Power of UL POWER AERO ENGINES ?

[MYR]

Hi !

I am a owner of a UL260i motor (from the belgian UL POWER AERO ENGINES company)... which is yet to be started...

I seriously doubt the output figures given by the company. Max output is supposed to be 95 - 97hp. It happens to be around 79 - 85hp after various investigations.

Is it a widely spread engine in the USA ? Are there any owners in this forum, and if so, are you happy with it ?

Thanks ?

[Jim Heffelfinger]

may want to place this on the hombuilders corner as well.

[malexander]

Check the RV12 forum on VAF. There's a guy on there that put one in an RV12. IIRC, it flew pretty good.

[MYR]

What is VAF ? Where is it ?


Edit : thanks to malexander below

2d Edit : impossible to register !!!
unable to answer to the anti robot questions
What is the model number of the first RV that Richard VanGrunsven offered for sale at Van's Aircraft?
What is the last digit of the localizer frequency in the ILS or LOC RWY 16L approach at Fort Worth's Alliance Airport (KAFW)?
Answers in PM ?

[malexander]

What is VAF ? Where is it ?

VAF is Vans Air Force web site. It's a web site owned by Doug Reeves dedicated to the RV line of aircraft. Lots of information on there.

[Mark]

MYR, those questions are there just to stop automated spamming of their boards. The first RV offered for sale was the RV-3.
They link to the approach plate for KAFW - http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1209/06918IL16L.PDF so the localizer freq. is 110.15

I've generally heard good reports on the UL power engines. They quote powers at higher RPMs than Continental/ Lycoming /Rotax so there may be some loss due to using a smaller propeller or a lower RPM limit. In other respects the quoted powers should be comparable.

Where were you informed of these lower power figures?

[MYR]

Where were you informed of these lower power figures?
This diagram comes from a german factory called SILENT HEKTIK that makes improvements with all sorts of engines :
ps means hp
1st line is Power announced by the Factory
2sd line is the point of Max Power mesured at the Propeller Shaft
3rd line is the point of Max Torque
As you can see the max power of the UL POWER 260i was found at 2700 rpm for 79 hp.
http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/711301Poids_Puiss_Coupl_de_11_moteurs__720_px.jpg (http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=711301Poids_Puiss_Coupl_de_11_moteur s__720_px.jpg)

[FlyingRon]

You'll note that the rated 95 HP is for 3300 RPM and the German site measured 79 at 2700, which seems reasonable to me. It's almost perfectly proportional (probably within the margin of error).
POWER = torque x RPM.

[Mark]

It does seem odd that they are quoting output power at a lower RPM for the direct drive engines.

With a fixed pitch prop, you are unlikely to get the rated power of any engine at take-off as you won't achieve the rated RPM.

It is difficult to get an exact like-for-like comparison between the UL power and the Rotax as they are rated at very much different propeller RPMs. You may be forced to a smaller diameter prop with the UL power engine to avoid transonic tip speeds which yield lower efficiency and much more noise. The smaller diameter prop will provide roughly comparable thrust in cruise at a given power output, but the static thrust will be reduced compared to a motor that produces the same power at a lower RPM turning a larger diameter prop.

Using a larger prop and downrating the RPM limit will give poorer performance than the smaller prop at the full RPM rating.

[MYR]

Maybe "FlyingRon" and "Mark" are right. Maybe "Silent Hektik" has determined that these direct drive engines have no more power at a higher rpm.
Anyway, it is sure that аt above 2700/2900 rpm we are compelled to use little diameter propellers, so it is rather difficult to use the available power, because little propellers don't blow a lot of air around the cowlings.

[rshannon]

...
Anyway, it is sure that аt above 2700/2900 rpm we are compelled to use little diameter propellers, so it is rather difficult to use the available power, because little propellers don't blow a lot of air around the cowlings.

Au contraire. Presumably you weren't being literal about the need for blowing air around the cowl, as that is not a meaningful measure of prop performance. In any case, lots of direct drive engines with high RPM's and smaller dia. props do just fine, like the Jabiru's, which perform well on many different airframes.

Ron

[MYR]

Au contraire. Presumably you weren't being literal about the need for blowing air around the cowl, as that is not a meaningful measure of prop performance. In any case, lots of direct drive engines with high RPM's and smaller dia. props do just fine, like the Jabiru's, which perform well on many different airframes.

Ron

The Jabiru 2200, is 80 hp with a propeller speed of 3300 rpm maximum, and a small diameter propeller. In my opinion, the same aircraft with another 80 hp engine that can use larger diameter propellers will have better performances.
Is there someone, that have used the same aircraft with a Rotax 80 hp and 80 hp Jabiru? If so, please tell the figures.

[MYR]

Some news :
http://hpics.li/b369f0f found there : http://corvus-hungary.com/en/sa_ultra_light_aircraft/i_news_2/i_ul_power_out_of_program_26/t_UL%20Power%20out%20of%20program/index.html


UL Power out of program

Due to low performance, technical issues - lack of company support, communication UL Power lost the chance to work with Corvus

After long testings and discussions Corvus has made a decision to revise engine selection for the Fusion.
In the future the Fusion will be available only with Rotax 912ULS and 912 S engines. Also we will do tests with Rotax iS and Lycoming, Continental engines for our LSA category planes, however this will be only after winter 2012.

Corvus finished cooperation with UL Power officially and we do not offer those engines.
UL Power, the belgian engine manufacturer did not took our goals seriously and provided zero support for the development. The engine's performance and lack of communication and also the faith in UL Power engines sink to a minimum level.
A couple of problems, technical issues, lack of good props, lack of the option for hydraulic constant speed prop makes the UL Power less interesting than any other engine.

I notice :


"low performance"
"technical issues"

If this is not true, we'll certainly have some explanations from the belgian firm UL POWER AERO ENGINE.

[rshannon]

...

I notice :

"low performance"
"technical issues"

If this is not true, we'll certainly have some explanations from the belgian firm UL POWER AERO ENGINE.

The press release, from a small time (if not virtually unknown) mfgr. reads as if it came from a non-discriminating, petulant child. What is the point of the release? To attempt to damage UL's rep? If UL Power is so bad, what does it say about the judgment of Corvus which apparently chose UL Power to join Corvus's grand "Program" in the first place? With only the vaguest generalities, a merely vindictive press release from some disappointed builder is surely no reason to conclude that "this" is "true" -- or not.

If I were UL Power, instead of flailing back at this sort of thing, I'd ignore it.

Ron