D-Motor

[facthunter]

I really know NOTHING about the D motor extra to what I gleaned in the early stages. The essential bits of an engine design start at the crankcases and crankshaft. If that's no good forget the rest. Separate cylinders require the stiffness all be in the case.. Lots of hours are the only way to prove a design doesn't have fatal weaknesses.

 

The UL motor appears to be a quality product that would not be able to be made cheaply. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

If D-motor are not 'spruiking' their product at the moment, just perhaps it is because they have the ethics of not promising anything more than they can demonstrate they can deliver?

They have the product, point was more towards they are not marketing almost at all. .. and if they are it's certainly not reaching people.

 

 

[onetrack]

It seems fairly obvious that there is no marketing dept at D-Motor, it appears they cannot afford one. As with all smaller manufacturing operations, everyone in the company is probably working flat out on engine design and modifications.

 

One of those D-Motor "modifications" appears to be a substantially redesigned "new generation" of modified engines, with hydraulic valve lifters, additional crankshaft bearings, bigger dimensions, and a bigger crankshaft giving a longer stroke.

 

Then, when someone reminded them that a competitor (Jabiru?) had problems with hydraulic valve lifters, D-Motor promptly had a round-table discussion with everyone involved, but elected to stay with the hydraulic lifter design.

 

In essence, D-Motor are saying that their hydraulic lifters are still untested, and the "new generation" motor is still largely untested.

 

Seems to me like the D-Motor engine development is nowhere near bedded down to a final design, and all D-Motor engines produced to this date, can only be properly described as little more than prototypes.

 

A manufacturer in full production with a finalised proven design, has completed engines ready for sale, or in production, glossy sales brochures available, and sales staff on the payroll. I see none of this at D-Motor.

 

Update 08 April 2017

 

 

[jetboy]

A bit of history here. The D-motor is originally designed from Jabiru 2200 in the same way as UlPower spun off.

 

M80 Masquito Helicopter Development

 

guys making their helicopter needed more power and reliability than they could get off the shelf. something similar happened in NZ with a line of microlight helicopters that repeatedly burned up (turbo'd) 3300s until they could get no more so switched to turbines

 

TLAC | Aircraft Site |Friedrichshafen 2011

 

 

[Oscar]

A most interesting post, and I looked at the 'Updates' referenced.

 

My interpretation of all of that, is that D-motor are very much taking the same path, in essence, as CAMit took: analysing the information coming back to them from real-life experience and implementing changes to address weaknesses/improve the product. Good on them, I say.

 

As an aside to that, those who have followed the Jabiru engines 'saga' on this site will surely remember the charges laid against Jabiru of using their customers as 'test pilots'. Well, just perhaps, could it be accepted that this is in fact 'real life' progress for a new engine design?.

 

The testing regime for certification / certifying a new engine, is designed to 'replicate' - as far as possible in a time-constrained programme - 'real life'. It is a rigorous regime that subjects the engine to testing to determine the operational limits for the engine and to set things like TBO. It requires very, very complex test equipment that can not just measure, but also introduce conditions that take the engine to beyond their designated operational limits to determine where that line has to be drawn. You can't just strap the engine to a dyno and measure stuff and say" here's the result.'

 

This is the sort of complexity of testing that I am talking about: shows the control needed just for cooling testing: ( the unconnected as yet central outlet shown here, is for the oil cooler airflow delivery, to allow testing at elevated oil temps).

 

 

That's my personal engine sitting under those huge cooling ducts, each of which can be adjusted for airflow.. The rig also allows for torque measurement using a 'representative' propellor ( required for the tests), oil cooling adjustment etc. The test cell allows for replication of conditions from MSL to 10K feet AMSL and for load conditions from static to full climb. The CHT, EGT and oil pressure and temperature measurement requires calibrated instrumentation.

 

HOWEVER: ( and you need to be a little creative in your thinking to perhaps take this on board!), there is an old saying that 'nothing is foolproof. because fools are so much more inventive'. If you take this a little more liberally, it means that 'real life' throws up more challenges than the test can envisage/replicate.

 

Does anybody really think that in the early days of Lycoming, Continental, even Rotax, their engines were entirely trouble-free? Perhaps they were, I do not know. But we didn't have the depth of reporting that we've had in recent times, so I doubt if there is a documented history to which we can turn for comparison.

 

It's also worth considering that - at least in the case of Lycoming and Rotax - the manufacturers had multiple thousands of engines in service ( not necessarily in aero-engine service!) upon which to draw for experience.

 

Specialist small-volume aero-engine manufacturers do not have that luxury. Jabiru ( the first of these, really), UL Power, D-motor etc. have a very, very small base of engines from which to base their development experience. Rotax had a huge base of engines for snowmobiles, motorcycles etc. 'out there' doing testing duty..

 

Even the 'big' companies, can produce dogs of engines. Anybody remember the development of the Datsun 1600 engine ( a really terrific adaption of the BMW 1600), that morphed into the 200B engine, which was a disaster? Or the GM LS1 engine? Or Porsche's attempt at developing an aero-engine from their air-cooled flat six?

 

Seriously: a small ( miniscule, in the context of say Rotax) aero-engine manufacturer faces a hill for development of which they cannot even imagine the height or steepness. I can say with absolute certainty - having observed it - that a company like CAMit relied on its designer spending all his waking hours on both running current production and undertaking development. I have personally seen Ian Bent of CAMit bashing away not just at his computer on design work but out there on the machines making the new parts for test on weekends, when he had the space to undertake the creation of development ideas. I imagine it is the same for the guys at D-motor, UL-Power..

 

Should we castigate these tiny companies if their products do not in all cases achieve perfection? Jeez, let's look at recent history..

 

Apple, with phones and tablets that combust. Samsung, with phones that explode, washing machines that catch fire. Takata with airbags that kill. Ferrari with cars that catch fire. Rolls-Royce with engines that explode mid-air.

 

Ad that's just scratching the surface.

 

 

[onetrack]

The D-motor is originally designed from Jabiru 2200 in the same way as UlPower spun off.

Jetboy, I'm sorry, I don't understand what you've stated, above. How can a new, water-cooled, flathead design engine, be "designed from", an air-cooled, OHV design engine?

I read where a number of Masquito engineers left Masquito when it folded, and have gone on to design the D-Motor, but I do not see any relationship to the design of the Jabiru 2200.

 

 

[onetrack]

Oscar, I don't think anyone is looking for perfection in new engine designs, but keeping potential customers abreast of developments, once you have trumpeted that you have a new engine, is vital to ensure that potential customers are "kept in the loop", so they can plan accordingly.

 

D-Motor is guilty of keeping everyone in the dark as regards their plans and developments, and nothing was announced from them, that a substantially-redesigned engine was in the pipeline.

 

The very fact that their "new generation" engine is now larger in physical dimensions, than the first design, is enough to make a number of potential customers upset, by having to possibly redesign cowlings, etc.

 

Then there's the fact that the D-Motor gained weight in the old design - let alone the "new generation" design - but that isn't mentioned on the D-Motor EU website - it's left to the Canadian D-Motor agent to advertise it!

 

Changes In Weight Of LF 26 & LF39 | D-MOTOR Canada

 

On top of that, the Canadian D-Motor website has no dates on any information provided!! (not that they are completely alone in that aggravating omission - probably 20% of the websites on the 'net, fail to date any "news" pages!!).

 

I had to try and find the date of the engine weight gain "news", via the reference to the Blois Microlight Festival ("Festival International De l'Aviation Ultra Légère"), which was held on 27th and 28th August 2016.

 

This then indicates that the weight gain was measured on the first design D-Motors - and nothing has been released on what the weight gain is, on the "new generation" D-Motors, with their modified block, increased stroke, increased number of main bearings, and their new hydraulic lifters!

 

One could be forgiven for thinking that the right hand within the D-Motors organisation, has little idea what the left hand is doing - and the directors have little idea of what constitutes a proper information flow, to keep potential clients fully informed.

 

 

[AZDave]

In a similar vein perhaps, consider the case of the Bantam aircraft. After Max died, it was acquired by an aircraft restoration company on the South Island of NZ. The website hasn't been updated in perhaps a decade. One really doesn't know whether they are still in business and selling planes, parts. I offered to have a professional website designer I work with do a total makeover for them along with me coming to their facility to shoot several videos about the plane, their facility, plans going forward and so forth. And it wouldn't cost them a penny, just sell me a plane at a discount where they wouldn't lose any money. Not even a reply. Perhaps they don't want new sales much less an updated website.

 

In the case of D Motors, apparently they do/did want sales, but my gosh what is a potential customer to think from the little information that is out there? Are they really even in business?

 

 

[jetjr]

Maybe if major engine development is still happening, they dont want to sell many especially accross oceans.

 

Better to have a few based locally and service well than expand too fast. Locals dont need much marketing.

 

Its also possible early marketing attempts were to test market support for the idea to obtain funds or just confidence in taking next steps.

 

 

[AZDave]

Maybe if major engine development is still happening, they dont want to sell many especially accross oceans.Better to have a few based locally and service well than expand too fast. Locals dont need much marketing.

Its also possible early marketing attempts were to test market support for the idea to obtain funds or just confidence in taking next steps.

[AZDave]

They have dealers around the world. I went to their website which is much better than the last time I was there. Home - D-motor

 

 

[facthunter]

It's easy to make patterns and good castings (not quite so easy) and produce nice looking CNC'd stuff but the basic engineering must be pretty spot on or you are going to a dark place, or an utter nightmare. Early aero engines had very short lives and even the Merlin had only a few hundred hours of service life early on. A lot of the development of these engines came from the Schneider Trophy racing float planes in the early 30's.

 

All military rated engines had much reduced TBO's from the civilian equivalent engines as the loadings were more with the extra power output. This is what you would expect. 2,000 hour TBO'd engines usually have to be topped at least once during that period, and are checked for metal contamination all the time. IF there's metal floating around they are pulled and stripped, to find what is the cause.

 

Stronger engines are heavier and nobody wants to use them if something better is available. Lighter means more sophistication and better materials /design and more payload. They become more critical if you get something wrong, as all parts are more stressed. In another example if a race engine is built with a 1,000 hour life it won't win races. It will be heavier than the one which will..

 

Design stresses are initially calculated and materials section and metallurgy is decided on. Often, despite all this being done carefully unknown factors cause unanticipated failures due some oversight or quality control issues.

 

TBO is a nebulous concept. It appears outrageous unsubstantiated claims can be made and no one is called to task. In most cases the claim should be regarded as more hope than fact. If hardly any engines make the claimed figure it should be adjusted down. A low hours motor could still be satisfactory. Ie in Pylon Racing. It's only got to complete the race and it's done it's job. Another example at the other end of the scale is an authentic historic plane and engine . If you were not permitted to fly existing, restored or reproduction examples of historic old stuff we would be much the worse off in our appreciation of Aviation for that restriction. It has to be done in the right environment. Engines can fail at any time. None are infallible. Nev

 

 

[Downunder]

The very fact that their "new generation" engine is now larger in physical dimensions, than the first design, is enough to make a number of potential customers upset, by having to possibly redesign cowlings, etc.

Then there's the fact that the D-Motor gained weight in the old design - let alone the "new generation" design - but that isn't mentioned on the D-Motor EU website - it's left to the Canadian D-Motor agent to advertise it!.

And it looks like the dealer didn't even know until reported by a customer.....

 

Ha, you buy an engine specified at XX weight and it turns out different........ something seriously wrong there.

 

 

[facthunter]

These days just about everyone says "changes to our products may occurr and the above description may not be accurate". With aircraft engines you would need to know weight and dimensional changes (amongst other things) moreso than say with a car model. I don't think anyone is intending to be fraudulent. Since we are always on the look out for a "Perfect & cheap engine that never needs attention" our curiosity and skepticism is unbounding. Nev

 

 

[Brett]

I'd be an engine tester and blogger for them if they sold me an engine at half price :)

 

I'd repower my Aeropup no worries.

 

Fly the missions and make honest assessments for the world to see....No worries :)

 

If it went well I'd even consider repowering my Sonex also.

 

 

[facthunter]

None of what they say there is very technical. One could wonder at claiming good fuel efficiency from ANY flathead motor. It just won't compare favourably with an equally well fuelled overhead engine, for the same reason a "wankel" will never be efficient. (Large combustion chamber surface area/volume ratio). This doesn't condemn the engine, although the valve-port layout will cause bore distortion due very uneven heat areas near the exhaust port.. I've never seen an alloy block Flathead motor bigger than the smaller lawnmower types so we will see how stable it is dimensionally long term..The siamesing of the inlet ports is simple but not optimum for even cylinder filling, but it's not a high revving geared down motor SO it's as simple as you could get, and as compact, which is the aim of the manufacturer. The flat 6 will be smoother (as they always are) but the porting layout will not be as tidy so I'd be interested to see how they handle that. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

It is interesting to look at the various claims for 'weight'. 'Dry weight', 'Wet weight', and 'Ramp weight'.

 

For all practical purposes, 'Ramp weight' is the one you need to consider. That's the weight on the damn thing in a ready-to-fly condition, the one you need to calculate your adherence to MTOW ( and for that matter, W&B) on.

 

It's a bit akin to IAS used as a claim for for VC and VSO vs. TAS for those..

 

 

[Downunder]

I'd be an engine tester and blogger for them if they sold me an engine at half price :)I'd repower my Aeropup no worries.

 

Fly the missions and make honest assessments for the world to see....No worries :)

 

If it went well I'd even consider repowering my Sonex also.

Put one in every country they intend to sell to!!

 

 

[Geoff13]

I'd be an engine tester and blogger for them if they sold me an engine at half price :)I'd repower my Aeropup no worries.

 

Fly the missions and make honest assessments for the world to see....No worries :)

 

If it went well I'd even consider repowering my Sonex also.

I made that offer to them 2 years ago.

 

 

[onetrack]

D-Motor possibly aren't capable of producing enough motors to hand them out on a test bed basis. When you see their machining videos talking about "homemade" tooling, it doesn't lend a lot of professionalism to their image.

 

 

This is the sum total of their videos - for 7 years of being in business! And they have a total of 33 subscribers to their videos?? That's not exactly what you'd call, a "big following"??

 

dmotorbelgium

 

I don't see anywhere, how many engines they have actually built? Likely to be less than a couple of dozen, in that 7 years?

 

 

[xair1159]

I have posted all this in the past, but just to update on my Xair Hawk (H, Hanuman) installation.

 

Originally fitted with a hyd tappet Jab 2200 for about 350 hrs. Fairly average performance for a typical fuel burn of 14L/hr. Based on prop testing we did, I don't think the Jab was giving the spec 80 hp, more like 75+.

 

Took the Jab out, weighed all the bits and came up with 68Kg total.

 

Fitted the D-Motor,which I saw on the dyno at the factory giving a genuine 92 Hp when hardly run in. Weighed everything that went in, including fluids and ended up at 64Kg. I did post a photo of my bare engine hanging on a scale showing 45Kg. Performance vastly increased, typical fuel burn all but identical to the Jab at 13.5-14 L/hr. I would imagine EFI is a fair bit better than a Bing carb at efficient fuel metering.

 

The engine is currently at 420 hrs and no problems (nothing like tempting fate.......) Put it this way, I would be confident enough in the engine fly from Ireland to Wales over 40 miles of Irish sea.

 

I have no firm info but I believe they have sold around 80-90 engines with about 65 flying, mainly in Europe. Between Ireland (1 = me) and UK (6) I know of 7 engines flying. Like one of the posts above said, sell local until you have confidence, which seems sensible. Their initial production was certainly small batches, but I would imagine once they are happy with the design they will start serial production. I have always believed they are in this for the long haul, or I wouldn't have bought one.

 

Nick

 

 

[Geoff13]

I have posted all this in the past, but just to update on my Xair Hawk (H, Hanuman) installation.Originally fitted with a hyd tappet Jab 2200 for about 350 hrs. Fairly average performance for a typical fuel burn of 14L/hr. Based on prop testing we did, I don't think the Jab was giving the spec 80 hp, more like 75+.

 

Took the Jab out, weighed all the bits and came up with 68Kg total.

 

Fitted the D-Motor,which I saw on the dyno at the factory giving a genuine 92 Hp when hardly run in. Weighed everything that went in, including fluids and ended up at 64Kg. I did post a photo of my bare engine hanging on a scale showing 45Kg. Performance vastly increased, typical fuel burn all but identical to the Jab at 13.5-14 L/hr. I would imagine EFI is a fair bit better than a Bing carb at efficient fuel metering.

 

The engine is currently at 420 hrs and no problems (nothing like tempting fate.......) Put it this way, I would be confident enough in the engine fly from Ireland to Wales over 40 miles of Irish sea.

 

I have no firm info but I believe they have sold around 80-90 engines with about 65 flying, mainly in Europe. Between Ireland (1 = me) and UK (6) I know of 7 engines flying. Like one of the posts above said, sell local until you have confidence, which seems sensible. Their initial production was certainly small batches, but I would imagine once they are happy with the design they will start serial production. I have always believed they are in this for the long haul, or I wouldn't have bought one.

 

Nick

Thank you Nick. Nothing quite as good as hearing real world experiences. :)

 

 

[Downunder]

Is there 80-90 running engines in europe? Where are they?

 

Perhaps running so well owners don't post or make remarks about them?

 

Not having a go at you xair, but just commenting on the last couple of pages of this thread about the seemingly outright media blackout.

 

The worldwide market for this type of engine is small enough as it is and if the engines are running well, I'd be shouting it from the highest hilltop!

 

 

[onetrack]

Nick - I appreciate your valuable input and reasoning, and can only agree with your decision, because it does appear to make sense from your position.

 

However, D-Motor have done a very substantial redesign of the engine, involving 12mm extra stroke, extra crankshaft bearings, and hydraulic lifters, without outlining why they thought this fairly drastic redesign was needed.

 

The release of the "new generation" engine, must effectively make every early owner of the "first generation" engine, wonder what is wrong with the initial design, for a major redesign to be needed.

 

Does the first generation design suffer from excessive crankshaft whip, that hasn't been communicated to first generation engine owners? If not, why the extra crankshaft bearings in the new models?

 

Additional bearings means more crankshaft support - but more friction losses, too - as well as additional weight. There's no company advice as regards power output changes, or changes to engine weight, in the major redesign.

 

Overall, the company needs to upgrade its communication releases with increased levels of information. As it stands, the company news releases are quite deficient.

 

 

[Flynic3]

I too am extremely interested in the D-motor but have also been waiting to see it develope. I also know this engine was first represented in the US by Renegade Light Sport IE Doc Bailey... who is a known to be full of hot air. I think it appears that D-motor has overcome many obstacles and are moving forward with the current design. Here are some update which may explain in more detail what has been going on at D-Motor...

 

Posted Oct 9th 2017

 

It is some time since our last news bulletin, so we thought it was time to update existing and potential customers about our future plans for D-Motor.

 

We will be continuing with production of the existing engine model and the launch of a proposed new version will be delayed by at least 2 years. This is to allow in-house development and testing to continue to ensure the engine will be fully reliable before any serial production starts.

 

As reported on 23 May 2017, one of the partners has left the company, which has obviously meant some re-organisation was necessary, but it has given us the opportunity to improve our systems and efficiency. The design has been frozen and the CAD and CNC libraries updated for all components.

 

We were manufacturing most components on CNC machines in our own factory although some parts were outsourced, such as camshaft manufacture, cylinder boring and Nikasil treatment / honing and valve seat installation. We have now decided to outsource the crankshaft and connecting rods to specialist companies in the UK. Line boring of the crankcase for crank and camshaft will also be outsourced.

 

Problems have been experienced during QC with a high rejection rate of the cast components caused by failures of the sand moulds. Working with our foundry company we have been running mould simulations to solve this problem and by the end of October we are confident that this issue will be eliminated.

 

In early 2017 we decided to stop serial production due to the casting problem, although sufficient parts were always held in stock to support any in-service engines. After customer feedback and comments at recent trade shows about the proposed new version we later decided to restart production of the existing model engine once the casting issue had been solved, but due to the re-organisation mentioned above this has taken much longer than we hoped.

 

Shortly we will be launching the first serial production batch of the 6 cylinderLF39 and a new serial production batch of the existing 4 cylinder LF26. As soon as these are available from stock we will re-start promotion and sales.

 

As you can see from this update they have been dealing with and over-coming a lot of obstacles encountered along the way as any small firm would! I agree that D-motor could be a lot more pro-active on the marketing of their engine line, however I think they are waiting until all ducks their were in a row and they could start a solid serial production of the engines. It appears as though Fisher Flying Products out of Canada will be the new Canadian distributor. Fisher has been in the business for many years and I doubt they would risk their reputation on a bogus design or poorly crafted engine. I do also wish their engines would be priced closer to the Jabiru 2200 and not the 3300 as it is. That being said I think this would be an amazing little engine for the SportCopter Vortex I am looking into purchasing. I also think it would make for an excellent choice on the Sonex Waiex I plan to build in the future, although I also like the UL260isA for this application. The D-motor engine may be a bit light for the heavier tail of the Waiex though... either way I see this motor finding market share in the years to come! I wish D-motor the success they deserve and feel every true aviator should feel the same way! Without new companies out there risking it all like D-motor we would all be selling our first born for a Rotax!