I don't think there's been much talk of these yet, probably because they're not certified and/or STC'd so it pertains more to the homebuilder crowd.

http://www.ulpower.com/news/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/2-A5.pdf

http://www.ulpower.com/news/blog/ulpowers-new-six-cylinder-engines-available-now

Still seems like a ways off for these new models to hit full production. Promising design, but committing to a full price aircraft engine is such a big deal. Nobody wants to get in on the ground floor of a new company/design.

This brand is following the same marketing hype as the Jabiru..... They advertise some nice HP numbers... But.. it is @ 3300 RPM... Most guys on this site are into STOL stuff and long props and high RPM's don't mix. IMHO.

I like. But I never want to be first on the block with the new model. I prefer to let someone else work the bugs out.

Stol wrote:This brand is following the same marketing hype as the Jabiru..... They advertise some nice HP numbers... But.. it is @ 3300 RPM... Most guys on this site are into STOL stuff and long props and high RPM's don't mix. IMHO.

Good point, Ben. I'm curious what the upper limit of RPM range is for the longer props. Does that RPM limit increase with 3 blade?

Stol wrote:This brand is following the same marketing hype as the Jabiru..... They advertise some nice HP numbers... But.. it is @ 3300 RPM... Most guys on this site are into STOL stuff and long props and high RPM's don't mix. IMHO.

Times 2

Never buy or fly the "A" model of anything.

Zzz wrote:

Stol wrote:This brand is following the same marketing hype as the Jabiru..... They advertise some nice HP numbers... But.. it is @ 3300 RPM... Most guys on this site are into STOL stuff and long props and high RPM's don't mix. IMHO.

Good point, Ben. I'm curious what the upper limit of RPM range is for the longer props. Does that RPM limit increase with 3 blade?

You can calculate the upper limit of prop tip speed by using this site.


http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propcalc.html

For a reference this is my plane at 4400 engine rpm = prop rpm of 3075. You can heard the motor over the tips. This pass was with the tip speed at .925 mach with a 76 inch diameter three blade Ivo... Anything over that and the motor / prop really stops pulling so hard and converts rpm into wasted noise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOF6eT6FRmY

Stol wrote:.... the tip speed at .925 mach with a 76 inch diameter three blade Ivo... Anything over that and the motor / prop really stops pulling so hard and converts rpm into wasted noise......

There's no such thing as wasting good airplane noise.

I have been following UL's progress for quite some time. They seem to be a very nicely built engine but also have a very EXPENSIVE price to go along with it for such a new engine. Lighter in weight than a comparable Lycoming and supposed better efficiency. What has been stated on the high RPM horse power rating is also an issue since the plane I am wanting to put an engine in is of the STOL variety. I do know of one guy that installed a high revving Jabiru in a Murphy Rebel and seem to be happy with it. In his case though I believe he only flies it on wheels and no plans for floats where the pulling power of a longer prop is needed.

Another article on the ULPower lineup, with some additional info on their new 6-cylinders:

http://experimenter.epubxp.com/issue/96284/22

It's an online version of the Experimenter magazine...let it load.

The modern features and design look promising and attractive at first. But then you look deeper:

Very EXPENSIVE for not that much power, even though it's very light. Especially given 6 cylinders, you're expecting 235hp and upwards (even the 260hp models are still considered lazy!) to make the complexity and higher operational and maintenance costs associated with those extra cylinders worthwhile... a small 6 doesn't make immediate sense to me. Why not use 4, or even 3 for balance?

FADEC and EI, ok looks good, but bush flying with electronic ignitions means two batteries (which actually don't have to be that heavy with modern technology) but still it's much more complicated, and if you lose the connection or they go flat you can't hand-prop or run the engine to charge them. Or God forbid you lose power in-flight, down you go...

This very situation happened to a good friend of mine recently, and he was able to fly 3 hours home without anything electrical. Terrain similar to southeastern AK so pretty important to have reliable mags!

Battson wrote:FADEC and EI, ok looks good, but bush flying with electronic ignitions means two batteries (which actually don't have to be that heavy with modern technology) but still it's much more complicated, and if you lose the connection or they go flat you can't hand-prop or run the engine to charge them. Or God forbid you lose power in-flight, down you go...

This very situation happened to a good friend of mine recently, and he was able to fly 3 hours home without anything electrical. Terrain similar to southeastern AK so pretty important to have reliable mags!

Good points, Jon. It's too bad we can't have the benefits of both: The improved performance and reliability of electronic ignition, and also the simplicity and reliability of good old magnetos. Breaker points, condenser, mag internals, all go bad after a certain interval, but their ability to run without battery input it really nice. I've had a mag go bad, it's nice that there are 2. You trade one problem for another, I suppose. You're also sticking that little geardrive into your accessory case. If you blow some teeth, or have a starter gear come apart (on a Continental) you're going to suck metal. A simple crankshaft position sensor+ECU simplifies that...or does it? Would be terrible to go full advance or retard and blow the whole thing up because of a timely coronal mass ejection

What would be nice is an engine driven generator that powers the electronic ignition-- best of both worlds. Independent power source, and precise variable ignition timing.

Zzz wrote:

Battson wrote:FADEC and EI, ok looks good, but bush flying with electronic ignitions means two batteries (which actually don't have to be that heavy with modern technology) but still it's much more complicated, and if you lose the connection or they go flat you can't hand-prop or run the engine to charge them. Or God forbid you lose power in-flight, down you go...

This very situation happened to a good friend of mine recently, and he was able to fly 3 hours home without anything electrical. Terrain similar to southeastern AK so pretty important to have reliable mags!

Good points, Jon. It's too bad we can't have the benefits of both: The improved performance and reliability of electronic ignition, and also the simplicity and reliability of good old magnetos. Breaker points, condenser, mag internals, all go bad after a certain interval, but their ability to run without battery input it really nice. I've had a mag go bad, it's nice that there are 2. You trade one problem for another, I suppose. You're also sticking that little geardrive into your accessory case. If you blow some teeth, or have a starter gear come apart (on a Continental) you're going to suck metal. A simple crankshaft position sensor+ECU simplifies that...or does it? Would be terrible to go full advance or retard and blow the whole thing up because of a timely coronal mass ejection

What would be nice is an engine driven generator that powers the electronic ignition-- best of both worlds. Independent power source, and precise variable ignition timing.

Zane, we can have both. Put a Slick or Bendix mag w/impulse coupling on the left and a P mag on the right. That's my plan for the Bearhawk, has worked well for others.
Mark J

The electronic ignintion system backed up by a magneto with impulse coupling is proving a good backcountry model. Not even necessary to carry the extra battery like fully electronic systems require since the mag will keep you going if you have a carburetor, but you still need the backup battery if you have electronic fuel injection. Not that big a deal with the new lithium batteries.

Zane, the Ducatti ignition I had on the Simonini and the one also used by Rotax 2 strokes has magnets on the flywheel passing by pickup coils to generate its own spark and two plugs per cylinder. It seems foolproof but I still suffered a single point failure of both left and right sides when a loose steel flake was caught and held by the magnets changing the required gap between the magnets and the pickup coil causing weak intermittent spark and times of none at all. Ignition redundancy goes out the window at that point.