TimS wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 11:36 pm
But there was a distinct separation between the companies.
To really take this distinction seriously I would ask: 1) Who sits on the BOD of the two companies? 2) What other airframe manufacturer uses Austro engines?
Well, I went and looked. Based on the websites, Austro is no longer separate. So likely meaningless.
When I was considering a DA-42 a few years ago, Austro was actively trying to get Textron and Piper to use the Austro. Piper ended up going with CMI for the diesel engine. Textron did nothing.
Chris wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 1:36 am
Given the hurdle of engineering and certifying a different engine in the DA-42/62 airframes, I won't be holding my breath for a DeltaHawk announcement. One can dream, though.
Forgot to check back in on this thread.
Agree with you wholeheartedly, Chris. The barriers to entry, both from Diamond and the FAA, are the reason why the engines aren't installed on these airframes already.
Fun to think where the experimental crowd would be. New throttle quadrant made, sleek cowls, G1000 pulled for G3X Touch/GTN 750xi/GFC500. The GFC500 could be in the overhead where the standby instruments are and a GI275 in one of the remaining holes.
Interesting that their press release claims the new models will share the same dimensions and weight of the DHK180.
Looking at the photo of the test stand engine, it's clearly a two-stroke and therefore mechanically quite a bit simpler than a four-stroke Austro (no valves, valve ports or camshafts). It also explains the need for a supercharger in addition to the Turbo.
I've not come across a small two-stroke diesel prior, but larger two-stroke cousins (e.g. from Detroit and EMD) are certainly smooth running (and quiet if effectively muffled). There doesn't appear to be a torque damper and/or gearbox between engine and prop, potentially another two-stroke win with smoother torque delivery, less complexity and ultimately greater reliability?
An interesting proposition and of course the proof will be in the pudding over time. I watch with interest on the uptake and real-world feedback.
The super charger is for starting the engine, inflight restarts, and to provide 50% power in the case of turbo charger failure.
I do not understand how it works, but supposedly once the turbo comes up to speed the parasitic load for super charger is minimal and runs continuously.
They mentioned a collaboration with Piper on the Seminole. Never thought I'd say this, but that may be a pretty cool personal plane with cruising speeds over 180 ktas.
Fits in a 40' T hangar
everyone can work on it/familiarity everywhere
108 gallons of fuel
Better short field performance
higher Vne, Va, Vno than a 42-VI
The current seminole Vmc is defined and matches stall speed (56 knots at MTOW), albeit with CR props
useful load on the lycoming models is ~1200 lbs
air conditioning available
You'd lose the counter rotating props with DH engines, but the turbo should make it similar speed to the turbo seminole (180 ktas+) or more?. Add TKS and a radar and I think you have a cool plane
If they brought the Seneca back, the 200/235 hp engines would be neat
neema wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 10:38 pm
everyone can work on it/familiarity everywhere
Why wouldn't service availability for the Delta Hawk be even less than the Austro?
Diamond has rolled out more locations that DeltaHawk has.
On the flip side, DH has many fewer parts (no ECU, no valve train, no transmission...) and DH has a much shorter logistics supply train for those of us in the USA. These advantages, only matter in terms of execution. Can DH execute? Yet to be seen.
