What's new
Van's Air Force

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

UL power engine runs in a -4.

Status
Not open for further replies.
pierre smith

pierre smith

Well Known Member
My buddy, Ray Lawrence, ran his UL Power engine in his -4 yesterday and it was smooth as silk.

AM Composites now has a cowl for the -6, 7 and -8, -9 models completed and motor mounts are being assembled to accommodate the UL power engines. You can see the cowl at:
https://www.facebook.com/AM-Composites-1479349382320473/

Ray plans on being at Sun 'n Fun with the cowls, engines and quite possibly, his -4.

Best,
 
Last edited:
pierre smith said:
My buddy, Ray Lawrence, ran his UL Power engine in his -4 yesterday and it was smooth as silk.

AM Composites now has a cowl for the -6, 7 and -8, -9 models completed and motor mounts are being assembled to accommodate the UL power engines. You can see the cowl at:
https://www.facebook.com/AM-Composites-1479349382320473/

Ray plans on being at Sun 'n Fun with the cowls, engines and quite possibly, his -4.

Best,
Click to expand...

Here's the video....
https://www.facebook.com/KaolinAviationServicesLlc/videos/975850309167980/
 
I spoke with Ray at OSH15 about this project. Really interested to see how the performance numbers work out. Mini Rocket anyone??
 
Yep

DanH said:
Looking forward to performance numbers. Ray was previously using a Lyc?
Click to expand...

This engine is the biggest one, so far...200 HP with a three-speed prop. 3,000 revs for take off, 2800 for climb and 2600 for cruise..electric prop.....also has a feathered position.
Fadec system continually adjusts mixture and RPM for max efficiency.

Best,
 
pierre smith said:
This engine is the biggest one, so far...200 HP with a three-speed prop. 3,000 revs for take off, 2800 for climb and 2600 for cruise..electric prop.....also has a feathered position.
Fadec system continually adjusts mixture and RPM for max efficiency.

Best,
Click to expand...

I flew the 180 HP 6-cylinder last spring, and yes, it is a pleasant motor. Felt and sounded like one of my favorites, the old O-300 6-cylinder Continental.
 
The prop is a airmaster made in New Zealand.Electric constant speed it is a thing of beauty.It has Whirlwind blades on it.Ray at Kaolin Aviation is a dealer for them 478 232 9560
 
I did a little research on UL's new 200HP engine, seems like a great option. They even have an inverted oil system for it. Fadec would be really nice.

I'm very interested, only problem is the 1000 hour overhaul. But they claim its just because its a new engine and they are still testing it.

I think its is rated for 200 HP at 3200 rpm, 182 HP at 2800.
 
Last edited:
Robin8er said:
I did a little research on UL's new 200HP engine, seems like a great option. They even have an inverted oil system for it. Fadec would be really nice.

I'm very interested, only problem is the 1000 hour overhaul. But they claim its just because its a new engine and they are still testing it.

I think its is rated for 200 HP at 3200 rpm, 182 HP at 2800.
Click to expand...

Do believe it is now 1500 hours, that's what a number of other sources quote, including re sellers ... the FAQ may be out of date. Also saw one mention of dropping TBO and going "on condition", which would be most sensible ...

See this discussion in South Africa, where Bundu is the local re seller:

http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=157482
 
pierre smith said:
My buddy, Ray Lawrence, ran his UL Power engine in his -4 yesterday and it was smooth as silk.

AM Composites now has a cowl for the -6, 7 and -8, -9 models completed and motor mounts are being assembled to accommodate the UL power engines. You can see the cowl at:
https://www.facebook.com/AM-Composites-1479349382320473/

Ray plans on being at Sun 'n Fun with the cowls, engines and quite possibly, his -4.

Best,
Click to expand...

Pierre,

Thanks for the thread. UL Power appears to be a viable alternative.
 
.83 Mach on the prop tips at 2800 rpm cruise, as compared to 2700 rpm Lycoming and 72" prop at .76 Mach, that doesn't leave much upward room before you start converting horsepower directly into noise.

Still, yes a viable option.
 
do the research!

I've been flying my UL Power engine for 1.5years and 100hrs now. These engines have some really scary ghosts in their closets and everyone should do their research first. Anyone that wants details concerning my experience as well as others who have walked away from crashes, send me a pm. There are brochures and salesmen, (Ray works with UL) and then there are real life experiences. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Nate, post your experience. I'm sure you mean well, but saying "beware" without supplying substance can be viewed as smearing without fact.
 
Based on the advise given to me by my attorneys, please contact me personally via PM. I only intend on sharing the facts (Video footage, UL email correspondence, and hard facts) in order to save lives. Thank you.
 
One thing I did notice early on, and found suspicious, is that there seem to be no publicly available "Service bulletin"/"Service Letter"/"AD" like publications on their website (.net or .com) ... For a brand new clean sheet design, that seems rather surprising ...

Correction: Just went to their site, which seems to have been update din the last couple of weeks, and there is now a service bulletin section.
 
Last edited:
no more that 146 F for the ECM? truck and autos put the ecm in the engine compartment all day, 200 deg there?
 
Going from memory here, but I think that at some point early on they were using a different ECU, and then they switched to their own design. If my memory is indeed correct, I'm not sure *when* this changeover occurred.

Googling around you can find references to a "new ECU". The manual also shows images different from the web site.

Anyways, definitely something going on there ... the 65C temp limit is indeed low ... but the manual clearly states the limit and installation recommendation.
 
The temperature thing on the ECU is still of some concern to me. That device neeeds ot survive almost anything you can throw at it, including a possible fire (whether it's a fire under the cowl, or in the cabin). I don't care if a fire fris all my instruments, but the ECU *MUST* survive obviously.

I can't help but think their wire harnesses look a little frail as well, at least based on the pictures. These also need to be pretty bullet-proof.

All this said, I still hope I will be able to consider this engine a serious contender when I get to engine selection ...
 
I know less than nothing about UL Power engines, but...

It's not uncommon to see a requirement to mount the ecu (or sensor electronics) in the cabin instead of engine compartment. And if you have a fire in the cabin hot enough to disable the ecu, you are way past worrying about the ecu.

One of the reasons mags have had reliability problems in the past is that they are (unavoidably) on the engine.
 
kamikaze said:
Some more information:

http://sedelman.com/p/236/l/281/t/Engines-|-UL-Power

Still, only one NTSB report, with probably cause of incorrect installation ... does not exactly scream "deadly, stay away".
Click to expand...

To each his own, but for me when one of the first flying engines has total failure on take off it does scream "stay away".

I have seen many examples of nice engines with amazingly poor "one off" accessories bolted on that make them prone to failure. As example I know of a Subaru Kit Fox that had three engine out landing in the first year. Only one was associated with the engine itself (oil seal failed). The others were ignition failure and fuel system failure. A single ECU is simply not acceptable for any airplane I will ever fly.

For all the great talk about how FADEC systems make aircrafts engines more efficient, look at how we operate our engine as we spend most of our time in cruise. I offer a standard Bendix or AirFlow Performance mechanic fuel injection system, once balanced, will match anything a computer can do in cruise IF you have a two good electronic ignitions.

Carl
 
Carl Froehlich said:
To each his own, but for me when one of the first flying engines has total failure on take off it does scream "stay away".
.... A single ECU is simply not acceptable for any airplane I will ever fly.

... IF you have a two good electronic ignitions.

Carl
Click to expand...

I guess the devil is in the details. It is hard to generalize based on one accident where clearly the limitations were not respected in the installation. This engine, as I understand it, has dual ECUs. But they are housed in the same box which I find wierd. Having 2 physically separate units in different places would seem to be a better solution.

I have read right here about engines with dual EI systems having total ignition failure. That could be for any number of issues related to the electrical system design. So dual EI is good, but it is not bullet proof if both are relying on ships power and the power system does not have sufficient independant redundancy.

It is hard to beat the reliability of 2 stupid old crude mags. Not impossible, but not that easy.

As far as a fire goes, there are a lot of aluminum parts FWF that will melt in a fire, like oil coolers, oil lines etc. If you have a real engine fire the engine will most likely quit and anyway you want to get on the ground ASAP.
 
sblack said:
I guess the devil is in the details. It is hard to generalize based on one accident where clearly the limitations were not respected in the installation. This engine, as I understand it, has dual ECUs. But they are housed in the same box which I find wierd. Having 2 physically separate units in different places would seem to be a better solution.
Click to expand...

By default it is dual-ignition (2 spark plugs per cylinder) with separate coils, but a single ECU. A complete, true, dual ECU solution is available. The diagrams/layouts are on their website.
 
jenatepilot said:
It would be really nice if UL would establish a forum for UL Owners to publicly speak out about the issues at hand. Last I knew, there was a forum like that for owners, but it was a closed group not viewable by the public. weird. Sales would go up if everything good AND bad was on the table out in the open. It creates trust with the community. unfortunately, I've been told that "Bad Press is bad for business."
Click to expand...

I entirely agree with this statement!

Supposedly they're building a database of usage statistics to help with expanding the TBO, or to put together an "on condition" maintenance regimen. This does not seem to be publicly available either.
 
Carl Froehlich said:
To each his own, but for me when one of the first flying engines has total failure on take off it does scream "stay away".

I have seen many examples of nice engines with amazingly poor "one off" accessories bolted on that make them prone to failure. As example I know of a Subaru Kit Fox that had three engine out landing in the first year. Only one was associated with the engine itself (oil seal failed). The others were ignition failure and fuel system failure. A single ECU is simply not acceptable for any airplane I will ever fly.

For all the great talk about how FADEC systems make aircrafts engines more efficient, look at how we operate our engine as we spend most of our time in cruise. I offer a standard Bendix or AirFlow Performance mechanic fuel injection system, once balanced, will match anything a computer can do in cruise IF you have a two good electronic ignitions.

Carl
Click to expand...

I disagree. Mechanical systems can't match the fine tuning cylinder to cylinder we can do in flight at any MAP and RPM, nor the ultimate hp, cold and hot starting, smoother running, smoother idle etc.

Funny how people widely accept EIs now but not electronic fuel control. You do know that most current aircraft EIs such as Pmag, Electroair, Lightspeed, SDS, etc. are all microprocessor (computer) controlled right?

325,000+ flight hours on our single ECUs and another roughly 50,000 more with dual ones without a failure I'm aware of, shows that properly built units are extremely reliable. Naturally this does not mean all ECUs are as reliable but best not to tar all with the same brush.

This is 2016 not 1950.
 
NTSB Report

I think the accident somebody referred to was a Sonex quite a while ago. The ECU was installed in the engine compartment and it over heated. The instructions said to put it in the cockpit. It happened before I was involved so I don't have first hand knowledge.

And our dual ECU option is two separate boxes.

And the current ECU has been totally redesigned to withstand a much higher temperature.
 
Well, this thread has drifted so far off the OP that I think it has set a new worlds record.

Time to prune out some of the nonsense, and lock it down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top