What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Delta Hawk

Mike S

Senior Curmudgeon
So, any of you who went to Osh stop in at Delta Hawk-----assuming they had a booth.

I found this looking for their site just now.

Any info about their FWF packages????
 
Hmmm looks like they have come to their senses but why not do just one airframe at a time (like 7/7A first)? Spreading things thin isn't the way to ensure survival in these times.

I may have warp drive engines on my RV10 before these DH engines are actually available. They should have made this move years ago.
 
When I went by their booth at Oshkosh on Friday there was nary any traffic stopping to look at their engine. Everybody who knew just walked on by.
I see they are now marketing FF engine kits for RV-10s as well as others.
200 hp in a RV-10....I don't think so. It's really kind of a shame. If they actually could deliver a good product they would have plenty of customers including me. They should have entered the experimental market first and then tried to certify their engines as Ross seems to have alluded to.

We did happen to stumble on the Eggenfellner booth. My son-in-law was quite taken by the display as it showed off some visually actractive engine/psru FF packages. I told him to keep walking and I'd explain later.:p
 
They should have entered the experimental market first and then tried to certify their engines as Ross seems to have alluded to.

Yes, that's what I'm saying and I never understand why so many companies want to try to certify first and forget about the huge experimental market. (Mistral, Toyota, Honda, Orenda, Rotax V6). You can generate cash flow, get plenty of hours on, have time to work minor bugs out, establish the name and reputation at lower cost, save millions in certification costs and limit liability initially. Once you get 50,000+ hours on in the experimental market, just think how much more smoothly and quickly certification will go. They might not run out of money for certification with money coming in the back door either. What a concept.

Interesting, your comment about traffic past the DH booth- seems like the never delivery syndrome that Zoche developed a decade ago has pervaded DH now too. That is a shame but reflects a poor decision making process within the company. Both of these engines should have been widely flying years ago.
 
Last edited:
Delta Hawk rule out

I did not make OSH but one of our chapter members who did also reported at Tuesday nights meeting that the price had climbed to $60+. I lost interest at the $48k estimate during Sun & Fun, but wish them well.:
Solomon9A
Finish Kit, Newport News
 
That price is crazy. You can by a decade worth of fuel for your $20K Lycoming with the other $40K left over.

Only the military and a few civilians with very deep pockets are going to pay that kind of money. IMO they don't have a prayer.
 
Yes, it is a FAR cry from their original estimates of around $25k for a 160hp model. It will rule them out for the majority of buyers.

A pity - really looks nice.
 
Where does the $62+ figure come from? I couldn't find it on their website, was it quoted at Oshkosh?
 
Part of that is that they start off by claiming a $40k initial purchase price for a IO360 - which is way above any price I've seen advertised anywhere, ever, and then they add a turbonormalizing system at $11k to the 360, which seems to be a SWAG price to me.

They have an excellent option for the market, it's a shame they choose not to sell it by pricing it at such extravagant rates. Perhaps they are counting on the fear factor of 100LL going away to "force" certificated aircraft owners to purchase the DH engine to be able to burn Jet A? That would explain their certification efforts, and tell us exactly what they think of the experimental market.
 
Last edited:
Part of that is that they start off by claiming a $40k initial purchase price for a IO360 - which is way above any price I've seen advertised anywhere, ever, and then they add a turbonormalizing system at $11k to the 360, which seems to be a SWAG price to me.

Perhaps they got the prices from the Lancair site.

To be fair, what Deltahawk is selling does compete straight up with the TNIO-360. I agree it's a big pot of money, but perhaps we just aren't looking at it from the "fast glass" perspective. :cool:
 
I also thought the price for the engine and turbo system was exaggerated until I looked it up. Van's sells discounted certified IO-360A1B6's for $37k. MSRP from Lycomings website is ~$45k. As Ted pointed out, it looks like Deltahawk got the prices from Lancair, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. Of course most of us RV guys buy experimental engines from Mattituck, Aerosport Power, etc. for much less than certified Lycoming.
 
No doubt some fast glass guys have the change for a DH.

SMA has not found much of a market for their certified diesel, probably due to the price ($75K).
 
Deltahawk

Here's my two cents worth:

I've done the firewall-forward thing with a liquid cooled, turbo-intercooled diesel engine, and I can tell you that it's not easy, and if my time's worth anything, not cheap. However, I'm very pleased with the results so far.

I'm sure that when they're talking $60K, they're talking the entire package. If I remember right, I paid $21K for my engine (WAM120), $9.3K for the MT 3 blade prop, $1.1K for the motor mount, $900 for Cowling (which I then had to modify), $1K for the engine monitor/data logger, etc. You get the picture... At the end of the day, I've probably got $35K in the FWF, and I've only got 120 hp. Question is, is it worth it? I think so. I fly along at 155 mph TAS, burning 4 gph of fuel that costs me $2.00/gal. :)

I'm sure that when you figure all the costs involved with installing a Lycoming, they also add up. Remember that there are a zillion of them out there (FWF setups, all dialed in), which brings the costs down.

But the Diesel/Jet A guys have to start somewhere. I'm sure with time, the cost will come down somewhat. I do believe that Diesel is coming - maybe not so soon to the US, but the rest of the world really needs it.

Liberty Aircraft had XL2 in their booth at OSH with a WAM engine in it.

http://blogs.flyer.co.uk/2009/07/liberty-xl2-to-get-diesel-power.html

According to one of the Liberty Aerospace officials, the diesel is a "strategic must" for their Euopean market. He also said that the WAM engine would be certified within 4-6 months. This seems optimistic to me, but I am in regular contact with the factory, and they are progressing. They are well-funded too.

By the way, who ever said that these projects of ours make financial sense anyway?

Kurt Goodfellow
RV9/WAM120 diesel, flying, 70 hours.
 
The only thing that will make diesel a go in aviation is no fuel for current engines. It makes no sense to buy a diesel engine if there is fuel for existing engines, especially with diesel costing as much or more than gas.

There was a time in the 30's when diesel engines were powering large airplanes in Germany but the world went gasoline during the war and after with aircraft engines, probably because aviation fuel was relatively cheap and provided more power at much less weight.

If the technology leap forward by Swift is successful, there will be a seamless new fuel for existing aircraft engines. So far it has passed all FAA requirements and the effort is moving on to a pilot plant that will produce 200 gallons a day. This product appears to be a viable alternative to 100LL but there are challenges, not the least of which are a steady supply of raw materials (sugar cane or sorghum will work), production and distribution. Sugar cane, for example will be pressed for a liquid in the field and all residual parts of the plant will go back into the soil. The end product fuel is about 25% more green than current fuels. The company estimates it will take a land area about half the size of Rhode Island to grow enough green material to manufacture sufficient fuel for all aviation gasoline requirements. The cost supposedly, will be competitive with current fuel costs. It is relatively local and not subject to shipping costs of crude from everywhere in the world.
 
A few more things to consider:

1. Diesel / JetA1 is currently available all over the world, whereas avgas is much more scarce.
2. The military is moving steadily towards all heavy fuels.
3. The US is the one of the only countries still in love with gasoline. We're crazy about gasoline hybrid cars while Europe and other countries are far more efficient and clean with diesel technology. The 2009 Green Car of the Year is not a Toyota Prius, it's a Volkswagen Jetta TDI. The diesels racing in f1 events were whipping the gasoline cars so bad that their fuel tank capacity had to be limited just to make it fair.
4. There was a time, not so long ago, when you wouldn't even consider buying a diesel pickup because they were underpowered, smokey, hard-starting pigs. Now, if you want to pull anything, you'd be a fool not to. Diesels start better, pull leaps and bounds better, and are cleaner than gas engines, not to mention more efficient. The truck buying public of today has no problem shelling out an extra $5-7K for the diesel option.
5. While the Swift fuel may be an excellent alternative for Avgas, the technology still developing, as mentioned. Biodiesel is already available, with new and better technology coming all the time. I've got a good friend who is developing a very large Biodiesel plant here in 'Vegas. From conversations with him, the biggest problem with renewable fuels is that as they come on line, the OPEC nations lower their prices to the point that renewables can't begin to compete, so the development slows or halts. Then there's the issue with govt subsidies and using our food-producing farm ground to produce fuel. Needless to say, it's going to be awhile before we're running on renewable fuels. But when we do, diesel (bio-diesel or whatever) will most likely still be more widely available at less cost than Avgas or it's replacement.
6. Diesels are generally more reliable and longer-lasting than gasoline engines. Diesel is also much safer. Not only is it less flammable than gasoline, the exhaust fumes won't kill you.

Do I sound like a diesel freak or what?:)
Kurt Goodfellow
RV9/WAM120 diesel - flying
 
A few more things to consider:

1. Diesel / JetA1 is currently available all over the world, whereas avgas is much more scarce.
2. The military is moving steadily towards all heavy fuels.
3. The US is the one of the only countries still in love with gasoline. We're crazy about gasoline hybrid cars while Europe and other countries are far more efficient and clean with diesel technology. The 2009 Green Car of the Year is not a Toyota Prius, it's a Volkswagen Jetta TDI. The diesels racing in f1 events were whipping the gasoline cars so bad that their fuel tank capacity had to be limited just to make it fair.
4. There was a time, not so long ago, when you wouldn't even consider buying a diesel pickup because they were underpowered, smokey, hard-starting pigs. Now, if you want to pull anything, you'd be a fool not to. Diesels start better, pull leaps and bounds better, and are cleaner than gas engines, not to mention more efficient. The truck buying public of today has no problem shelling out an extra $5-7K for the diesel option.
5. While the Swift fuel may be an excellent alternative for Avgas, the technology still developing, as mentioned. Biodiesel is already available, with new and better technology coming all the time. I've got a good friend who is developing a very large Biodiesel plant here in 'Vegas. From conversations with him, the biggest problem with renewable fuels is that as they come on line, the OPEC nations lower their prices to the point that renewables can't begin to compete, so the development slows or halts. Then there's the issue with govt subsidies and using our food-producing farm ground to produce fuel. Needless to say, it's going to be awhile before we're running on renewable fuels. But when we do, diesel (bio-diesel or whatever) will most likely still be more widely available at less cost than Avgas or it's replacement.
6. Diesels are generally more reliable and longer-lasting than gasoline engines. Diesel is also much safer. Not only is it less flammable than gasoline, the exhaust fumes won't kill you.

Do I sound like a diesel freak or what?:)
Kurt Goodfellow
RV9/WAM120 diesel - flying

DH being an American company probably is mainly looking at the huge North American market where avgas is relatively cheap and available. Jet fuel is not widely available at many small airports in North America.

(SI= spark ignition)

F1 has never been dominated by diesel engines nor has a diesel won a single race in F1. You are thinking sports car racing perhaps and especially endurance racing where regulations crippling SI engines have given diesels a chance to win for the last few years. Where fuel economy becomes a primary concern in a racing class, the diesel engine excels. Diesels are completely uncompetitive against SI engines given open regulation as far as rev limits, boost limits and compressor restrictor sizes..

Interestingly in Consumer Reports, their long term Prius got better mileage in the real world than their VW TDI. SI engines today meet the same emission standards as diesels with less add ons. Many of the small SI cars like the Civic and Corolla get very close to the mileage of a TDI in the real world. I know several people with both types of cars.

Diesels don't start better, certainly not in cold weather around here when they must remain plugged in when it is really cold.

Diesels do not "pull better" than a comparably sized turbocharged SI engine. Such a big myth. If you compare various turbo diesel/ SI cars with the same size engine, the SI turbos wax the diesel's acceleration in every case using a fraction of the boost pressure. The turbo diesel's very high boost pressures give them what appears to be very impressive torque. Remove the turbo and you have a very lame engine in every respect. I'll be happy to race your turbo diesel with a turbo SI engine of the same displacement any time, should you wish a demonstration.

North America is a different world than Europe and diesel fuel is often more money than gasoline, making any slight advantage in fuel economy a wash, especially if the diesel option is a few grand more.

Advances in SI technology such as DI (direct injection- a spinoff from diesel technology) and Valvetronic allow modern SI engines to approach the fuel efficiency of modern diesels.

I would not say that diesels are more reliable in the real automotive world at least. Some are, some are disasters with frequent injector problems which can be very expensive in the case of the light truck V8s. Most any modern automotive engine these days will go 200-300,000 miles without much maintenance- longer than most of us would keep a vehicle. Despite all the advances in diesels, my nose tells me they still stink and the fuel stinks.

Diesels make sense in Europe where the fuel is more widely available and much cheaper than gasoline. Over here, they make less sense.

Nobody has proven yet that diesel aero engines have the long term reliability, low initial cost, power to weight ratio, performance and established dealer network to dethrone the SI engine yet. Perhaps the time will come sometime but it is not here yet. In any case DH is far, far away from all this at present.

Nothing has changed much since this topic was thrashed at length on VAF in 2008- except the price- which I predicted back in 2008.
 
Last edited:
I apologize on the F1 thing. I meant LeMans. Audi's had many wins with the diesel. In fact, the R10 won every race from it's introduction until the R15, which hasn't done as well. At least that's what I've read.

Does Consumer Reports do Europe or Japan? Honda's diesel car gets 62 mpg, Toyota's is close, and Subaru has a nice boxer diesel.

Much of what you say is correct; there's no doubt that the US will continue to use primarily gasoline for it's lighter vehicles. Gas is cheaper in some places than diesel. And there's no doubt that the diesel needs more boost to produce the power that it does. That's the nature of the engine. I think it has a nice smell.

I won't argue that at the drags, the modified SI engines will win every time, as long as they're boosted enough and can hold together. But the diesels are creeping up on them. Banks' 400 inch diesel S10 pickup runs in the 7's.

And it's a sure thing that many diesels have been failures, just as many SI engines have been failures. I believe that it was the dismal failure of the GM auto diesels of the 70's that soured the US on lighter diesels until recently.

But if what you're saying is true, why don't our trains or or our over-the-road trucks use gasoline engines? How about ships? Tell you what; you bring your turbo or supercharged 400 inch SI pickup, we'll hook up a trailer with 10,000 lbs on it, and we'll pull against a similarly loaded stock diesel pickup (they're all around 400 inch) up the grapevine grade in CA, or some other grade. The magazines have been doing these comparisons for years now, and the diesel always come out on top. Everyone knows that. That's why they sell so well.

Ross, it's funny that you would make such a case against diesel technology when you're spending a lot of time, energy, money, and risk trying to develop a technology (Subaru FWF) that has been no more successful than aerodiesels. Using your reasoning, we should all just stick with Lycomings. They work, they're widely available, relatively cheap, very reliable, simple, good support....

Much of your argument confirms what I'm saying: that the rest of the world needs the diesel aircraft engine, and they're gonna get it. The US doesn't need it (or want it for that matter). We're content with what we've got, and that's ok. If the time comes when we do need it, it will be available, just not likely from US companies. Which brings us back to Deltahawk. I agree with you 100%. They've got a tough road ahead. I salute them for what they've done and hope that they succeed, just as I hope you succeed with your Sub conversions.

If DH actually came to market with with an engine, I would spend the extra money in a heartbeat - because I know diesels and am convinced (obviously!) after 25 years of building, racing, and driving diesels, that they are a great option. I say this because I'm comfortable with them, just as many of you are comfortable with SI engines.

Kurt
 
Diesels make sense as prime movers where weight is of little concern- trains, ships, heavy trucks, maybe even cars and possibly in aircraft where cost and availability of gasoline is a factor.

Like I said, any time you want to haul something heavy up a grade, I'll bet a years pay that a turbo SI engine will easily out accelerate a turbo CI engine of the same displacement. There is simply no comparison to area under the curve between the two.

There are some 2.5L SI drag cars producing 1400hp and 800 lb/ft running low 6s these days.

Certainly no diesel can match the specific output of the turbo era F1 cars (1000hp/L) or even approach a fraction of the 6500+hp and 4500+ lb/ft. that Top Fuel engines produce these days on a cubic inch basis or in ETs or trap speeds.

For production cars, the Ultimate Aero shows what a modern SI turbo engine can do- 380 cubic inches 1183+hp, 1094+ lb.ft., 0-60 in 2.7 seconds, 1/4 mile at 9.9 and is the fastest production car in the world at 255mph.

An apples to apples comparison of the BMW 335i SI turbo and 335D CI turbo, both with 3L engines, shows the gasoline engine a full second quicker 0-60, 6 mph faster in the quarter mile and running only 8.5 psi boost compared to 26.8 on the diesel. Fuel economy was 3-4 mpg better on the diesel but this was negated from a cost standpoint due to diesel fuel costing 15-20% more in the US. The diesel also requires urea injection to meet 50 state emissions standards. For a boost vs. torque and hp comparison, Dinan mods bring the 335i hp to 392hp and torque to 429 lb/ft at only 13.2 psi (still half the boost of the diesel) on pump fuel and with full factory warranty intact. This is 127 more hp and 4 lb/ft more than the diesel. No doubt the diesel can be pumped up as well but I'm trying to illustrate the point that diesels do not have high torque because they are diesels, it is all due to boost pressure.

High boost equals high torque on both CI and SI engines. The race Merlins make close to 7000 lb/ft at 145-150 inches (2 stage supercharger). The 550 Conti in Mike Dacey's Super Sport Venture makes 1400 lb/ft at power peak rpm running 75 inches.

No doubt there are people who will pay a premium to have a diesel engine whether it is in their car or aircraft because they like them. Do they make economic sense in overall costs? Probably not in North America currently. In Europe, payback on the initial high cost of a diesel would be far more rapid and therefore probably worth it if engine life is close to the typical 2000 hours on a Lycoming.

While I fly a Subaru, the jury is out on whether the per hour costs from acquisition, fuel use and repair/ overhaul costs compare favorably with the tried and true Lycoming. If I can get 500 hours between overhauls it looks like it would save only about $3000 total over 2000 hours- probably not worth the trouble over the Lycoming. Some of us are slow to learn...:eek:
 
Last edited:
An apples to apples comparison of the BMW 335i SI turbo and 335D CI turbo, both with 3L engines, shows the gasoline engine a full second quicker 0-60, 6 mph faster in the quarter mile and running only 8.5 psi boost compared to 26.8 on the diesel. Fuel economy was 3-4 mpg better on the diesel but this was negated from a cost standpoint due to diesel fuel costing 15-20% more in the US.
snipped

Diesel is cheaper these days..

The cost of diesel fuel at the moment, is 10 cents or more....... less than un-leaded in many parts of the U.S. This is what it was about six years ago, when I purchased my first diesel pickup. Of course a year ago, they were selling diesel for more than premium un-leaded fuel.
 
Diesel is cheaper these days..

The cost of diesel fuel at the moment, is 10 cents or more....... less than un-leaded in many parts of the U.S. This is what it was about six years ago, when I purchased my first diesel pickup. Of course a year ago, they were selling diesel for more than premium un-leaded fuel.

Yes, diesel fuel costs swing around a lot. It is a no brainer in Europe where diesel is always less than premium gasoline and WAY less than avgas. Up here in Canada currently diesel is about the same as 92 octane.

Not sure what the situation is as far a jet fuel availability at small airports in the the US but here in Canada, virtually no airports with runways shorter than 4-5000 feet have jet fuel on hand unless there are helicopter ops there. Airports are further apart up here too for the most part. That would be a concern here with a diesel aircraft until more infrastructure is in place.
 
Diesels make sense as prime movers where weight is of little concern- trains, ships, heavy trucks, maybe even cars and possibly in aircraft where cost and availability of gasoline is a factor.

Like I said, any time you want to haul something heavy up a grade, I'll bet a years pay that a turbo SI engine will easily out accelerate a turbo CI engine of the same displacement. There is simply no comparison to area under the curve between the two.

There are some 2.5L SI drag cars producing 1400hp and 800 lb/ft running low 6s these days.

Certainly no diesel can match the specific output of the turbo era F1 cars (1000hp/L) or even approach a fraction of the 6500+hp and 4500+ lb/ft. that Top Fuel engines produce these days on a cubic inch basis or in ETs or trap speeds.

For production cars, the Ultimate Aero shows what a modern SI turbo engine can do- 380 cubic inches 1183+hp, 1094+ lb.ft., 0-60 in 2.7 seconds, 1/4 mile at 9.9 and is the fastest production car in the world at 255mph.

An apples to apples comparison of the BMW 335i SI turbo and 335D CI turbo, both with 3L engines, shows the gasoline engine a full second quicker 0-60, 6 mph faster in the quarter mile and running only 8.5 psi boost compared to 26.8 on the diesel. Fuel economy was 3-4 mpg better on the diesel but this was negated from a cost standpoint due to diesel fuel costing 15-20% more in the US. The diesel also requires urea injection to meet 50 state emissions standards. For a boost vs. torque and hp comparison, Dinan mods bring the 335i hp to 392hp and torque to 429 lb/ft at only 13.2 psi (still half the boost of the diesel) on pump fuel and with full factory warranty intact. This is 127 more hp and 4 lb/ft more than the diesel. No doubt the diesel can be pumped up as well but I'm trying to illustrate the point that diesels do not have high torque because they are diesels, it is all due to boost pressure.

High boost equals high torque on both CI and SI engines. The race Merlins make close to 7000 lb/ft at 145-150 inches (2 stage supercharger). The 550 Conti in Mike Dacey's Super Sport Venture makes 1400 lb/ft at power peak rpm running 75 inches.

No doubt there are people who will pay a premium to have a diesel engine whether it is in their car or aircraft because they like them. Do they make economic sense in overall costs? Probably not in North America currently. In Europe, payback on the initial high cost of a diesel would be far more rapid and therefore probably worth it if engine life is close to the typical 2000 hours on a Lycoming.

While I fly a Subaru, the jury is out on whether the per hour costs from acquisition, fuel use and repair/ overhaul costs compare favorably with the tried and true Lycoming. If I can get 500 hours between overhauls it looks like it would save only about $3000 total over 2000 hours- probably not worth the trouble over the Lycoming. Some of us are slow to learn...:eek:

Ross,
I've always respected your opinions, but you're missing my point. Let me give it one more shot, then I'll shut up.

You keep going back to drag racing and acceleration. SI engines are designed for just that, and they do it well. My point is not, nor has it been about acceleration. It's about the long, hard, fully loaded pull. CI engines were designed for it, and in most cases they have been proven to do it much better and much more efficiently. I agree that they work best in a prime-mover mode, where weight is not a factor. But I believe that the traits of a diesel lend themselves to aviation, if weight issues can be resolved. Airplanes are not dragsters. IMHO, the best aviation engines are those designed for the long hard pull. That is why Lycs and Cont. work so well - slow rpms, lots of cubes. As far as weight is concerned, the diesels are getting closer. My RV9 weighs 985 lb, which is several lb less than the O-235 powered RV9's.

As far as your bet goes, you're on!! If you can find a stock turbocharged 400 inch SI pickup, bring it on down and we'll pull the Baker grade together on a hot day, with 10,000 lbs in tow. I make a decent salary and I'll gladly put it up. Sure, you'll out-accelerate me for the first few miles, but I'm not worried about that. :)

Your BMW example makes a good point. It is impressive to me that both engines are the same displacement, both turboed, and the diesel is only 1 second behind (I'd trade 1 second of acceleration for 3-4 mpg). Just a few years ago, this would be unheard of. It also illustrates my point that that CI technology is moving forward in leaps and bounds, but won't be coming from the US. Interesting that BMW, MB, VW, Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan, Audi, Cadillac, Jeep, etc, have all spent tremendous amounts of $$ developing clean diesel technology, and we reject it (for the most part) here in North America. You're right, the extra MPG or power is sometimes not worth paying the extra cost of the fuel during times when diesel is higher. Its a shame the US has taxed diesel so heavily. I run the non-taxed fuel in my RV, which saves me $.50/gal.

I know you make your living being good at SI technology, so I'm not going to convince you of anything. But I will say that I'm very happy with the performance and economy of my Diesel RV9. I have enjoyed the challenge of developing the FWF installation.

Kurt
 
The only things that matter to accelleration with a C/S prop are weight and horsepower (assuming drag is equal), since the C/S prop will absorb 100% of the hp being generated. The 2-cycle diesel has gotten the weight into competitive range of the gasoline engines; with weight roughly the same accelleration will be also roughly the same.

Although the diesel burns fewer gallons per hour, pounds per hour are similar to a LOP gas engine. Thus, total mission weight (enough fuel to get you there) will also be about the same.

That leaves you with lifetime cost. If you can burn $2/gal diesel instead of $5/gal 100LL, and if you burn fewer gallons, you will eventually save money.

But that's a lot of gas...
 
I know you make your living being good at SI technology, so I'm not going to convince you of anything. But I will say that I'm very happy with the performance and economy of my Diesel RV9. I have enjoyed the challenge of developing the FWF installation.

A bit off subject. How does a diesel rate in the "pleasing sound" department?

I rate the P-51 Mustang with a Merlin as the best sound ever.

A Harley comes in second.

Lycomings are in the upper scale, but Subies are somewhat annoying & almost irritating. The pitch is high, along with the revs for takeoff. Just not a pleasing combination for good old deep tone aircraft sounds!

Yesterday I wanted to start an airport patron petition against Eggenfellers, after my ears started hurting! Just kidding about the petition, but my ears still ache... :eek:

L.Adamson --- Chev diesel Silverado & Lyc
 
Diesel noise pleasing?

I agree that the P51 wins hands down when it comes to beautiful sounds. A nice radial engine rates second with me.

I was raised with GM 2 stroke diesels, so I love the sound. It's noisy, but I have nothing to compare it to. Definitely noisier than my C180 was, but nothing that my Bose head set doesn't take care of. It sounds kind of like an old farm tractor at idle, but when accelerating down the runway and at full power climb, it sounds like a hot rod. At 2700 rpm, it sounds like 5400, since the pistons are firing every rotation.

I don't know how the 4 stroke aero diesels sound, but I imagine that the auto conversons (Thielert, Austro and others) are very quiet, thanks to common rail injection. In the cars they come out of, they're extremely quiet.

A good friend of mine has a Egg H6 in his RV7A. He's flying off his phase I now, so I haven't flown in it yet, but it sure is quiet and smooth at low RPM's. I can barely hear him as he taxis by my hangar.

Kurt
 
As far as your bet goes, you're on!! If you can find a stock turbocharged 400 inch SI pickup, bring it on down and we'll pull the Baker grade together on a hot day, with 10,000 lbs in tow. I make a decent salary and I'll gladly put it up. Sure, you'll out-accelerate me for the first few miles, but I'm not worried about that. :)
Just curious - in what way are you expecting the SI engine to be inferior in this long climb? Are you expecting that the engine can not tolerate long duration, high power operation and will overheat? If it overheats, is that a fault of the engine type (SI vs CI), or of the cooling system design?
 
IA good friend of mine has a Egg H6 in his RV7A. He's flying off his phase I now, so I haven't flown in it yet, but it sure is quiet and smooth at low RPM's. I can barely hear him as he taxis by my hangar.

The H6 I'm thinking of is quite and smooth at low RPM's also.

L.Adamson
 
Certainly no diesel can match the specific output of the turbo era F1 cars (1000hp/L) or even approach a fraction of the 6500+hp and 4500+ lb/ft. that Top Fuel engines produce these days on a cubic inch basis or in ETs or trap speeds.

I haven't read the rest of your post yet, but i'm really surprised you'd use a top fuel anything as support for di si engine compared to a diesel in airplane use.

isn't top fuel a 90% nitromethane/ 10 % methanol? that is no way a fair comparison to anything in the mogas vs. diesel discussion this thread seems to have focused on lately. At least some of the other technology used in the diesel/ mogas car conversions are usable in an airplane, but i don't see funny gas ever getting in one for anything but race use
 
Its a shame the US has taxed diesel so heavily. I run the non-taxed fuel in my RV, which saves me $.50/gal.

I know you make your living being good at SI technology, so I'm not going to convince you of anything. But I will say that I'm very happy with the performance and economy of my Diesel RV9. I have enjoyed the challenge of developing the FWF installation.

Kurt

Hey Kurt, i was wondering, you use off road diesel (non road taxed?) Is your mix the higher sulfur diesel, and does your engine run better with it?
 
Diesel

I have the WAM-120 engine (The same as Kurt's) We're running Jet-A1 and it's working fine so far. The engine is designed for Jet-A1 so the low lubricity isn't a problem.

Dave
 
Just curious - in what way are you expecting the SI engine to be inferior in this long climb? Are you expecting that the engine can not tolerate long duration, high power operation and will overheat? If it overheats, is that a fault of the engine type (SI vs CI), or of the cooling system design?

Kevin,
It's not really something that I'm expecting. It's just the way it is. Just google gas vs diesel pickups, and there are several side-by-side comparisons available. Here's one:http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/ford/0707dp_2008_ford_super_duty_gas_vs_diesel/index.html
I'm not a big fan of the Ford Diesel, but the article speaks for itself. There are similar articles about Dodges & Chevs.

Now, in these comparisons, the SI engine is not turbocharged, But the comparisions I've read always compares the biggest, most powerful SI engine available from the manufacturers, and it's always a larger displacement engine. I don't know of anyone manufacturing a turbocharged or supercharged 3/4 or 1 ton SI pickup at this time. I suspect this is because of the fact that the Turbo/SI engine won't hold up in the long haul.

I've had several friends add turbochargers to their SI truck or motorhome engine, and they make great power. But none of them have held up for very long. On the long grades, they build too much heat. And the fuel economy is dismal. As you say, this may be a fault of the cooling system design. But there must be a reason that no truck manufacturer that I'm aware of has ever chosen to develop and market a turbocharged SI engine for pulling.

As the Ford article indicates, there are definitely niches for each product. But reliable, efficient pulling goes to the diesel every time.

Back to the Deltahawk engine: I was thinking; as we compare prices between the Lyc and the DH, and turbocharging or turbonormalizing has to be a part of the equation (as indicated in this thread), then I don't believe that the DH is far off, price wise, all things considered. Do I think it is the best option at this point for everyone? Definitely not. It's a different animal, and they still have some distance to travel, with FWF kits and all. But, as Ross states, in the rest of the world, they have a market. This is why there are so many companies developing CI engines for aircraft.

Kurt
 
I haven't read the rest of your post yet, but i'm really surprised you'd use a top fuel anything as support for di si engine compared to a diesel in airplane use.

isn't top fuel a 90% nitromethane/ 10 % methanol? that is no way a fair comparison to anything in the mogas vs. diesel discussion this thread seems to have focused on lately. At least some of the other technology used in the diesel/ mogas car conversions are usable in an airplane, but i don't see funny gas ever getting in one for anything but race use

If we compare the highest specific output SI and CI engines, irregardless of fuel, the SI engines win hands down. At these levels, mechanical strength of the engine is probably more important than anything else. If you wish to compare gasoline or alcohol fueled SI engines with diesels (race diesels can run on DME too), they still win hands down. Said Merlin develops a BMEP of over 600psi using 60 year old technology. The best F1 turbo engines of that amazing era developed nearly 1300psi at power peak rpm! (1000hp/ L specific output) The much revered Audi turbo R10 diesel race engine is about on par with a STOCK Honda S2000 atmo engine at 120hp/L specific output. BMEP on the R10 race diesel is a mere 363 psi- mediocre in the world of turbocharged SI race engines.

The point I'm trying to make here is simply to dispel this false torque myth perpetuated about diesel engines and "pulling power". Hp does the work, not torque in all motive applications whether it is truck pulling a trailer or in an airplane. Within the effective rev range, area under the hp curve defines an engines ability to perform work. Since the SI engine is a much higher speed device and gasolines and alcohols perform better at high piston speeds, there is no contest in this regard. SI engines generate higher hp on a per displacement and per manifold pressure basis than CI engines period.

Do you ever wonder why almost every diesel engine produced in the world today is turbocharged including those used on portable cement mixers? It is simply because turbocharging boosts the hp of these otherwise lame engines so substantially. The same technology has the same effect on SI engines. Should some company decide to produce turbo SI engined light trucks, they would easily "out pull" their diesel counterparts. In my developing of turbocharged SI race engines, it was not unusual to almost triple the stock atmo torque figure with only one atmosphere of boost- quite impressive.

Modern turbo diesels have come a long way and work very well but this "torque worship" is misplaced to anyone who has experience in the turbo SI engine world.

Diesel has the advantage in respect to fuel economy due to generally higher thermal efficiencies and higher BTU content of the fuel- true fact. Turbo diesel engines can also generate respectable but not superior hp compared with SI turbo engines running typical low octane unleaded pump fuels. Recent technologies like adding DI (direct injection) to SI engines has dramatically changed the ability of SI turbo engines to run increased boost and compression ratios, improving detonation resistance and fuel economy. The BMW 335i engines run a 10 to 1 CR and some atmo engines like the Toyota 2ZR-FXE VVT engine run 13 to 1 CRs on 87 octane fuel (still port injected).

I think many people have forgotten how good the latest SI engines are perhaps and how much progress has been made in the last 3-4 years. One drive in a 335i will put a smile on your face- guaranteed.

Lycoming still believes in the SI engine concept with the pursuit of IE2 even though they have dabbled in diesels. Indeed if we look at the SFCs a good Lycoming or Continental engine can achieve running LOP, these figures are very close to what lightweight diesels achieve today. IE2 may allow higher CRs and more ignition advance in cruise to improve these SFCs even a bit more.

With regards to longevity of turbo SI engines, it all depends who does the work and tuning. Do it wrong and life is short. I've been driving a turbocharged 240SX now for many years and it has not been apart in the last 10 years. Running only 5.5 psi boost, I have stomped on a full on Gale Banks 6.6L turbo diesel truck. The driver was extremely unhappy judging from his facial expression! He was under the false impression that 800lb/ft was going to flatten my "Rice Rocket". I couldn't resist rolling down my window at the third stoplight (yes, he had to try it three times to make sure he wasn't seeing things) , pointing and laughing. Immature perhaps but very satisfying.
 
Last edited:
The point I'm trying to make here is simply to dispel this false torque myth perpetuated about diesel engines and "pulling power". Hp does the work, not torque in all motive applications whether it is truck pulling a trailer or in an airplane. Within the effective rev range, area under the hp curve defines an engines ability to perform work. Since the SI engine is a much higher speed device and gasolines and alcohols perform better at high piston speeds, there is no contest in this regard. SI engines generate higher hp on a per displacement and per manifold pressure basis than CI engines period.

I don't believe it to be a myth. I've pulled large trailers around with diesels versus auto-fuel (SI), up and around our mountain country, and the diesel wins every time. Diesels being of higher compression, develop peak horsepower at lower RPM's than SI engines. Much lower! You can litterly feel the difference when accelerating up an incline.

To me, it's like an elephant putting a foot into the cylinder to push a piston down, versus a kitty cat pawing away on a lower displacement gas engine. Just no comparison! :D

Yet, I prefer diesels for my pickup trucks, and gas powered Lycs for the airplanes. Why........ I can't really say..:)

L.Adamson
 
Running only 5.5 psi boost, I have stomped on a full on Gale Banks 6.6L turbo diesel truck. The driver was extremely unhappy judging from his facial expression! He was under the false impression that 800lb/ft was going to flatten my "Rice Rocket". I couldn't resist rolling down my window at the third stoplight (yes, he had to try it three times to make sure he wasn't seeing things) , pointing and laughing. Immature perhaps but very satisfying.

I don't get it at all. Isn't the 240 a car?

my diesel truck weighs about 7500 lbs. whats the 240 weigh?


anyhow, back to the diesel topic, you present a good argument, but one thing i'm wondering, every semi, cement mixer (your example) big rig and most 250/ 350/ 450 sized trucks that are for pulling use all use diesels. why is that if the gas engine is superior?
 
I don't get it at all. Isn't the 240 a car?

my diesel truck weighs about 7500 lbs. whats the 240 weigh?


anyhow, back to the diesel topic, you present a good argument, but one thing i'm wondering, every semi, cement mixer (your example) big rig and most 250/ 350/ 450 sized trucks that are for pulling use all use diesels. why is that if the gas engine is superior?

About 2850 lbs. but I only have 2.4L vs. 6.6 and about 1/4th of the boost pressure. So let's say this truck weighed 7500 lbs and has 6600cc engine displacement, that is 1.136 lbs./cc, the 240 would be 1.188- very close in weight vs. displacement yet I still waxed the "mighty" diesel on 1/4 of the boost pressure.

I won't dispute in heavy hauling, the fuel costs give the clear advantage to the diesel hence their widespread use in those fields. A SI engine will out pull a CI engine but certainly get worse fuel economy doing it. When it comes to putting on millions of miles over the life of the vehicle, the diesel is the clear winner.

I will dispute it every time I see this nonsense about how "torquey" turbo diesels are compared to atmo SI engines however. Of course any turbocharged engine of a given displacement will produce more torque than a similarly sized atmo engine whether CI or SI. That is a no brainer.
 
I will dispute it every time I see this nonsense about how "torquey" turbo diesels are compared to atmo SI engines however. Of course any turbocharged engine of a given displacement will produce more torque than a similarly sized atmo engine whether CI or SI. That is a no brainer.

Just as with many other subjects, there are numerous good arguments you can find on the internet regarding diesels and torque. Most seem to imply that the diesel gets more torque from it's longer stroke and higher compression. A measure of ft/lbs acting against the piston.....so to speak.

Personally, I prefer Subie versus Lyc threads.... :)

L.Adamson --- RV6A (flying)
 
wrong numbers...!

You guys are all waving the wrong numbers about. BMEP, torque, boost pressure etc. are all pretty irrelevant for aircraft. The two important characteristics (not just numbers!) are BSFC and power/weight ratio, or if you want to combine them both, power/mission weight

Diesels will leave an SI engine for dead in BSFC terms. An SI engine running lean might come quite close at one point, but nowhere near over the whole BSFC map.

Weight is the diesel problem, but this can be mitigated to a large extent with clever specification and design. Diesels will be very competitive in power/weight ratio terms at some point and they will blow unleaded engines into the weeds on a power/mission weight basis too.

A
 
The funny thing about this contest:
We'll probably never know the 'pure' answer.
GDI Gas Direct Injection, is just now arriving in upper end cars. These operate without a throttle, like a diesel, yet inject the gasoline directly into the combustion chamber like a diesel. They still have spark pugs.
You just 'have' to know what's next: Flex Fuel GDDI with alcohol, propane or natural gas too. Spark Ignited Diesel. WHATEVER.
When SI engines do not have throttle bodies, economy improves because this particular pumping loss is removed. Especially at low power settings.
When CI engines' PV diagram looks like an OTTO cycle (constant volume combustion) instead of DIESEL cycle (constant pressure combustion distributed over time) power and economy improve.
My point is that new engine cycle technology is blending the two, so no pure conclusion can be made, except that they don't build 'em like they used too, and it's a dam**d good thing! :rolleyes:
 
Hey Kurt, i was wondering, you use off road diesel (non road taxed?) Is your mix the higher sulfur diesel, and does your engine run better with it?

I run the standard off-road diesel with red dye. Here in So. Nevada, it is the same as clear auto diesel, ultra low sulfur, but without the tax. According the the factory and other sources, the diesel produces about 5% more hp than JetA, so I have to bring the throttle back just a little on takeoff to make sure that i don't exceed max rated hp.

WAM has encouraged me not to run red fuel in my plane because in the UK, red fuel is for farm use and is of substandard quality. I have checked with my supplier and have been assured that it comes from exactly the same source as the clear on-road fuel, with dye added before it is delivered to me. Does anyone out there (here in the US) have any different experience that this? I would hate to run inferior fuel just to save $.50/gal. I have a large filter on my supply tank, which I change and inspect regularly. So far, I have found no contamination in the fuel.

I have not put Jet A in the tanks yet. I just can't bring myself to pay the $4.00/gal they want here at 61B. I will, however, break down soon and fill one tank just to see how it compares with diesel.

Kurt
 
Curious of "more acurate" altitude HP loss numbers

I believe this fits with this discussion of the DeltaHawk engine, since we are talking about performance at various altitudes. Where does a person find a graph or grid of the HP loss (percentage or rated HP) on our "regular" airplane engines,, IO-360 or IO-540 with each 1,000 feet from SL at various power settings??

(I use a simple graph that I believe I got from Mr. RV Dick,,add RPM & MAP, ie, 2,400 and 20.0 = 46 or about 65%, 42=55% and 47=75%)

Thanks.

Kenny Gene
 
From my experience

I run the standard off-road diesel with red dye. Here in So. Nevada, it is the same as clear auto diesel, ultra low sulfur, but without the tax. According the the factory and other sources, the diesel produces about 5% more hp than JetA, so I have to bring the throttle back just a little on takeoff to make sure that i don't exceed max rated hp.

WAM has encouraged me not to run red fuel in my plane because in the UK, red fuel is for farm use and is of substandard quality. I have checked with my supplier and have been assured that it comes from exactly the same source as the clear on-road fuel, with dye added before it is delivered to me. Does anyone out there (here in the US) have any different experience that this? I would hate to run inferior fuel just to save $.50/gal. I have a large filter on my supply tank, which I change and inspect regularly. So far, I have found no contamination in the fuel.

I have not put Jet A in the tanks yet. I just can't bring myself to pay the $4.00/gal they want here at 61B. I will, however, break down soon and fill one tank just to see how it compares with diesel.

Kurt

I notice that the red diesel plugs fuel filters at a faster rate than the clear diesel. It seems to do this in everything from my lawn mower to my forced air heater. No hard data, but a lot of other folks have made the same observation.
 
I run the standard off-road diesel with red dye. Here in So. Nevada, it is the same as clear auto diesel, ultra low sulfur, but without the tax. According the the factory and other sources, the diesel produces about 5% more hp than JetA, so I have to bring the throttle back just a little on takeoff to make sure that i don't exceed max rated hp.

WAM has encouraged me not to run red fuel in my plane because in the UK, red fuel is for farm use and is of substandard quality. I have checked with my supplier and have been assured that it comes from exactly the same source as the clear on-road fuel, with dye added before it is delivered to me. Does anyone out there (here in the US) have any different experience that this? I would hate to run inferior fuel just to save $.50/gal. I have a large filter on my supply tank, which I change and inspect regularly. So far, I have found no contamination in the fuel.

I have not put Jet A in the tanks yet. I just can't bring myself to pay the $4.00/gal they want here at 61B. I will, however, break down soon and fill one tank just to see how it compares with diesel.

Kurt

in my area (central oregon) red off road fuel is usually high sulfur, that was what i was wondering about your area. I have a problem with my cardlock and need to stop by the office, i'll ask them about some specifications.
 
You guys are all waving the wrong numbers about. BMEP, torque, boost pressure etc. are all pretty irrelevant for aircraft. The two important characteristics (not just numbers!) are BSFC and power/weight ratio, or if you want to combine them both, power/mission weight

Diesels will leave an SI engine for dead in BSFC terms. An SI engine running lean might come quite close at one point, but nowhere near over the whole BSFC map.

Weight is the diesel problem, but this can be mitigated to a large extent with clever specification and design. Diesels will be very competitive in power/weight ratio terms at some point and they will blow unleaded engines into the weeds on a power/mission weight basis too.

A

I'd dispute this as well Andy. Published specs for BSFC for the Thielert aero diesel were only about 6-10% better than what we see today on something like an IO-550 running LOP. Since aircraft spend a large percentage of their time operating in cruise, the other parts of operation only burn small amounts of fuel compared to the time spent in cruise. An RV9 with an O-235 burns about 4.5-5 gal/hr vs. 4 for the WAM at the same speeds- not much difference. SI engines are not that bad when operating WOT like in aircraft. Diesels are much better at part load like in automotive use.

Since nobody has built and delivered a lightweight aero diesel at anywhere near the price of a comparable Lycoming nor have any demonstrated comparable life and reliability in widespread use (certainly not Thielert!) this is a moot point currently.

It is naive to think that the incredible durability of heavy duty road going diesels designs will be mirrored in lightweight aero designs. Even comparing engines like the lighter duty Isuzu designed GM LLY V8 to the standard Cummins/ Dodge inline diesel, this was evident in performance and longevity areas. I'd be surprised if it does not take some time to get the TBOs up over 2000 hours on aero CI designs. The power duty cycle on aircraft being considerably higher than automotive applications so high boost pressures are sustained for much longer periods. This takes its toll on pistons, rings and valves as Thielert discovered with serious oil consumption issues well before published TBR on almost every engine. These engines where nowhere in the ballpark in overall economics compared with current SI engines.

I wish the current players success and the engines will only get better with experience. Where avgas is many $ per gallon and jet or diesel fuel is cheap and widely available, CI engines make a lot of sense.
 
Last edited:
The Thielert was a 4-stroke high revving valved engine. The DH/WAM are both slower revving relatively simple 2-stroke designs. I'll suggest that high RPMs are a major the detriment to durability. True in any engine, but more readily apparent in one utilizing high cylinder pressures. After all, a top-fuel engine has a TBO of 0.05 hours and a typical automotive race engine, I think, is 3 hours.

Restating things another way without the numbers in front of me, I'll bet that a Thielert piston has to travel 50-100% further at a correspondingly higher speed to obtain the same amount of power as a DH or WAM. I'd bet, without knowing, that the durability of automotive diesels suffers for the same comparative reason. Looking at it this way, no wonder why Thielert had to wrestle with oil consumption.
 
The Thielert was a 4-stroke high revving valved engine. The DH/WAM are both slower revving relatively simple 2-stroke designs. I'll suggest that high RPMs are a major the detriment to durability. True in any engine, but more readily apparent in one utilizing high cylinder pressures. After all, a top-fuel engine has a TBO of 0.05 hours and a typical automotive race engine, I think, is 3 hours.

Restating things another way without the numbers in front of me, I'll bet that a Thielert piston has to travel 50-100% further at a correspondingly higher speed to obtain the same amount of power as a DH or WAM. I'd bet, without knowing, that the durability of automotive diesels suffers for the same comparative reason. Looking at it this way, no wonder why Thielert had to wrestle with oil consumption.

I disagree again. From what I can gather from experiences with the Thielert, it seems that rings and pistons were suffering early distress and causing most of the serious high oil consumption issues often with less than 200-300 hours on the engines. This cannot be explained by differences in piston speed which would be similar to a Lycoming. The Thielert runs 3900 rpm max so the piston speed is about 10% higher than an O-360 yet life was many times lower in service.

RPMs (probably more correctly piston speeds) have a lesser impact on engine life than many people think. Race engines are designed to last varying amounts of time through choice of parts, rev limits and limits on specific output according the the type of racing. Drag racing Top Fuel- 5 seconds WOT, high end endurance racing at least 24 hours, SCCA club racing perhaps a season or two depending on budget etc.

Continuous high boost pressure certainly has a real impact on ring and land life and with the constant flogging required on the anemic Thielert, the only time boost pressures were not high was idle and descent. I see several new diesel designs are going to ceramic faced rings and anodized lands. Diesels have very high gas loadings on these parts. Head gaskets on liquid cooled diesels have been a weak spot on several designs when the boost is tweaked up or even stock in the case of the GM V8 designs. Remember the diesel truck on Pinks losing all the coolant on the second pass and winning with dry water jackets? A diet of 40+ psi boost will seriously reduce the life of any engine.

We shall have to see how the 2 stroke designs hold up over the next 5 years or so compared to the 4 stroke designs. Interestingly WAM's website lists the BSFC on the WAM-120 at .49 at TO power and .45 at max continuous and .43 at econ cruise (56%)- little different from a Lycoming. The numbers published in this thread seem to confirm this. Why all the fuss? At least WAM has the price competitive with Lycoming. DH's price tag is nonsense in my view if they ever hope to sell any quantity.
 
Last edited:
I'd dispute this as well Andy. Published specs for BSFC for the Thielert aero diesel were only about 6-10% better than what we see today on something like an IO-550 running LOP.

The IO-550 is a pretty impressive engine when it comes to BSFC, but it relies on 100LL. When 92UL or whatever it will be comes along, then what? Also 6-10% is best case (and still worth having) When you move away from that "best" point, you'll find the margin increases - quite dramatically at full power! I will agree that the Thielert does bad things to the diesel's image in most other respects though. It's not the way you'd do it if you had a second chance, is it? (Oh, wait a minute - what's going on over in Austria? Doh!)

An RV9 with an O-235 burns about 4.5-5 gal/hr vs. 4 for the WAM at the same speeds- not much difference.

Yes, 10-20% reduction in fuel burn isn't that impressive, is it? ;) Bear in mind that the WAM is a pretty inefficient being an IDI diesel. As a DI, you could probably remove another ~10%
 
Last edited:
The IO-550 is a pretty impressive engine when it comes to BSFC, but it relies on 100LL. When 92UL or whatever it will be comes along, then what? Also 6-10% is best case (and still worth having) When you move away from that "best" point, you'll find the margin increases - quite dramatically at full power! I will agree that the Thielert does bad things to the diesel's image in most other respects though. It's not the way you'd do it if you had a second chance, is it? (Oh, wait a minute - what's going on over in Austria? Doh!)



Yes, 10-20% reduction in fuel burn isn't that impressive, is it? ;) Bear in mind that the WAM is a pretty inefficient being an IDI diesel. As a DI, you could probably remove another ~10%

Uh, let's see....with an O-235, I would burn 5.5 gph x $4.20/gal gives me $23.10/hour for fuel. My WAM burns 4 gph x $2.50/gal for $10.00/hour. I don't find that "insignificant". I kind of like it. Granted, if I go outside of my 6 hour range, I'm going to be paying for JetA, which is narrows the savings down, but I rarely travel outside the range of my tanks. 'Course, if there is auto fuel stc for o-235, then I don't have as much of an advantage. But then there's the ethenol thing? I admit, I don't know much about it, but I understand that auto-fuel users are concerned about it.
Kurt

Kurt
 
Back
Top