port or reed valve types are found most common. I have experience with Detroit, Stihl, Echo, Olympic, kawasaki, Homelite, and OS nitro-methane 2 cycle versions... Seems they are going with the technology like a professional chain saw would have. Unitized engine block. Good idea, but means you will prob throw the block away at over haul unless it's a sleeved cylinder.

 

Anyways, good to see some outside the box thinking going on somewhere.

 

Later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consul design is poor why put switches at the top??? you want essential instruments where you can scan without really taking eyes off the sky.

The same with radios transponders WHY at the bottom of the stack in so many ships??? with small displays and smaller knobs they are another poor design that we pay big bucks for.

I note big space low down for radios.

As they are not producing yet there is time to change

Please think about scan times, eyes on sky or eyes in cockpit the less time in the safer you are.

In the race cars we always turned steam gauges so normal readings are needles vertical, no having to check each gage, not vertical, either over or under normal as you noted the non vertical your brain had already told you if it was in the problem zone.

Nice looking ship though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The diesel has a poor power/weight ratio. If you want simple, turbines are the way to go. The only moving parts are a few rotors, and as long as it's running, it needs no electricity or anything else but fuel, which is sucks from the tank via its self-driven pump, and the power/weight ratio is very high.

 

The other problem is that even if the power/weight ratio is made low enough, it's an enormously expensive proposition to get a new engine certificated by the aviation authorities around the world, especially one whose type hasn't been previously certified. Then you have to convince the aircraft manufacturers, who have to convince the pilots. Considering the huge cost vs the tiny market, it's a very risky proposition.

 

 

That used to be the case, but there have been several new developments, see here. That engine is 100hp and 150 pounds, which on a slightly larger scale seems like it would be a good powerplant for a small helicopter.

Edited by svtcobra66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's getting better, and it might work for a small cheap helicopter, but it's still a long way from a turbine, which for a modern version should give >600HP for that weight. They're not cheap, but they get the job done reliably. Personally, I'm not prepared to risk my life on a 2-stroke diesel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm not prepared to risk my life on a 2-stroke diesel.

 

They are pretty reliable. They are even used in Fire Trucks.. Good power. They actually broke driveline parts, on one truck that we had, it had been retrofitted with twin 8V-71 ci per cyl Detroits from twin Cont inline 6's. Ton's more torque.. Slipped clutch packs if you didn't get the truck rolling 15 mph or more before going WOT. They ran 2750 rpm compared to 2150 rpm on the 4 cycle engines. Course these are industrial recip type, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] it might work for a small cheap helicopter, but it's still a long way from a turbine, which for a modern version should give >600HP for that weight.

The turbine would be much more costly to operate in terms of fuel usage than the 2-stroke too though, right? Well definitely if it was a 600HP unit but what about if it had a comparable 100-120HP? Would a hypothetical 100HP turbine engine be more practical than a 100HP diesel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a little quick work with google and a calculator says that the helicycle's derated 90 HP turbine runs about 12.5 gallons an hour at cruse. Now I'm not an expert on engines but based on the figures posted by Darkhorse above that would be about twice as much fuel for slightly less then half the power provided by the small turbine vs. the small diesel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...