Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Freemasm

Well Known Member
At SnF, I ran across the guys as they were setting up on the last day. I had physically looked at their engines before but never got the chance to talk to a rep in any detail. I was treated there. Always nice to learn from someone who knows their product, is skilled in their art, etc. This was a vastly vastly different experience than listening to the AC Aero sales guy a few years back. I would state with reasonable certainty, if I were building a 7 or an 8 (complete FWF packages for these includes cowling IIRC), this is the way I'd go; market conditions being what they are currently.

These conditions have opened the door far wider than in the past. UL Power offerings were already cheaper that comparable domestic OEM products. The continually widening price points, the fact that the UL engines include F&I systems, exhaust, alt, etc. delivers even more upfront savings.

Of course
- The build time savings associated with PP systems may end up a wash after deviating from Vans plans.
- It requires an electric prop for CS
- The reduced weight requires W&B planning
- Others

However
- A two month lead time vs. 2 years for the domestic OEMs. This may have improved**
- (Significant) up front savings
- Fuel flexibility
- etc.

** All of the babbitted bearings were coming out of a company in Israel for a while. This might have changed. If that part of the world gets any edgier, associated supply chain issues could become a huge deal again.

This is not a debate/endorsement/advocation/whatever. No need to reply, just some info. Too late for me but I'm rooting for these guys. I also won't have to see the word "Viking" on the Forum page for a little bit.
 
Last edited:
Freemasm said:
At SnF, I ran across the guys as they were setting up on the last day. I had physically looked at their engines before but never got the chance to talk to a rep in any detail. I was treated there. Always nice to learn from someone who knows their product, is skilled in their art, etc. This was a vastly vastly different experience than listening to the AC Aero sales guy a few years back. I would state with reasonable certainty, if I were building a 7 or an 8 (complete FWF packages for these includes cowling IIRC), this is the way I'd go; market conditions being what they are currently.
Click to expand...
This company came from a start-up that was trying to launch a small experimental helicopter. They ended up developing their own engine for the helicopter and Im not sure the helicopter project survived but the engine then became their defacto product. Good to see that they made it this far. It seems they had some quality problems at some point with engine parts, but that seems to have been resolved. Zenith is certainly choosing UL over the V product...
 
I think the three engineers at Dark Aero are using a UL engine in their new plane. Only reason I bring this up is the fact they seem to be very careful in their design process. I hope they (Dark Aero) and UL succeed.
 
I am far from being an Alternative Engine hater - two of our household fleet airplanes have non-Lycomings, one is a small turbine, and the other an electric motor…doesn’t get much more alternate than that!

I have been interested in the UL Power engines since I first saw them at Zenith over ten years ago. Then (about that same time) I saw the guys at SnF with two RV projects - one flew in, the other was in progress. I was Editor in Chief at Kitplanes at the time, and was very excited to get to fly one and report on it. “Not quite ready yet” was their response, and I ALWAYS respect that. SO I left all my contact info - and I am not hard to find - and a decade later, I am still waiting. Maybe they just don’t like me, but I have not heard of a lot of RV’s flying with UL Power.

On paper, its a great engine, and I know that the smaller ones are flying on a number of LSA’s. Just hoping they suceed with RV-sized engines, and we can have more alternatives to the Lyclones - if for no other reason than to fill the need for more engines!

Paul
 
I’ve been seriously looking at the UL power range of engines.
My main concerns so far are the constant speed prop issue. And resale.
What I do like is that they are “my side” of the pond. In fact only about 1:30 flight from me.
It’s going to be a few years before I need an engine, but am going to keep a close eye on UL power and their engines.
 
I'm planning to go with the 200 hp UL520iSA aerobatic engine for my RV-7, which has a built-in inverted oil system. As for CG, they make a 7" or 8" extension to the standard RV engine mount, and they make a custom cowl because of that extension. This is a good YouTube channel to see one guy's selection, installation and operation of a UL engine in an RV-7.

There is no oil supply for a CS prop, so as others noted, an electric version is the only option if you want CS. The Airmaster is the current prop and controller of choice, and it's what the above noted builder used.
 
Go to the Facebook page UL Power Engine Community: *
* Proponents of UL power will say this is early days. They used cast pistons at one time. Fair enough but stuff still happens with new UL Power engines. Js it engine design, build, user error?
  • Twin engine UL 520iS or 520T Velocity N106VT went down last year after Oshkosh 1 Aug 2023, layover in GA on way to Florida, crashed on T/O.
  • Dark Aero has claims on speeds and range, close to 300-350 HP Lancair Legacy, Glassair III, etc... Dark Aero still not flown. I predict they're optimistic.
  • The claimed HP of 200 HP UL Power UL520iS is at 3200 RPM (not ideal prop rpm on direct drive). Actual HP 170's at 2700 RPM.
  • Read owners have had issues getting warranty denied. UL Power owners do warranty repair, replace jugs, pistons, rings, reseal leaking case. Getting service, shipping engine back to Belgium or USA distributor for warranty might be a hassle and expensive. Are there extensive maintenance & OH manuals like Lycoming?
  • Read actual performance of UL Power less than expected, a common complaint by owners, going back to their early smaller engines.
  • If you expect Lycoming (I)O360 180 HP performance, much less 200/210HP IO360 angle valve performance for a small displacement high revving 320 cu-in, direct drive UL Pwr engine, I think you will be disappointed in my opinion. It's a smaller displacement engine, w/ rated HP at RPM well above what is needed for Prop efficiency.
  • Often PSRU's are used for high Rev alternative engines. IMHO they are a weakness, problematic. UL power avoids this and is direct drive. Advertised HP is misleading. It's not practical to drive around at 3200 RPM. UL Power even limits high power (see video). LYC Big bore slow turning direct drive, very beefy for reliability by design.
  • The ROTAX for example does run at high RPM but uses a PSRU. Not a fan of PSRU's but in the case of ROTAX it is integrated and works well, with a bit of extra maintenance/inspections. It is not 100% trouble free but nothing mechanical is. It also has limitations (no aerobatics).
  • Most alternative engines have PSRU as an afterthought. Regardless PSRU are weak links, and almost always prohibits hydraulic controlled prop & aerobatics.
  • People think Lyc is not modern? It is designed intentionally and well thought out for one use, aircraft, based on technology and materials focused on aircraft. Hard to beat... Coming out in mid 1955's it was based on massive R&D through the 20's, 30's. 40's thru 50's (see WWII). Everything under the sun was tried before coming up with this "modern" configuration (direct drive, air cooled, horizontal opposed, OH valve pushrod 4-stroke) engine. People ignore things like silicon filled exhaust valves. That is a tiny bit exotic. The cranks are chrome nickel molybdenum steel forging nitrate hardened with step by step QC and manufacturing tracking. The refinement of Lycoming's continued and still continues with improved cylinder coatings, processes, manufacturing techniques, tight tolerances, and design tweaks, but mostly it was done right the first time. Slap on electronic ignition (but magnetos still work well), Ta-Daaaa modern. A 1960 Lyc and 2024 Lyc (or clone) are very similar, but the later ones benifit from over 50 yrs of improvement, most you can not see.
  • People don't get car engines run most of the time at less than 30% to 40%; or idle. Surface street at slower speeds less power than that. About 75HP to move a passenger car down freeway at 60 mph. A Lyc's can hold 100% rated HP all day all night. Many other engines (ROTAX, UL Power, Auto Engines) are not happy being run wide open all day and limited TO power.
  • Last are the factory, 100's of millions invested in new factories, equip, machines, electron scanning microscopes, digital automatized measurements, CNC, CAD, advanced in-house process including nitrate coatings, making forged pistons, castings. Granted Honda makes a great car engine mass produced, but in the end it is a car engine. UL power is a boutique engine maker.
  • The LYC is still old fashion in that it is HAND MADE... one at a time by people who take pride. I am sure UL Power is also hand made low production by people who take pride. THis is why airplane engines cost a lot. LOW PRODUCTION, hand made. Honda has robots make 1000's of engines. I saw some numbers on the number of car and truck engines are produced in one year, verses all the GA piston engines ever made. I don't recall the numbers. The conclusion GA piston aircraft engines produced all time are a fraction compaired to car/truck engines made in ONE YEAR.... So economy of scale.

Real world performance? Comments like happy camper is missing some detail. How? It is hard to find real performance, side by side comparison, for RV's. There is a RV-7 with the UL-Power 520is ( YouTube link above). BTW the engine is a 320 Cu-In engine and makes in my opinion real world 160-170HP, not 200HP.

Here is a better video from this youtube channel

Gent with UL Powered RV-7 lives in Europe and posted videos of his flight and engine instruments on a cross country. I took screen shots below. It is doing about 150 kts (pretty sure that is 150 not 160) or 172 mph burning 7.8 gal per hour or 22 miles per gal. Not bad but not better than most RV's, which can get better efficiency, 25MPG..... 180-200HP Lyc can cruise at 190 MPH, albeit at higher fuel burn. At 172 true at altitude a Lyc can get 8 gph. I doubt the UL power has much more to give? If you throttle back the Lyc to match slower speed of the UL Power, fuel flow about the same or better with Lyc (Fuel Injection, LOP, Elect Ignition). Not a bash on UL power at all. This is good just not better, and you limit hair on fire speed and aerobatics. ​
​
The builder goes over some RPM and MAP restrictions. It has a bunch of limitations. BTW this Euro based UL Powered RV-7 is well made, fit and finish very good and I think a more than fair representative example. You add engine mount to the stock mount to move engine forward, extend cowl, and all accessories are different, prop, exhaust.​
​
ALSO air intake is ON TOP of engine. This makes for some odd ducting and HP loss. The longer cowl more wetted drag. Nit pick but worth a note.​
​
UL Power now has Aerobatic version? The light weight of the engine comes at cost. It is light duty... Looking at crank and crank flange crack pictures on Facebook. I would not be comfortable with true aerobatic limits 6G (9G ultimate). Is the engine mount extension aerobatic? Elect AIRMASTER PROP aerobatic? What G limit? We see professional airshow and competitive aerobatic pilots fly with Lycoming and Hartzell. I trust that more.​

  • Yes electric prop, AIRMASTER Australia, $17000K + Shipping (guessing at price could be more)
  • UL power UL520iS is about $30,000? What about FWF parts to install itt? I am pretty sure it's more than a Lyc.
  • Engine is Belgian and has 2 or 3 USA distributors on the coasts. One distributor drop out to do something different.
  • If you want parts or service for your Lyc parts are available everywhere (Lyc or STC versions) and any A&P can work on them.
  • Lyc is a certified engine and has the might of Textron behind it. Lyc is not antiquated, but an aircraft specific engine that's reliable, efficient, w/ proven performance.
  • Cost of UL Power and AIRMASTER Prop, not cheap. In long run it will cost more and take more time to install it and work the bugs out.
  • From what I see with every alternative engine RV, automotive, the re-sell for less. I suspect a UL Powered RV would be worth less than a Lyc pwr'd version.

Is there a big pro to use UL Power for an RV made for a Lyc 160-210 HP engine (two seaters). I don't see it. Lead time? Order your engine early, most people take 2 yrs (or much more to build their RV kit). UL Power seems to have make a foot hold in the sub 90-130hp market, for slower smaller kit planes (Zenair). However one guy took his UL Power out of his Zenair to out in a Viking (Honda auto engine conversion).

Up to you. Just go into it eyes wide open. Don't buy until you talk to owners who are flying and get REAL info. Better go fly in a UL Power RV. Just because they bought the engine and it is in a crate in the corner of the hanger is not a good source. If there is no one to talk to do you want to be the Ginny pig test pilot. Some love to inker and not fly. But if you want to fly, best conversion is take $30K, buy a Lyc, bolt it on and go fly... done.

My Pet Peeve is calling any alternative engines "modern" implying the Lyc is not modern. Are they all 4-stroke engines, a 150 yr old technology? Yes. If you look at Lycs factory. QC, processes, materials that go into a Lyc, not dated. Design? It is the result of what in todays dollar is billions and billions in R&D and half century of aircraft engine design and operation experience preceding it. Yes I am a Lyc fan boy. Is it perfect? No but if designing an air-cooled, Horz opposed, direct drive, 160-300 HP engine (that can maintain 100% all day) at red line ( low red line that Prop likes) it would look like a Lyc or Continental. Lyc's current 4 and 6 cyl engines were since introduction in the mid 50's have been continuously improved, revised with new materials, coatings and add on's, electronic ignition, electronic fuel injection for example. The core design however is solid.

The so called "modern engine" is interesting. Is the UL power an air-cooled, horz opposed direct drive 4-stroke overhead valve push rod engine modern? I think people see ECU ignition/fuel system and go modern. IS THAT BETTER? A Carb and Mag on a Lyc does a great job and NEEDS NO ELECTRICAL SYSTEM... However you can add electronics, ignition and fuel delivery if you must. You will get some benefit at expense of adding complexity and electrical dependence. Lyc and Conti are very reliable if flown regularly, maintained and flown properly (even abused and neglected they are reliable). Most failures with Lyc is corrosion (disuse) and abuse, running it too hot, not changing oil. The UL Power seems to have some areas that need revision? I don't know. It may mature but at this point I think for me this is an experimental engine. I don't want an experimental engine in my experimental airplane. That is me. You do what you want... keep us informed.


Look performance is OK, but not setting any performance or efficiency record. My O360A1A and Hartzell RV7 can do better both in cruise (albeit higher FF), better in absolute top speed (I am going to safely assume) and match or beat it in efficiency (if Lyc is flown slower or at high altitude, LOP, dual EI's). However we have little data on UL power in RV's. There are a few. How about a Cafe' foundation flight test program w/ data. I would never buy an engine I did not have performance data on and has good amount of history (hours flown). There are not many UL520's flying. Bought is not the same. Many are sitting in boxes. Yet there have a few issues. What is the statistical MTBF. Very little info is available. The RV-8 happy camper endorsement is not enough. Just having something different is worth it for some people. Me I am chicken. I want to assure my engine is boring, tried and true..... but still presents a good value, great performance and yes efficiency. BTW a Lyc specific fuel consumption is very high if flown at best ECON. People assume it's not "modern" (which means in production of a half century) so therefore it is not efferent. Not true. The engineers that designed these Lycs and TCM engines were smart, creative and inspired.

UL power info.jpg
 
Last edited:
I should clarify a point. I was specifically referring to UL's newer 6 cylinder, turbo charged engine. That is the only one suitable for the majority our builds; rated at 220 HP @ 2700 rpm up to 15K ft. Their earlier offerings were intended to compete with the Rotax.

What do you think is going to happen to prop prices now that part of that market is being consolidated to a degree? I'll state again to look at the whole picture/cost for exhaust, FI and Ign systems (this one is FADEC controlled), the hidden gains from purchasing a PP with already integrated systems, future fuel flexibility, etc.

Some builders had to have faith to make Whirlwind props a player. What sane person would put Garmin, or later Dynon, avionics in their aircraft when King was the standard? New entrants to a market need a product/innovation advantage (Garmin->King) or significant economic advantage.

The original point I was trying to make, not debate; current market conditions have opened the door for more entrants. This is the first time I've really felt this. The UL guys seemed smart enough to expand their regional footprint(s) when appropriate and why wouldn't they for the worlds largest market? Every foray into a market will have growing pains.

While UL wouldn't be a market disruptor, from a price point they are positioned to at least advance their share, IMO.

Edit = Make no mistake, I am a fan of the legacy engines. Their design tends to be underappreciated. They aren't new so they must suck in many people's minds. That said, I'm no fan of how those companies are managed or lead. You can add Hartzell to that list as well
 
Last edited:
Freemasm said:
I should clarify a point. I was specifically referring to UL's newer 6 cylinder, turbo charged engine.

While UL wouldn't be a market disruptor, from a price point they are positioned to at least advance their share, IMO.
Click to expand...

The turbo version UL520T is not that new, Jan 2021, been out almost 3.5 years. Turbo charging is not a panacea for goodness. Lycoming can be and has been turbo charged for what 80 yrs. Not new. The UL520T at the core from what I know is a UL520. Will Turbo fix any Cons? Rated HP now 2700 RPM? Exasperate any weaknesses? I don't know. I would find out before buying. As I sadly mention a twin engine, canard pusher Velocity with two UL520T's* lost power on take off.

* I HAVE NO IDEA if both engines failed (lost thrust), one lost power for a reason or reasons? Not enough power to maintain altitude. Were the props feathering? Do they make electric feathering props. I don't know. I know it was UL Powered just not sure if turbo version. From what I read it was the UL520T.​

What do you mean "market disruptor". The google definition: "In business theory, disruption is considered any innovation that creates a new market where an existing market-leading product or service is eventually displaced." OK so are we talking the latest LYCOMING KILLER.... That ia a hard no in my humble opinion.

All the limitations of a small engine company UL Power vs Lycoming, apples and apples I don't see UL Power displacing Lycoming. Let's fly Lyc vs UL power planes side by side. Let's look at real cost, reliability, factory support. Let's see what happens. If UL Power is a disruptor I will be in-line to buy one. I don't honestly see that happening.

People line up to buy UL Power en masss, fly them, they become the next "Lycoming killer" great. I have heard this for 30 yrs engine after engine. Seems they come and go. UL Power may grow to become ROTAX killer (sub 135 HP engines) and dominate the 200-220 HP market? I doubt it, but we shall see. If it happens it will take decades and likely new engine designs. Both Rotax (Bombardier) and Lycoming (Textron/Avco) are large global companies.

I see the UL520T claimed spec of 220 hp @ 2700 rpm up to 15000 ft . That is great. I recommend my fellow RV'ers not accept any claim unless verified by 3rd party with real measured data. Specs are easy to write... actual performance installed in a plane is another. There are few UL520T's flying around. I know of one. I was told (by former UL Power USA distributor) an RV-4 has a UL520T, but I was never able to verify or get performance.

The only eyes on gauges I found, was the YT video of RV-7 from Belgium I posted above, and it is the non turbo version. If UL Power was winning RENO and Aerobatic competitions (oh not aerobatic scratch that) you would hear about it. The performance of this UL Power RV-7 is not shabby, but "market disruptor" not likely with cost as much as a Lyc 180HP Lyc and less performance. I am sure an IO360 or IO390 wide open would eat this RV-7's lunch. Of course it would eat fuel. I don't think UL Powered RV's are going to win races, even the turbo version. BUT LET'S SEE. Again you can turbocharge your lawnmower, but would you? Just because you can does not mean you should. If you put around below 9,000 ft most of the time a Turbo not needed, just have more cubic inches and normally asperated. Saves a lot of STUFF with a Turbo.

Turbo does NOT add power unless you BOOST over ambient air pressure. That has been done before, cars all the time, but those are water cooled. TURBO creates HEAT and can be done on air cooled engines. However things like INTER-COOLER and bigger oil coolers are needed. With some structural issues of UL520 already experienced by SOME owners, that turbo is not going to help, unless they beefed it up. That should reflect in the weight. I am sure they engineered it... However trust but verify. If they are really making 220HP at 2700 RPM with 320 cu-in displacement they are running BOOST... That is more strain on engine and heat. Is it doable? Sure. Is it done properly? Don't know.

The most COMMON kind of turbo charging for aircraft is called NORMALIZING. This allows the engine to make the same HP at sea level (more dense air) to some critical altitude, typically 8000 feet or higher before HP starts to drop off, for example. This is great for efficiency and not has harsh on the engine. However be a benifit you need to fly at 5 digit altitudes, teens. The core a UL520T, claimed 220hp at 2700 rpm on 320 cu-in is hard to do without boost. There is no new technology here.... How did they do it? Well unless we have some flying examples showing they are making 220HP at 15,000 feet at 2,700 RPM, I am skeptical. But if they are creative and pulled it off it may take some sales from Lycoming. It is possible. 3.5 years have not seen much about the engine.

BTW they advertise FADEC. That is "modern". Not really full FADEC, it does not control the prop. FADEC came from the JET ENGINE world. So it's kind of a misnomer to use it for a piston engines, but we digress. On a $1,200,000 Cirrus SR22T you can get SINGLE lever FADEC with the TSIO550 Continental making 360 HP twin turbo intercooled engines. I hear some people like the non single lever traditional engine control version better. Cirrus is reported to not be impressed with FADEC. Is it needed and provide benefit for the cost premium and complication. Real men fly planes with 3 knobs (Black Blue Red). Ha ha. Same with turbo.... do you need to..... wait joke there but I'll stop....

UL power like ROTAX has turbo, electronic fuel and ignition as well. Not new to small engine market either.

The UL520T, turbo charging does not change physics of engine. A Lyc can be outfitted with Electronic Ignition, Electronic Fuel Injection and turbo.

ROTAX has been in business since 1920. ROTAX was bought by global behemoth Bombardier Recreational Products (BRP). ROTAX engines are in all kinds of things, motorcycles, sport watercraft and LSA's. In 70's thru the 90's they made two-stroke engines that were popular in the ultralight community. Then ROTAX came out with four-stroke, four-cylinder, engine 912, in 1989. It was slow at first, but LSA category of planes entered the USA and World, and ROTAX 912 gained a good reputation, it is the de facto 100hp-ish HP engine for the LSA market. UL POWER also also started with small sub 100HP engines in 2006, and their 4 cyl engines go head to head with ROTAX, except as air cooled direct drive configurations. In 2013 only 10 yrs ago they came out with th higher HP 6 cyl versions. The turbo versions as I said is Jan 2021, 3 yrs.

ROTAX is a market leader in KitFox, Zenith Zenair , LSA's including RV-12. Van made the RV-12 around a ROTAX.... Just like Van made the rest of the RV line of aircraft around Lycoming. Van is no dummy. He said best engine conversion was "take $22,000 and convert it to a Lycoming. (Quote pre inflation).

Bottom line UL Power has to create something so NEW, a quantum leap or at least an evolution, that builds a reputation of innovation, value, reliability, performance, and manufacture support, to be a "market disruptor". They have a lot of work to do. I don't see it happing in the sub 130hp LSA engine market that ROTAX dominates at this time. I don't see that in the 160-360HP market.

Not that UL power is bad, but it is just the competition is good in those markets. This kills the market disrupter at least with current products. The good part for us, we have choices. These are opinions. Based on experience and physics, before I plop down $35,000 on an engine that my life depends on, it better be as a sure thing, as it can be, and a good value. UL Power is a bit of an unknown even after being in business of making UL520 of 10 years. Price wise not giving them away. Pre world wide "panorama" (joke) and supply chain Lycs were in the low $20K range. So that is a no for me on UL Power. I will be watching and hope to see one fly up close in an RV...

1929 Lycoming 1st successful radial aircraft engines, almost 100 years, 1955 first of current Horz opposed design, 70 yrs. Still Market Leader
1920, Rotax founded, first engines 1975 small 2-stroke , 50 years.... 1989, Rotax 912 first of current designs, 35 yrs. Market leader.
Who knows 18 yrs old, in 50 yrs UL Power my be a market disruptor. What market who knows they have feet in both Rotax and Lycoming markets.
 
Last edited:
I am about to put the UL350is in my RV12…I have the Whirlwind 3 blade prop also…seems like a simple installation…it does take some deviation from the plans for the fuel system and FWF…but doable.
 
My little VW (on a Sonex) runs very nicely at 3100 rpm burning 4.5 gph, so 2700 rpm isn't a specific magic number that an engine must run at to achieve its power and efficiency. I do a lot of aerobatics with it, too. I don't plan to do 6G-9G competition aerobatics with it. More like what I do with the VW; 4.5 is about the max Gs I pull, and I'm quite happy there. I'm most looking forward to some more options with inverted flight capabilities. I've conversed with a half dozen UL owners and every one says they are happy and would do it again. Yes, there are downsides, or potentially so, but many of those same downsides exist for the VW, but I've flown it now for 10 years, VERY happily. It is "experimental" aviation after all. I'm up for it.
:)
 
Freemasm said:
Wow. Do you actually read or just like being a contrarian to the point it affects comprehension? Would use another word but it would be censored. There is a difference having intelligence versus being knowledgeable. Thanks for providing that data point.
Click to expand...

"Wow" did not reply to me? Guessing you are. If that is the case what is your point? Do you have something to say about what I wrote? Yes I read: "UL Power - The Market Conditions are favorable?" Favorable to what? Selling more engines. My answer is no. Keep it to topic and facts not personal please. Is UL Power a "market disrupter" and why? I would never buy an engine on lead time alone. Lycoming's are a bargain, made and support in USA. Lycs are not hard to get and you can plan 14 months ahead. I said what I said. Do you have a comment on the topic?

People get so emotionally attached to topics like alternative engines. It's just an engine. Up to you. But again to be clear UL Power Engines and company will have to prove itself and make their own market.... Lycoming and ROTAX not going anywhere. Engines are not hard to get you just need to plan a little ahead. I bought a used engine and overhauled it. Easy and saved money. Do your research.

Jonnyb said:
That was my thinking.
Pretty short on facts, but plenty of conjecture.
Click to expand...

Short on facts? I stated a lot of facts. Do you have something spacific on the topic you disagree with? Did you go to the UL Power facebook page? Did you see and understand the performance and fuel flow from the link I posted above? Where am I wrong. Where I state opinion, I use logic, math, physics, science, good judgement and 34 yrs experience in aviation. I could be wrong. Just tell me why you think so. If you disagree fine, say so, but leave the personal ad hominins out.

Before I strap a very expensive engine onto my plane, my life depends on, I need to trust it. Not enough INFO on UL power for me.... I am not a Beta tester of aircraft engines. Again this is sage wisdom, do not buy an engine until you talk to at least a few owners that are FLYING THEM... not bought it and stick it in the corner of their garage. Best is to fly a plane with that same engine... Does that sound odd to you? Where do you disagree? Try and not make it personal and stick to facts and the topic.

JMS1198 said:
I am about to put the UL350is in my RV12…I have the Whirlwind 3 blade prop also…seems like a simple installation…it does take some deviation from the plans for the fuel system and FWF…but doable.
Click to expand...
Let us know how it goes. So RV-12 is great. It has a wing loading below 11 lbs.sq-ft and stall of 44 mph. Another popular plane that might use same engine is Zenair with 39 mph stall. UL Power has been making these smaller HP engines approx twice as long as the larger 6 cyl. The only negative I found is some owners felt it dod not make as much power as advertised? It may have been sourted out. Did you consider the Viking Honda engine conversion? (Not saying anything wrong with UL Power choice just curious.) Was the cost of UL Power much less than the Rotax 912?
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
"Wow" did not reply to me? Guessing you are. If that is the case what is your point? Do you have something to say about what I wrote? Yes I read: "UL Power - The Market Conditions are favorable?" Favorable to what? Selling more engines. My answer is no. Keep it to topic and facts not personal please. Is UL Power a "market disrupter" and why? I would never buy an engine on lead time alone. Lycoming's are a bargain, made and support in USA. Lycs are not hard to get and you can plan 14 months ahead. I said what I said. Do you have a comment on the topic?

People get so emotionally attached to topics like alternative engines. It's just an engine. Up to you. But again to be clear UL Power Engines and company will have to prove itself and make their own market.... Lycoming and ROTAX not going anywhere. Engines are not hard to get you just need to plan a little ahead. I bought a used engine and overhauled it. Easy and saved money. Do your research.



Short on facts? I stated a lot of facts. Do you have something spacific on the topic you disagree with? Did you go to the UL Power facebook page? Did you see and understand the performance and fuel flow from the link I posted above? Where am I wrong. Where I state opinion, I use logic, math, physics, science, good judgement and 34 yrs experience in aviation. I could be wrong. Just tell me why you think so. If you disagree fine, say so, but leave the personal ad hominins out.

Before I strap a very expensive engine onto my plane, my life depends on, I need to trust it. Not enough INFO on UL power for me.... I am not a Beta tester of aircraft engines. Again this is sage wisdom, do not buy an engine until you talk to at least a few owners that are FLYING THEM... not bought it and stick it in the corner of their garage. Best is to fly a plane with that same engine... Does that sound odd to you? Where do you disagree? Try and not make it personal and stick to facts and the topic.


Let us know how it goes. So RV-12 is great. It has a wing loading below 11 lbs.sq-ft and stall of 44 mph. Another popular plane that might use same engine is Zenair with 39 mph stall. UL Power has been making these smaller HP engines approx twice as long as the larger 6 cyl. The only negative I found is some owners felt it dod not make as much power as advertised? It may have been sourted out. Did you consider the Viking Honda engine conversion? (Not saying anything wrong with UL Power choice just curious.) Was the cost of UL Power much less than the Rotax 912?
Click to expand...
You left out the fact that this forum and others are full of Lycoming and Rotax failures. Cracked cylinders, stuck valves, corroded cams, broken cranks, bad mags, intake system leaks, etc, etc. Their reliability compared to even a cheap Kia car engine is abysmal. No good pilot truly "trusts" those engines. That's why we fly patterns within gliding distance. Cross country flights are games of spot the field or road I can glide to. GPS's have "nearest airport" buttons. And initial climb in a metro area is just a little tense till we hit 1000' or so.
 
Jjackh10 said:
You left out the fact that this forum and others are full of Lycoming and Rotax failures. Cracked cylinders, stuck valves, corroded cams, broken cranks, bad mags, intake system leaks, etc, etc. Their reliability compared to even a cheap Kia car engine is abysmal....
Click to expand...
I agree! I've never owned an airplane so as a new builder I'm trying to learn as much as I can about engine maintenance. In addition to all the issues with stuck valves, etc - there is also the recommendation to fly at least once a week, never run the engine for just a few minutes on the ground, proper leaning techniques, frequent oil changes, inspecting plugs every xx hours, etc. The list goes on and on. Kinda makes me paranoid to be honest.

By contrast, I recently sold a Honda lawnmower that I owned for almost 40 years. It sat for six moths every year without being run. The fuel was always old each spring. I never replaced the park plug although I did check it once. I never replaced the air filter. It didn't have an oil filter. It started on the first or second pull each spring after sitting all winter and ran perfect when I sold it.

Every engine I've ever owned (automobiles, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, boats, lawn equipment, radio controlled cars, etc) is more reliable, more forgiving of abuse and requires far less maintenance than a Lycoming. And none of those engines cost $70,000!!!!!!!!!!
 
gmcjetpilot said:
"Wow" did not reply to me? Guessing you are. If that is the case what is your point? Do you have something to say about what I wrote? Yes I read: "UL Power - The Market Conditions are favorable?" Favorable to what? Selling more engines. My answer is no. Keep it to topic and facts not personal please. Is UL Power a "market disrupter" and why? I would never buy an engine on lead time alone. Lycoming's are a bargain, made and support in USA. Lycs are not hard to get and you can plan 14 months ahead. I said what I said. Do you have a comment on the topic?

People get so emotionally attached to topics like alternative engines. It's just an engine. Up to you. But again to be clear UL Power Engines and company will have to prove itself and make their own market.... Lycoming and ROTAX not going anywhere. Engines are not hard to get you just need to plan a little ahead. I bought a used engine and overhauled it. Easy and saved money. Do your research.



Short on facts? I stated a lot of facts. Do you have something spacific on the topic you disagree with? Did you go to the UL Power facebook page? Did you see and understand the performance and fuel flow from the link I posted above? Where am I wrong. Where I state opinion, I use logic, math, physics, science, good judgement and 34 yrs experience in aviation. I could be wrong. Just tell me why you think so. If you disagree fine, say so, but leave the personal ad hominins out.

Before I strap a very expensive engine onto my plane, my life depends on, I need to trust it. Not enough INFO on UL power for me.... I am not a Beta tester of aircraft engines. Again this is sage wisdom, do not buy an engine until you talk to at least a few owners that are FLYING THEM... not bought it and stick it in the corner of their garage. Best is to fly a plane with that same engine... Does that sound odd to you? Where do you disagree? Try and not make it personal and stick to facts and the topic.


Let us know how it goes. So RV-12 is great. It has a wing loading below 11 lbs.sq-ft and stall of 44 mph. Another popular plane that might use same engine is Zenair with 39 mph stall. UL Power has been making these smaller HP engines approx twice as long as the larger 6 cyl. The only negative I found is some owners felt it dod not make as much power as advertised? It may have been sourted out. Did you consider the Viking Honda engine conversion? (Not saying anything wrong with UL Power choice just curious.) Was the cost of UL Power much less than the Rotax 912?
Click to expand...
You want a response to your giant unfocused rant?

In short you seem to come into the alternative engines forum as a lycoming fan just to pick fights. If all you're doing is supporting Lycoming why are you even here?

In Long I’ll try to follow your points as they came. Please open your post to see what I'm referencing.

Your first post:
  • Yes, there have been failures. Only engines that haven’t flown, haven’t failed.
  • Who cares about DarkAero in this discussion? Their speed will come from their airplane design.
  • Why does it matter if the HP peak comes from 3200 RPM. Get a prop designed for it and use it as designed. Not like your tips are going supersonic.
  • You might be grounded with a Lycoming waiting for parts to show up. Have you looked at the ULPower manuals? Seems like an odd thing to bring up if you don’t know. I have the Lycoming manual and it isn’t exactly a work of art.
  • You don’t hear people complain about their ULPower engines often. Would be nice to see what one does on a dyno though.
  • Why are we comparing the 180 hp to an angle valve Lycoming? No one is buying the 520i if they’re looking for hp. They’re probably buying it because it can burn 87 ethanol pump gas. I don’t know how you left out the fuel in your discussion.
  • Why are PSRU’s entering this discussion?
  • ROTAX revs way more than 3200 RPM… Not comparable.
  • Still on PSRU’s….
  • Lycomings are not modern… I have an O-320 from the 60s in my garage. It is not modern and a new one is just an updated old engine.
  • ULPower is not a car engine and pilots rarely run wide open all the time.
  • What do Lycoming factories have to do with anything?
  • Who cares that it is handmade, they both are.
  • ULPower’s FADEC control runs conservatively rich. The fuel burn is a little high. True.
  • I doubt the air intake affects the HP, and yes you are being nit picky on the extended nose.
  • Have there been Aerobatic failures? Sounds like a lot of opinion you are throwing around…
  • Composite constant speed props are expensive. Airmaster is in line with the competition.
  • I’m not sure where the $30,000 came from. Did they lower prices recently? Either way the FWF parts will be a comparable cost to Lycoming and the engine comes with accessories Lycomings don’t. The FWF cost is primarily affected by the fact that Vans only provides for Lycoming.
  • Yes, it’s made in Belgium and there are a couple distributors?...
  • More speculation and opinion…
  • Lead time is relevant. I don’t want to put a deposit on an engine that I won’t have for 14 months. I’d rather pay when I’m ready for it.
  • You can’t buy a Lycoming for $30k…
  • Lycomings are great. I’ll probably put a Lycoming on my plane. This doesn’t make ULPower bad.
  • Lycomings are not modern engines. If they were, 100LL would be gone already. How about the fact that ULPower can make those numbers with mogas, but you have to go to low compression and lower HP on a Lycoming if you want to run mogas?
Now to your second post:
  • Their turbo adds a little normalization and a little boost. It isn’t doubling the horsepower or anything. It is based on the 180hp version, so 162ish at 2700 up to 220 at 2700.
  • He specifically said it wouldn’t be a market disruptor… calm down…
  • Rant rant rant, its not a race engine and neither is a stock Lycoming. While we are talking competition, how about those Yamaha's winning STOL? Are you going to fly one of those?
  • Yes, it is a turbo system and will need things like an intercooler and will take more cooling… Yes, they are running some boost, the number is published on their website…
  • Every turbo installation I see increases the hp so I don’t know where you’re going with this “NORMALIZING” bit. Look at Rotax. They all take the 100 and 120 hp versions to 140-160 hp. You really would put a turbo on a Lycoming and not add some boost?
  • Now we’re on to FADEC. FADEC means Full Authority Digital Engine Control. It has nothing to do with the prop. Yes, you can put EFII on a Lycoming.
  • And now we’re talking about Rotax…
  • And in conclusion you don’t see something new and are harping on the “market disruptor” thing again. You need to reread the first post. We are all here to talk about the value.
And your third post:
  • No, we didn’t reply. It takes too much effort to unpack your argument and respond, but here you go, I did it.
  • Again, back to your opinions “I would never buy it”. Okay, go back to the traditional aircraft engine page.
  • I’m going to buy a used Lycoming and overhaul it too, but if I was buying new, I wouldn’t be looking at a Lycoming.
  • Your few stated facts are drowned with biased opinions.
  • You argue that you need to trust it. You need to see other flying them. Great, but don’t push those requirements on to us.
Fundamentally, you provide very little data with your opinions. The data you show indicates that it will have similar performance, slightly rich fuel burn, for less money, burning cheaper fuel. That’s value. And if they make updates to run leaner that will be even more value. It is an up-and-coming engine and the market is favorable. Only time will tell and none of our opinions mean squat.
 
Jjackh10 said:
You left out the fact that this forum and others are full of Lycoming and Rotax failures. Cracked cylinders, stuck valves, corroded cams, broken cranks, bad mags, intake system leaks, etc, etc. Their reliability compared to even a cheap Kia car engine is abysmal. No good pilot truly "trusts" those engines. That's why we fly patterns within gliding distance. Cross country flights are games of spot the field or road I can glide to. GPS's have "nearest airport" buttons. And initial climb in a metro area is just a little tense till we hit 1000' or so.
Click to expand...
OK got statistics? You are NOT WRONG.... but let's get real. Sample size, years in service vs. UL Power. Let's go with what we know. That is indeed the problem. We know a LOT about Lycs and Hartzell, and we know LITTLE about UL Power and AIRMASTER. That is my consternation, concern, caution.
5
Many of the problems with Lycs . Example, a 1967 Piper or Cessna sitting on the ramp open carb, open exhaust for 25 years, no use, and they fire it up and go fly. Give me a break. Engines flown daily to operating temps don't have issues.

I did not say anything about Rotax but they as well have issues. The roll out of the 915iS turbo was recalled, due to valves.

Lyc cams are high and dry in engine case and if you don't use engine often it goes dry and can corrode. Don't change oil? Running +400F CHT? Lyc can tolerate a little disuse, misuse but decades of this will take a toll. We have little history in UL520's.

I have seen every manner of Lyc and Conti engine failure, some spectacular. Most for misuse and disuse and sometimes improper maintenance or overhaul. However is this statistically chronic and not avoidable? Not chronic and is avoidable. There are failures that just happen. Fairly rare.

PMA manufactures had bad batch of cranks, manufacture material defect and a crank failed*. The manufacture recalled the cranks. Before that other Lyc crank failed*, from corrosion pitting. AD was issued.

* When a Lyc engine or Hartzell prop fails, we are talking one failure or two fleet wide before it get's investigated, goes under electron microscope (literally). Factory and FAA get involved. Of course being "experimental" we don't have to comply with AD's. However having certified based "experimental" engines and props is an advantage. UL Power?​

UL power is experimental. As I said I am not a Bata tester engine test pilot. Lycoming and Hartzell are well proven certified designs warts and all, with far more service experience we know more. That is my story and sticking to it. :)

Other examples of Lyc failures:

ECI no longer is in business and was bought out. ECI was a major "clone" PMA parts maker for Lyc. They had a batch of bad cylinders, lots of cylinders. Those parts were flagged and removed from service and stock.

UL Power built engines with cast pistons at first. They did not last. They now use forged pistons. Early adapters were test pilots. OK. They learned something in 10 years of making theses engines. I am sure they will learn more in the next 10 years.

Lyc 4 and 6 jug horizontally opposed engines continuously in production for almost 60 years, have had a lot of refinement. People refer to this as antiquated or not modern? The longevity is the advantage. If Lyc is not modern, than make an engine that beats it. UL Power does not beat a Lyc in my opinion in performance, support or reliability based on my educated guess, hypothesizes, if a Lyc is flown often, maintained and operated within limits. UL Power? Don't know I have an engine, Lycoming. Nothing begs me to to change.

Prop related, AIRMASTER, you are pretty much married to that electric prop and it is going to put a dent in $20,000. I kid you not I got my Hartzell* with 1000 hours for $2500. New price ot sure, but last I checked blended airfoil was in the $8K ball park. Hartzell is hydraulic, my opinion superior. No one intentionally uses electric. It is a work around for alternative engines with PSRU's or in this case UL power that did not provide for it.

Hartzell failures? Yes some fleet issue (hub cracking in early compact hubs) and an AD issued, inspection schedule upgraded. There was only a few effected props on high HP Ag Cats... yet whole fleet was inspected. AIRMASTER? Likely many are not flown a lot and service experience not extensive. You are a test pilot. Will you know about some potential problem? Through social media is likely the way you will know.

Lyc and Hartzell has a much larger fleet, flying way more years and hours than UL Power / AIRMASTER.

BOTTOM LINE: There is not enough information on these UL Power UL520's in performance any reliability to make ME comfortable, based on what I see so far. You may feel fine about it. I am willing to be convinced. Change my mind, buy one and fly it 1000 trouble free hours. Happy to hear more actual experiences with your UL520iS or T. I think UL Power is more in the ROTAX market than competing head to head with Lycoming.
 
bertschb said:
I agree! I've never owned an airplane so as a new builder I'm trying to learn as much as I can about engine maintenance. In addition to all the issues with stuck valves, etc - there is also the recommendation to fly at least once a week, never run the engine for just a few minutes on the ground, proper leaning techniques, frequent oil changes, inspecting plugs every xx hours, etc. The list goes on and on. Kinda makes me paranoid to be honest.

By contrast, I recently sold a Honda lawnmower that I owned for almost 40 years. It sat for six moths every year without being run. The fuel was always old each spring. I never replaced the park plug although I did check it once. I never replaced the air filter. It didn't have an oil filter. It started on the first or second pull each spring after sitting all winter and ran perfect when I sold it.

Every engine I've ever owned (automobiles, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, boats, lawn equipment, radio controlled cars, etc) is more reliable, more forgiving of abuse and requires far less maintenance than a Lycoming. And none of those engines cost $70,000!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
My simple mind looks at it like a Harley engine vs a Honda engine. Both V-twin, similar displacement, but the Honda makes more power and will run many many more hours.

Why?

Because the Harley engine hasn't had much design change since 1936 (Lycoming since 1938 btw). The only thing of significant reliability improvement was adding EFI in 1995. Incidentally experimental EFI systems seem to be improving Lycoming's as well. Things like being able to run unleaded and keep the higher hp from higher compression.
 
gmcjetpilot said:
OK got statistics? You are NOT WRONG.... but let's get real. Sample size, years in service vs. UL Power. Let's go with what we know. That is indeed the problem. We know a LOT about Lycs and Hartzell, and we know LITTLE about UL Power and AIRMASTER. That is my consternation, concern, caution.
5
Many of the problems with Lycs . Example, a 1967 Piper or Cessna sitting on the ramp open carb, open exhaust for 25 years, no use, and they fire it up and go fly. Give me a break. Engines flown daily to operating temps don't have issues.

I did not say anything about Rotax but they as well have issues. The roll out of the 915iS turbo was recalled, due to valves.

Lyc cams are high and dry in engine case and if you don't use engine often it goes dry and can corrode. Don't change oil? Running +400F CHT? Lyc can tolerate a little disuse, misuse but decades of this will take a toll. We have little history in UL520's.

I have seen every manner of Lyc and Conti engine failure, some spectacular. Most for misuse and disuse and sometimes improper maintenance or overhaul. However is this statistically chronic and not avoidable? Not chronic and is avoidable. There are failures that just happen. Fairly rare.

PMA manufactures had bad batch of cranks, manufacture material defect and a crank failed*. The manufacture recalled the cranks. Before that other Lyc crank failed*, from corrosion pitting. AD was issued.

* When a Lyc engine or Hartzell prop fails, we are talking one failure or two fleet wide before it get's investigated, goes under electron microscope (literally). Factory and FAA get involved. Of course being "experimental" we don't have to comply with AD's. However having certified based "experimental" engines and props is an advantage. UL Power?​

UL power is experimental. As I said I am not a Bata tester engine test pilot. Lycoming and Hartzell are well proven certified designs warts and all, with far more service experience we know more. That is my story and sticking to it. :)

Other examples of Lyc failures:

ECI no longer is in business and was bought out. ECI was a major "clone" PMA parts maker for Lyc. They had a batch of bad cylinders, lots of cylinders. Those parts were flagged and removed from service and stock.

UL Power built engines with cast pistons at first. They did not last. They now use forged pistons. Early adapters were test pilots. OK. They learned something in 10 years of making theses engines. I am sure they will learn more in the next 10 years.

Lyc 4 and 6 jug horizontally opposed engines continuously in production for almost 60 years, have had a lot of refinement. People refer to this as antiquated or not modern? The longevity is the advantage. If Lyc is not modern, than make an engine that beats it. UL Power does not beat a Lyc in my opinion in performance, support or reliability based on my educated guess, hypothesizes, if a Lyc is flown often, maintained and operated within limits. UL Power? Don't know I have an engine, Lycoming. Nothing begs me to to change.

Prop related, AIRMASTER, you are pretty much married to that electric prop and it is going to put a dent in $20,000. I kid you not I got my Hartzell* with 1000 hours for $2500. New price ot sure, but last I checked blended airfoil was in the $8K ball park. Hartzell is hydraulic, my opinion superior. No one intentionally uses electric. It is a work around for alternative engines with PSRU's or in this case UL power that did not provide for it.

Hartzell failures? Yes some fleet issue (hub cracking in early compact hubs) and an AD issued, inspection schedule upgraded. There was only a few effected props on high HP Ag Cats... yet whole fleet was inspected. AIRMASTER? Likely many are not flown a lot and service experience not extensive. You are a test pilot. Will you know about some potential problem? Through social media is likely the way you will know.

Lyc and Hartzell has a much larger fleet, flying way more years and hours than UL Power / AIRMASTER.

BOTTOM LINE: There is not enough information on these UL Power UL520's in performance any reliability to make ME comfortable, based on what I see so far. You may feel fine about it. I am willing to be convinced. Change my mind, buy one and fly it 1000 trouble free hours. Happy to hear more actual experiences with your UL520iS or T. I think UL Power is more in the ROTAX market than competing head to head with Lycoming.
Click to expand...
I agree completely around sample size/ years. That is data that won't be available for a long time. All of your same thought's, fears, and statements were coming from many when the Rotax 912 was introduced. Now many of those same people are saying it again about UL, viking, yamaha, etc while flying behind a rotax hahaha.

I personally would have more confidence in a UL engine with its fuel and ignition systems than a Lyc or cont with mags and mechanical injection. Just my view based on the Harley vs Honda analogy.

Another Harley vs Lycoming comparison is oil consumption. Even Harleys haven't used oil like a lycoming since the 30's when the oil ran from the tank through the engine and was dumped out on the ground hahaha.
 
Lithosis said:
You want a response to your giant unfocused rant?

In short you seem to come into the alternative engines forum as a lycoming fan just to pick fights. If all you're doing is supporting Lycoming why are you even here?

In Long I’ll try to follow your points as they came. Please open your post to see what I'm referencing.

Your first post:
  • Yes, there have been failures. Only engines that haven’t flown, haven’t failed.
  • Who cares about DarkAero in this discussion? Their speed will come from their airplane design.
  • Why does it matter if the HP peak comes from 3200 RPM. Get a prop designed for it and use it as designed. Not like your tips are going supersonic.
  • You might be grounded with a Lycoming waiting for parts to show up. Have you looked at the ULPower manuals? Seems like an odd thing to bring up if you don’t know. I have the Lycoming manual and it isn’t exactly a work of art.
  • You don’t hear people complain about their ULPower engines often. Would be nice to see what one does on a dyno though.
  • Why are we comparing the 180 hp to an angle valve Lycoming? No one is buying the 520i if they’re looking for hp. They’re probably buying it because it can burn 87 ethanol pump gas. I don’t know how you left out the fuel in your discussion.
  • Why are PSRU’s entering this discussion?
  • ROTAX revs way more than 3200 RPM… Not comparable.
  • Still on PSRU’s….
  • Lycomings are not modern… I have an O-320 from the 60s in my garage. It is not modern and a new one is just an updated old engine.
  • ULPower is not a car engine and pilots rarely run wide open all the time.
  • What do Lycoming factories have to do with anything?
  • Who cares that it is handmade, they both are.
  • ULPower’s FADEC control runs conservatively rich. The fuel burn is a little high. True.
  • I doubt the air intake affects the HP, and yes you are being nit picky on the extended nose.
  • Have there been Aerobatic failures? Sounds like a lot of opinion you are throwing around…
  • Composite constant speed props are expensive. Airmaster is in line with the competition.
  • I’m not sure where the $30,000 came from. Did they lower prices recently? Either way the FWF parts will be a comparable cost to Lycoming and the engine comes with accessories Lycomings don’t. The FWF cost is primarily affected by the fact that Vans only provides for Lycoming.
  • Yes, it’s made in Belgium and there are a couple distributors?...
  • More speculation and opinion…
  • Lead time is relevant. I don’t want to put a deposit on an engine that I won’t have for 14 months. I’d rather pay when I’m ready for it.
  • You can’t buy a Lycoming for $30k…
  • Lycomings are great. I’ll probably put a Lycoming on my plane. This doesn’t make ULPower bad.
  • Lycomings are not modern engines. If they were, 100LL would be gone already. How about the fact that ULPower can make those numbers with mogas, but you have to go to low compression and lower HP on a Lycoming if you want to run mogas?
Now to your second post:
  • Their turbo adds a little normalization and a little boost. It isn’t doubling the horsepower or anything. It is based on the 180hp version, so 162ish at 2700 up to 220 at 2700.
  • He specifically said it wouldn’t be a market disruptor… calm down…
  • Rant rant rant, its not a race engine and neither is a stock Lycoming. While we are talking competition, how about those Yamaha's winning STOL? Are you going to fly one of those?
  • Yes, it is a turbo system and will need things like an intercooler and will take more cooling… Yes, they are running some boost, the number is published on their website…
  • Every turbo installation I see increases the hp so I don’t know where you’re going with this “NORMALIZING” bit. Look at Rotax. They all take the 100 and 120 hp versions to 140-160 hp. You really would put a turbo on a Lycoming and not add some boost?
  • Now we’re on to FADEC. FADEC means Full Authority Digital Engine Control. It has nothing to do with the prop. Yes, you can put EFII on a Lycoming.
  • And now we’re talking about Rotax…
  • And in conclusion you don’t see something new and are harping on the “market disruptor” thing again. You need to reread the first post. We are all here to talk about the value.
And your third post:
  • No, we didn’t reply. It takes too much effort to unpack your argument and respond, but here you go, I did it.
  • Again, back to your opinions “I would never buy it”. Okay, go back to the traditional aircraft engine page.
  • I’m going to buy a used Lycoming and overhaul it too, but if I was buying new, I wouldn’t be looking at a Lycoming.
  • Your few stated facts are drowned with biased opinions.
  • You argue that you need to trust it. You need to see other flying them. Great, but don’t push those requirements on to us.
Fundamentally, you provide very little data with your opinions. The data you show indicates that it will have similar performance, slightly rich fuel burn, for less money, burning cheaper fuel. That’s value. And if they make updates to run leaner that will be even more value. It is an up-and-coming engine and the market is favorable. Only time will tell and none of our opinions mean squat.
Click to expand...

Not picking a fight but winning an debate. No fight. Most of your comment is attacking me, not liking my points. I think I made great points and relevant. Read my post above.

As far as my comments they are all related to the subject of the thread, "IS MARKET RIGHT (for UL POWER)?", and comments about the UL520T be a "market disrupter"? I did not bring that topic up but opined on it. My answer to both questions is No! Sorry. All my comments supports the "No!". You don't have to agree or like it. I hope I am wrong franakly, a new Lycoming killer at half the price, same HP at 30% less fuel burn and weight. I am waiting.

Sales hype of anything not Lycoming as MODERN, including FADEC is misleading or irrelevant but people fall for it. It is just sales. As I say above Lycoming's longevity is the strength. Lycoming being certified is a strength. Hydraulic prop and being aerobatic (strong) is all goodness. Support in parts and service? Lycoming has the edge second to none. UL Power has none of these advantages. My story and sticking to it.

I know RENO and RedBull Air races are over. But if they come back, and UL Power is winning RENO and winning Red Bull call me. How can a new product that has less performance, may be (?) less reliable, have less manufacture support, cost the same or more, over take a proven product? Everything I said supports that argument. You clearly don't like it. I am not going to repeat what I said.

You seem upset so I will leave you alone but say, we can agree to disagree... Cheers. .
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
Not picking a fight but winning an debate. No fight. Most of your comment is attacking me, not liking my points. I think I made great points and relevant. Read my post above.

As far as my comments they are all related to the subject of the thread, "IS MARKET RIGHT (for UL POWER)?", and comments about the UL520T be a "market disrupter"? I did not bring that topic up but opined on it. My answer to both questions is No! Sorry. All my comments supports the "No!". You don't have to agree or like it. I hope I am wrong franakly, a new Lycoming killer at half the price, same HP at 30% less fuel burn and weight. I am waiting.

Sales hype of anything not Lycoming as MODERN, including FADEC is misleading or irrelevant but people fall for it. It is just sales. As I say above Lycoming's longevity is the strength. Lycoming being certified is a strength. Hydraulic prop and being aerobatic (strong) is all goodness. Support in parts and service? Lycoming has the edge second to none. UL Power has none of these advantages. My story and sticking to it.

I know RENO and RedBull Air races are over. But if they come back, and UL Power is winning RENO and winning Red Bull call me. How can a new product that has less performance, may be (?) less reliable, have less manufacture support, cost the same or more, over take a proven product? Everything I said supports that argument. You clearly don't like it. I am not going to repeat what I said.

You seem upset so I will leave you alone but say, we can agree to disagree... Cheers. .
Click to expand...
You make the point is that Lycoming reliability is a known value. And there is not yet enough data to determine UL power's reliability. Agree'd, fair enough.

You then try to make a point that UL power won't be reliable. Where is your data to support? Not yet enough data right?

Your points around horsepower are nonsense. Take a 320 cu/in lycoming with similar compression and spin it at the same rpm and It should be pretty close to UL powers numbers. The UL engine has intake/ exhaust paths, cam profiles, and combustion chambers designed with knowledge gained since the 40's along with EFI. So the Normally aspirated 520 would be a lighter more powerful pump gas capable replacement for the O-320. Perhaps the suggestion of the ULS520T as an O-360 replacement is the horsepower point you were trying to make? Same applies, add forced induction to an O-320 and power wise it would be a suitable replacement.
 
Wonderful rant from professional pilot with "all the money in the world". I however, do not have said "money". So, I'm going with the 520isT on my 7. I've already sold the cowling for the original 360 plan and have the Van's spinner and backplate available for sale if anyone interested.
 
Jjackh10 said:
You make the point is that Lycoming reliability is a known value. And there is not yet enough data to determine UL power's reliability. Agree'd, fair enough.

You then try to make a point that UL power won't be reliable. Where is your data to support? Not yet enough data right?

Your points around horsepower are nonsense. Take a 320 cu/in lycoming with similar compression and spin it at the same rpm and It should be pretty close to UL powers numbers. The UL engine has intake/ exhaust paths, cam profiles, and combustion chambers designed with knowledge gained since the 40's along with EFI. So the Normally aspirated 520 would be a lighter more powerful pump gas capable replacement for the O-320. Perhaps the suggestion of the ULS520T as an O-360 replacement is the horsepower point you were trying to make? Same applies, add forced induction to an O-320 and power wise it would be a suitable replacement.
Click to expand...
I did not say it WOULD NOT be reliable. I said look at the UL community facebook page and google this stuff my friend. You decide if this is OK, one off, extenuating circumstances? Early teething pains? My guess if you lived in Europe you would know. Time will tell if it's a success or not. I am not willing to be part of it because I am boring.

UL530 has had some issues, documented on the INTER WEBS. In the past (look it up) pistons failing (again they used cast pistons at one time apparently), cylinder bore scoring, crank flange and shaft cracks, case oil leaks (again google it). There are blogs. The people who write about it are owners, pilots, operators, and real troupers. They all are fixing their engine and giving it another go. Pioneers. Real experimental builders. As far as the twin velocity accident powered by two UL520T's, it was reported to have lost power. Why? Don't know. Not saying engine failed. I do not know if it had feathering propellers. YOU may say dumb statement? Read on below **.

As far as the Velocity I don't care what engines it had. I am sick this happened. I can only say it gives me cause. I am not going to say more because I don't know. N106VT prelim is out 8 months ago. The registration says engines ULPOWER, UL520 Series.

The UL520iS with no turbo has had issues right. I have established that. The new UL520T claims to make boost of 38 in-hg max! WOW.... I want to see a 1000 hours of reliable flight time on that engine. I suspect UL Power did test stand testing? I assume they did flight test. How many hours? I don't know. It is not a certified engine, but cost as much as one.

Again me-no-test-tee-pilot-tee.... Beta test engine tester, no Sir... Ha ha. The smaller UL engines are often in very light wing loaded low stall planes. It is far more easy to survive an off field accident at 39 miles with a wing loading of about 10 lbs/sq-ft.... The wing loading on that twin Velocity is almost 22 lbs/sq-ft. That is sporty. Most RV's are in the 15 lbs/sq-ft ball park. Sure canard does not stall, but they can sink like a brick.

UL Power not aerobatic? Why? I am going to say it was designed to be a light weight engine, and not designed for aerobatics. OK. So it does not have beef, extra material to make it stronger to withstand aerobatics, but good enough for standard category flying +3.8 to -1.52 g's. The RV4/6/7/8/14 are +6/-3G LIMIT load aerobatic planes (that is +9/-4.5G ultimate load factor). I want my engine to be as strong as the airframe. Sometimes overbuilt is good... pay the price in weight. The UL520iSA (aerobatic version) weighs the same as the regular version UL520iS... so not a lot of extra beef?

The UL520T is 269 lbs. A Lyc 360 180 HP is 259 lbs!!! You say no turbo? Add a turbo onto the Lyc. I read that turbo charging adds 35 lbs. So it will weight about 25 pounds more and have an awesome American engine...

Back to the mighty Lycoming. The Lycoming crank, rods, pistons, heads are kind of brick houses, designed in America and built in USA.... No cast pistons here my friend, made in America! None of that European stuff (trust me I drive German cars and motorcycles, I know the struggles). Ha ha. :) OK....

The guy who made a twin engine RV-6 with two Fly Corvair engines, used fixed props and a brake to stop wind milling and reduce drag
smokeongo.co.za

A twin-engine RV - Smoke On Go

Jim Tomaszewski's twin RV was one of the highlights at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2021 and he designed and built this unique experimental aircraft from a concept that he had in his head. Images: Tom Snow Jim had built himself an RV-6a in the mid-1990s, but he and his wife Ginger, like to go places and
smokeongo.co.za smokeongo.co.za
 
FuturPilot said:
Wonderful rant from professional pilot with "all the money in the world". I however, do not have said "money". So, I'm going with the 520isT on my 7. I've already sold the cowling for the original 360 plan and have the Van's spinner and backplate available for sale if anyone interested.
Click to expand...

You talked to my accountant? I have all the money in the world? He says I am broke. Ha ha. If you think an UL520T and AIRMASTER prop is cheap or cheaper than a Lycoming you apparently did not do research and badly mistaken. UL Power is like a fancy restaurant with no prices on the menu. You have no Van's discount. If you have to ask you can't afford it. UL Power does not publish prices, at least openly. I dislike that. I read that 520T is $48k. Last I hear AIRMASTER was $18K.... So you are $66K. I would not build a plane if that is what my engine and prop cost me.

I do NOT have all the money in the world but not poor.... Still I bought a 600 hr recently overhauled O360A1A 180HP 10 yrs ago. By the time I overhauled engine, carb, added accessories, added two P-Mags (used), baffles (not free), I had about $15K into it, total. I got a good used servable Hartzell CS prop for $2500. So lets round up for grins to $18K in my total Engine and prop...

You are going to pay $66K for your Belgium wonder engine and down under prop with a volume knob to change pitch? Shipping and support are going to be long distance. Lycoming's and Hartzell's (or other props) are all over the place in good ol USA...

I can buy a new YO-360-A1A $36,400 (180 HP) and a new Hartzell Blended Airfoil for $11,871. Doing a little math, carry the one... that is $48,271. You will pay or about $17,729 more, apples and apples new.

Don't forget all that new engineering you will need to do. Engine mount? You have to hang that dumb engine mount to mount adapter thing on to extend the light engine fwd so your CG is not behind your rudder. Why put a proven Lycoming on, that your your RV was designed for. Put in a really different one in. Brilliant. What can go wrong. Not sure that engine mount extension gizmo comes with engine, guessing not. Let's add another $2000 for that, for a total of $68,000. So now you are $20,000 MORE for the UL Power and electric prop verses a NEW Lyc and new airfoil Hartzell. Impressive.

You might point out I am comparing to a 180HP engine, not the 220HP claimed. Yep, true. However we know the Lyc REALLY makes rated HP and a tad more with good intake and exhaust. OK you got to have IO390, 215HP (with out turbo and 38" boost). So add $15,000 for the IO390. It will STILL be $5,000 cheaper than UL Power, but you will have an aircraft engine, IO390.

You say no turbo charger on IO390? Yawn. First I doubt you will run a UL520T at 38 inches of MAP. I am almost 100% sure UL power does not allow that boost for long periods, and even if they did you would SUCK fuel down like no tomorrow. Also do you fly at FL180 often or need to? I don't. Low to Mid teens at most. An IO390 will not even struggle to get to the mid teens and go fast and dare say economically. No Turbo needed.

Second, I hate turbos. Big pain, cost and they fail. I flew turbo charged planes a long time ago as a "professional pilot". Always issues, the planes in hanger, maintenance cursing at cracked turbo plumbing. A tiny displacement 320 cu-in UL Power, even with single turbo will not perform as well as the bigger cubic inch IO390 Lyc swinging a BIG FAT blended airfoil DESIGNED FOR RV's.... We don't know because no UL520T's are flying, at least fast in RV's. The one example we have with the non turbo UL520 is pretty average speed and fuel burn, slower than a 180HP RV. Fuel flow? About the same.

We do know RV6, RV7 and RV8 were going 240 to 250 MPH at 6,000 density altitude at RENO air races in 2023. So let's race when you get your hot rod finished. There is no replacement for displacement. TURBO charging a small engine is like a band-aid. Just get a bigger real aircraft engine and save all the turbo mess.

So there, alternative engines are NOT CHEAP.... A freaking ROTAX 915iS is $44K!!!!!! Lycoming is a BARGAIN...

You are going to pay $68,000 for your Belgium waffle UL engine and kangaroo AIRBEATER prop (ha ha). Good for you. That is more than I have in my whole plane with glass panel.

I paid $18,000 for both my prop and engine and bet I'll still whip your tail in a flat out race.... Ouch. I am messing with you. All the best.
Put whatever you want in your plane Sir. Wish you luck, be safe. Practice your engine out off field landings. :oops:
PS I do RV transition training but only if it has a Lycoming engine. Rant switch to off... Ha ha.
 
Last edited:
When I fly into and out of Steamboat Springs, CO in the summer with field Elev of 6880 and density altitude of upwards of 10k, I'll be glad I have All 220hp to haul my fat A$$ out.
Incidently, it has what is commonly called a turbo noramalizer set up. Also, for this setup, the "kangaroo Airbeater" is using Sensenich blades, which if I'm not mistaken are made in the good ol U.S.
 
It’s all about choice & that other ramification of something ‘alternate’…resale values! What you might save at the start but you could lose at the end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.