Raptor Composite Aircraft

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

rbarnes

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
67
Location
Texas
The DeltaHawk isn't affordable- something like $90K.
That pricing is better than it looks at first glance.

$90k is actually for a turn key firewall forward installation by DeltaHawk into your experimental plane. Including prop, fuel system and electronics. True turn key install. When adding all that cost to the engine 90k is not that bad.

They're offering this installed kit for the first dozen or so engines to get some engines flying in people's planes as quick as possible
 

TarDevil

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
490
Location
Coastal North Carolina/USA
That pricing is better than it looks at first glance.

$90k is actually for a turn key firewall forward installation by DeltaHawk into your experimental plane. Including prop, fuel system and electronics. True turn key install. When adding all that cost to the engine 90k is not that bad.

They're offering this installed kit for the first dozen or so engines to get some engines flying in people's planes as quick as possible
Yeah, my thoughts. High, but not horrible considering they will get thrust for you at that price.
The bigger issue with a Deltahawk engine is power. I don't think they have anything powerful enough to produce a climb in Raptor.
 

BoKu

Pundit
HBA Supporter
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
2,573
Location
Western US
The P&W R2800 was arguably one of the most successful aircraft piston engines ever - but it took a long time to get there. The TV issues alone almost scrapped the concept...
I really enjoyed No Short Days by Kimble D. McCutcheon. It's available as a series of .pdfs from the Aircraft Engine Historical Society: https://www.enginehistory.org/engines.shtml
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
10,806
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
That pricing is better than it looks at first glance.

$90k is actually for a turn key firewall forward installation by DeltaHawk into your experimental plane. Including prop, fuel system and electronics. True turn key install. When adding all that cost to the engine 90k is not that bad.
Their engine (180 HP) is not enough HP for the Raptor.

They're offering this installed kit for the first dozen or so engines to get some engines flying in people's planes as quick as possible
As quick as possible will be good: they have only been developing the engine for 22 years.


BJC
 

FarmBoy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
129
Location
Gainesville, VA
Turbos are elegantly simple, reliable, easy to control boost and become more efficient as altitude is increased. No reason to use any crankshaft driven forced induction.
A turbo itself, yes, selection, integration, and control of a set of turbos to provide both engine intake pressure normalization and bleed air for cabin pressurization over a defined range of temperatures and pressures customized for a specific engine not so much.

My thought about this unit was that it would be relatively simple to add as a source for cabin and engine pressure normalization to a desired altitude (e.g. 8-10,000 ft), providing an ability to use as a turnkey option to add to a wide range of standard (sea level optimized) engines (turbo or non-turbo) with little regard to displacement or RPM. It this regard, this is a very clever, 'elegant' device (that is itself basically a CVT belt driven turbo) that could be programmed to only provide make-up pressure as demanded by ambient pressure and would otherwise cause little to no load on an engine at low altitude.
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,749
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The DeltaHawk is still unproven in my book as far as power, longevity and reliability goes. No way I'd be the first to drop $90K on their promises. They rate right up their with the Zoche diesel and the 6 cylinder Pmag promises. They all lost credibility years ago in my book.

Raptor needs at least 350 hp to be viable, perhaps 400 if the bloated weight can't be brought down a bunch. Maybe these folks could help: https://advanced-aero.com/product/g3-standard-turbo-lycoming-engine-tio-540-br-385hp/
 

gtae07

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
1,932
Location
Savannah, Georgia
Yes, engine development projects intended for production aircraft are for engine guys, not amateurs, ditto for PSRU development. Yes, you can do it by trial and error but it will take years. Even professional engineers and people with years of practical experience learn new things and don't get every aspect right the first time around.
The P&W R2800 was arguably one of the most successful aircraft piston engines ever - but it took a long time to get there. The TV issues alone almost scrapped the concept.

The bulletproof example found on the wings of DC-6's flying families all over the country was a long way removed from the prototypes which ate themselves on the test stand with alarming regularity
But we have computers now! Everything should be perfect the first time!

Besides, any fool would know that test failures, schedule slips, and budget exceedences would have all been prevented had proper risk reduction taken place and detailed program management been applied.


(we need a sarcasm tag here...)
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,302
Location
Fresno, California
At this point, it seems like the best engine choice might be a turbine or turboprop. That could provide the necessary power, and more. Weight savings on the engine, but you’ll need to carry more fuel.
 

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
3,083
Location
Thunder Bay
At this point, it seems like the best engine choice might be a turbine or turboprop. That could provide the necessary power, and more. Weight savings on the engine, but you’ll need to carry more fuel.
I was thinking the same. Maybe a nearly run-out Walter?
 

Kyle Boatright

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2012
Messages
899
Location
Marietta, GA
At this point, it seems like the best engine choice might be a turbine or turboprop. That could provide the necessary power, and more. Weight savings on the engine, but you’ll need to carry more fuel.
Good idea. Ain't like the amazing projected range has any real utility. Lindbergh and Max Conrad are the only two people I know of who were dedicated enough to sit in an SEL seat for that long...
 

FarmBoy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
129
Location
Gainesville, VA
Raptor needs at least 350 hp to be viable, perhaps 400 if the bloated weight can't be brought down a bunch. Maybe these folks could help: https://advanced-aero.com/product/g3-standard-turbo-lycoming-engine-tio-540-br-385hp/
A normally aspirated 540 has a dry weight of 438 lbs - might as well go with an LS3.

As noted previously, one of these - https://www.vividracing.com/ford-racing-23l-mustang-ecoboost-crate-engine-p-151854857.html - is 340lbs full up and with the right ECU programming and a good IC can easily produce 350+ FWHP at 4000 RPM from the stock crate engine (https://www.drivingline.com/articles/ecoboosted-adding-96-hp-to-ford-s-23l-ford-mustang). Add a Ballistic PSRU and for less than $15K (with an SDS EFI) you have a solid power plant. Add a Torotrak V-charge and you should be good to go with pressurization up to 25,000 ft. You ought to able to complete a firewall back package for with prop (including air conditioning) with this setup and save 2-300 lbs from his current configuration.
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,749
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Peter had originally listed PT6s as an engine choice but the engine was worth much more than he wanted to sell the whole airplane for so that was passed by. Might have been better to go after fewer turbine sales than the mass market but then he'd be competing directly against Lancair IVPs which already demonstrate superior performance over his projected numbers.

For 4 cylinder engines, there is still the question of TV with the PSRU and I'd never try to get over 100hp/L out of an engine for aircraft use. Chances are that the long term durability wouldn't be there, especially at 150hp/L.
 
Last edited:

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
12,571
Location
Memphis, TN
This project is the perfect real world example on how hard it is to be different. Nothing off the shelf means you’re not getting any relief in someone else’s knowledge covering part of the project spec. 100% responsible is hard to swallow when it is a real 100%.

Develop an engine gearbox combo; do you have the time? Even putting off the shelf parts together takes time and testing. Once you add that up, is the value better. You might have squeezed the turnip to get the initial parts and never figure out how to mate them. 100% Fail.

I have seen so many projects where the owner will not finish something because it needs $100 a piece bolts. Throw $20,000 away because of principle of 5 hundred dollar bolts, fail. Principal is misplaced. The bolts have no ego.

A Titan 51 V8 FWF is about $45K with all the discounts. Close to $60k if no connection to their airplanes. Minimum you will spend the same $45K in time and parts to duplicate it to equal operating reliability. That is what it will cost to fly a $7000 engine. That is if you are 100% self sufficient know it all. Need help? Better have the right friends or pay.

You can do it better? We are watching the we can do it better right now.

If he has been smarter, he should have developed the airframe and engine separate. Not because he could have divided the development problems into separate areas. He could have had two viewerships and double if not triple the people watching. Whichever side of the project was a turnoff could be deferred to the other. Keep the train wrecks separate.
 

BBerson

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
12,965
Location
Port Townsend WA
For over water flights to Hawaii, I think maybe a Lycoming dual pack twin engine, with both into one prop shaft might work. Using two turbocharged Lycoming engines with wide belt drives to the prop shaft, and with overrunning clutches if one engine fails. Like the 8" wide belt drive on a turbocharged Enstrom. These engines could be overhauled used engines instead of new. His Audi engine was used, I think. Overhauled Lycoming engines would not be worse than any new diesel even if any brand new diesel auto engine is available to buy. Since diesels tend to tear up the PSRU with the high compression shocks.
The Rutan Voyager went around the world without using any Diesel engines. They had two engines and shut one down for extended range. Over water two is better but one can be shut down for reserve if needed.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
12,571
Location
Memphis, TN
I just put a new belt on one of the company’s Enstrom last week so I know them well, but the obvious choice is two 540’s, Piaggio style. At least you could kill the butterfly with a hammer. Anyone buying into one of these projects is not really caring about cheap, they want to be different. I have a friend who built a Defiant. He sold it a couple of years ago because he was trying to update it and the project bogged down. Last year he bought a ready to fly Velocity. He had a V8 juice moment. He could not figure out new doors, and once he had the Velocity it became obvious copying the Velocity doors would have allowed him to fix the last update problem. By the way his Defiant had originally two auto conversions. He had lots of problems. It has Lycomings on it now.
 

rbarnes

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
67
Location
Texas
The DeltaHawk is still unproven in my book as far as power, longevity and reliability goes. No way I'd be the first to drop $90K on their promises. They rate right up their with the Zoche diesel and the 6 cylinder Pmag promises. They all lost credibility years ago in my book.

Raptor needs at least 350 hp to be viable, perhaps 400 if the bloated weight can't be brought down a bunch. Maybe these folks could help: https://advanced-aero.com/product/g3-standard-turbo-lycoming-engine-tio-540-br-385hp/
My comment was not based on using the DeltaHawk in the Raptor, just on your comment that "$90k was expensive". I think once it is offered in certified version the engine alone will price out similarly to a Cont TSIO 360 (which is admittedly a very expensive 200hp engine)
Before the Rudd Family came along with their half a billion in deep pockets I would have agreed with you. The DeltaHawk is legit now. (finally) It has the funding it always needed and a family with a passion for aviation and long proven history in running a successful industrial manufacturing business.

I've been following the Raptor since day one and was fascinated to watch the CNC mold building process. I commented on YT at the beginning that he was making a huge mistake with the initial engine choice and his reply was "if it doesn't work we can stick a Continental in there" .... which turned out to not be true with progressively narrower and narrower tunnel vision being displayed by Peter.

He almost lost me when he weighed the engine alone. He really started pushing me over the edge when he weighed the whole plane. I gave up on this thing ever working when I watched him stick 100lbs in the nose as "ballast". o_O
Like watching a slow motion car wreck at this point. All you can do is cringe and wait for the crunch...
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,749
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The Deltahawk, no matter what how deep the pockets are behind it, is still unproven in my view. When they get 100 flying and they accumulate 2000 hours each, trouble free, they will have arrived. They must have spent many tens of millions on R&D in the last couple decades, that money needs to be earned back and I'm not convinced that will be any time soon even at that $90K price which includes prop, engineering and labor. I don't believe the market is there in North America given the price of avgas and the fact that the BSFC is little better in cruise than a Lyconental running LOP with EIs. There will never be a net cost savings even over 2000 hours. We'll see on that one.

Military and foreign sales where avgas prices are much higher may boost the numbers of course. Now, DH has lots of competition from the Continental and Austro diesels which are well proven. Too late to the market to take a big share now.
 

Bert

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
47
Location
Stony Plain
I gave up on this thing ever working when I watched him stick 100lbs in the nose as "ballast". o_O
If memory serves me, he put that ballast in to keep the nose from accidentally rising during high speed taxi tests. It is not intended to be there once flying begins.
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,749
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
I think that ballast will stay there given the massive weight of the propulsion package. He doesn't have an idea of where the C of G is anymore but almost all weight has gone in aft.

In 2013, the empty weight estimate was 1800 pounds, it's now likely more than 3200... Huge miscalculation and weight growth.
 
Last edited:
2
Top