Rotax vs UL Power

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by skydiverlv

While designing my electrical schematic and integrating with existing Vans systems, I was made aware that the factory (UL) underrates the dual 15 amp alternators by about half. (Unsure why they choose to do this)

On their web site it says the standard alternator is rated at 30 amp output, but that ~15 amps of that is used to operating the ign. and fuel injection systems.

[Alschief]

We have ran our engine with just the Alternator successfully on the ground for 5 minutes.
With sky view 10" and their Transponder, aero led strobes Icom radio and landing light we.see 20 to 22 amps. Without the landing light it drops to about 18 to 20 Amps.

[myaghi]

With all do respect to the over 50,000 rotax flyers. Some of them are my friends. Keep in mind, There are now 50,000 more carburetors in the air and 1,000,000 less carburetors on the ground. I am always amazed and amused by the "proven reliability" comments of old engine technology.
I am willing to bet that pilots who religiously defend the fifties carbureted engine technologies for their rliability, would not consider for a minutes driving (or let their wives/kids) a car with such old technology. Yet, they are willing to fly in one.
UL Power has been flying in Europe for as long as Rotax been flying in the states.
I have one installed on my aircraft and I will never consider anything else.
The 30 amp alternator is more than enough for a modern aircraft. My v6 UL390is engine draw less than 10 amps. turning on every instrument and light in my plane draw less than 15 amps including the engine ECU/Ignition.
The UL Power guys and their engineers would be very happy to help you design and fabricate a mount for your RV.
Check them out.

[Mike H]

Wow you're UL 390iS is a V6 and not an opposed six? Must run just like a car engine huh?

[pierre smith]

Originally Posted by myaghi

..........UL Power has been flying in Europe for as long as Rotax been flying in the states.
I have one installed on my aircraft and I will never consider anything else.
The 30 amp alternator is more than enough for a modern aircraft. My v6 UL390is engine draw less than 10 amps. turning on every instrument and light in my plane draw less than 15 amps including the engine ECU/Ignition.
The UL Power guys and their engineers would be very happy to help you design and fabricate a mount for your RV.
Check them out.

Mike, I'm strongly considering a UL for my -12 and a friend of mine is a rep for them. He told me that they already have a FWF for the -12.

What airplane do you have the UL engine in?

Best,

[aerofurb]

Originally Posted by myaghi

With all do respect to the over 50,000 rotax flyers. Some of them are my friends. Keep in mind, There are now 50,000 more carburetors in the air and 1,000,000 less carburetors on the ground. I am always amazed and amused by the "proven reliability" comments of old engine technology.
I am willing to bet that pilots who religiously defend the fifties carbureted engine technologies for their rliability, would not consider for a minutes driving (or let their wives/kids) a car with such old technology. Yet, they are willing to fly in one.......

Please, come on! There appears to be an implication that carbs are dangerous. You wouldn't allow the family to drive a carb equipped car? Really?

Okay, fuel injection might be more efficient (by a percentage) but carbs were never replaced because of them being dangerous.

Personally, I consider non-electric carbs and self-generating ignition systems a more comfortable option in a light aircraft than electronic FI and an ignition system that relies on a working alternator/battery system.

[Tony Spicer]

Originally Posted by myaghi

UL Power has been flying in Europe for as long as Rotax been flying in the states.

I think you're being a bit loose with the facts. First UL to fly in Europe was in 2006, if this factory posted info is correct. The first 912 was produced 26 years ago. Hard to believe it took until 2006 for the first one to show up in the US.

EAA Experimenter did an article on UL Power engines 3 years ago.

Tony

[Hotscam]

The UL information is pretty biased.
I know very few unhappy Rotax users and in ratio to the amount in the field many unhappy UL users.
Support is pretty poor and very sloppy on SB's, whilst we live at a two hour drive from the factory.
I know at least two users who kicked it out of their plane having less than 500 hours.

To me based on track record and oerformance alone the choise is obvious.
I am not always happy with the sync requirements of the carbs but powerless operation without electronics is a definite pro.

[jenatepilot]

Hotscam, you are more correct than you realize. From experience as a UL Power owner, the vast majority of published information concerning UL power engines is biased. It's always best to do research on both sides of the fence before spending thousands.