This one was also on my preliminary engine list, so I've checked into it a fair bit. Clarification of a few things already mentioned:
D-Motors site indicates a 1500 Hr TBO not 2000 and a 300 HR warranty.
The 125 Lb weight includes the oil radiator but not the cooling radiator or associated piping and mounting hardware. None the less, it still seems light, which makes me wonder if some internals have been reduced in weight which might affect longevity/reliability. I'm not willing to be the PAYing test pilot to find out.
The current price is 12,600 Euros plus 125 for crating plus shipping to you. So at today's rate 12725 Euros = $17,250 plus shipping from Belgium.
D-Motors HP & Torque curve are in metric units - DIN HP and Newton Meters torque. Factory rated at 91.7 HP @ 3000 RPM. This equals 90.5 US HP and 158.4 Ft Lb of torque at 3000 RPM. (Not very torquie - new word).
Also their site states "max" at 3000, but does not say you can run it there or if you can, for how long? They state 2800 RPM continuous. Which is 87.5 HP (US) and 164.1 Ft. Lbs of torque. Still not very torquie!
Fuel consumption is listed as 12 L/Hr (3.17 gallons per hour) at 75%. So is that 75% of rated or 75% of max continuous?
75% of 3000 = 2250 = 68.4 HP US and 159.7 Ft Lb torque
75% of 2800 = 2100 = 60.3 HP US and 150.8 Ft Lb of torque
This is a direct drive motor, so the engine rpm's are also prop rpms. In other words - you don't get any increased torque available as you would with a reduction drive/geared motor. It is what it is.
So it seems conceivable that it could be sipping fuel at those numbers. So the real question is, are those numbers high enough to get you where you want to be, when you want to be there - the way you fly?
Would be nice to see the full fuel flow data - one point is not enough to draw a line, no less a curve, so their single point is pretty useless. They had enough data to plot hp/torque curves - yet only publish a single fuel flow point - why do manufacturers do this? Every dyno I know of pulls the fuel flow numbers at the same time - so why don't they give them to us?
Anyway, this ones not for me either. But the LF39 6 cylinder that is in the works might. That one is not as far along though and I'm still not willing to be a paying test pilot for any engine manufacturer.
I touch on all this, because mostly what I hear is "rated HP" and it really doesn't matter! It is always at an unusable point in the curve and never close to where anyone is going to fly it anyway. Torque@rpm/fuel flow/prop diameter/prop pitch/LD ratio/altitude density - lots of real important variables & HP isn't one of them!
So, I'm still evaluating power plants.
Greg