What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Received the UL Power 260Is Engine

Neat! The experimental spirit lives on! I think lots of people are going to be watching your progress closely on this one. Please keep us up-to-date regularly with all the good and bad of your experience with this engine. It sure looks promising.

--
Stephen
 
UL Power Engine.

We have done an initial mounting of the engine on a first generation mount.
We will be weighing the RV this week to to verify the installation.
It appears that we may be able to move the engine 6" to 8" closer to the firewall, if so we may be able to adapt the Rotax Supplied Cowl.
 
Makes it a bit easier to watch

rv12021.jpg


rv12022.jpg


ulpowerengine004.jpg


ulpowerengine012.jpg
 
UL Power

Really looking forward to this progress........Great Aircraft mated with a Great Engine!
 
UL260Is Engine Weight

The bare engine weight is 132 lbs.

Installed weight with accessories of the 107 HP engine system is 162 lbs. That includes dual fuel pumps, oil cooler,muffler, ignition coils and ECU.

Some of these items will be mounted aft of the engine on the fire wall or behind it.

I will post a picture of the intial mounting this evening, If I do not forget to bring the camera home from the Hangar
 
Last edited:
can't wait to see how this install goes

definitely looks like another good alternative.

All we need now is a turbonormalized version :)
 
Pictures

Not sure what ther deal is the the link, it shows up when I click on it.
When I try to post image I just get a red X
 
When I clicked on your link: https://picasaweb.google.com/home
I see my pictures. If you click on it, you see your pictures. If someone else who does not have a picasa account clicks on it, they might not see anything.
On the right side of the https://picasaweb.google.com screen it says in blue color:
"Link to this album"
Click on that.
Copy the web address that appears in the box labeled "Paste link in email or IM"
Joe Gores
 
Is this Rocket Science?

Sorry Joe this didn't work for me. The link doesn't work either. Somebody make this a lot simpler please.:mad:
 
I really wouldn't be putting my fuel pumps there..i.e on the hot side of the firewall sucking uphill.

This is is significantly increasing the chances of vapour lock, especially running mogas. Might be OK but why risk it?

Best to put them in the "hydralically correct location"..I.e at the low point of the system in as cold of a place as possible.

Short dissertation.. Fuel is a high vapour pressure liquid. When the suction pressure (suck of the fuel pump) exceeds the vapour pressure the fuel will boil. The pump cannot pump vapour, or at least not very well. Most suck is at max flow, i,e full throttle. Hot fuel has a higher vapou pressure than cold fuel.

In other words when you drop the hammer on a really hot day with your recently flown heat soaked engine, you might find the engine quits on take off.

Frank
 
Sincere Question

Since the advertised weight of a complete engine installation is very similar to the installed weight of a Rotax 912, why do you have the engine mounted what looks to be about 12" further fwd, than the Rotax mounts?
 
Since the advertised weight of a complete engine installation is very similar to the installed weight of a Rotax 912, why do you have the engine mounted what looks to be about 12" further fwd, than the Rotax mounts?


That's what I was wondering.:confused:

Actually looks more like a foot and a half....
 
Engine Mount Questions

It would seem that he Rotax may be a little heavier than the UL or Jabiru engines.
The total empty weight was 695 lbs as weighted during thw intial W&B.
The empty CG is calculated at about 80 inches with all available items less any fuel. Full fuel and one pilot we caluculate a CG at about the 82" range
We may be able to shortening the mount approximately 5"to move the CG slightly more aft, this possibility this is being considered.
We have the materials on hand.


UL Power Table of Weights for reference:

Weight of basic standard engine and accessories
Dry weight of the basic standard engine from serial production:........................60,1 kg (132,5 lb)
The total operational weight depends on the accessories installed. Typical accessories provided by
ULPower have the following weight:
 Ignition Coils & leads:............................................................................3,0 kg (6,6 lb)
 ECU & wiring loom:...............................................................................1,6 kg (3,5 lb)
 Exhaust, bolts, springs & seals:...................................................................3,6 kg (8 lb)
 Electric fuel pump:...............................................................................0,7 kg (1,6 lb)
 Fuel filters (pre-filter & fine filter):...........................................................0.2 kg (0,4 lb)
 Oil/Air Separator & hoses:.......................................................................0,7 kg (1,5 lb)
 Rectifier Regulator:...............................................................................0,1 kg (0.2 lb)
 Rubber engine mounts:...........................................................................0,3 kg (0,7 lb)
 Optional Oil Cooler:.................................................................................1 kg (2,2 lb)
 2,5 L engine lubricating oil:.....................................................................2,2 kg (4,9 lb)
Possible fully operational engine weight: UL260i; UL260iS; UL260iF......................72,5 kg (161 lb)
 Gravity valve, oil air separator and hoses:....................................................2,5 kg (5,5 lb)
Possible fully operational engine weight for the UL260iSA:.................................75 kg (165,3 lb)
 
Fuel Pump Location

I really wouldn't be putting my fuel pumps there..i.e on the hot side of the firewall sucking uphill.

This is is significantly increasing the chances of vapour lock, especially running mogas. Might be OK but why risk it?

Best to put them in the "hydralically correct location"..I.e at the low point of the system in as cold of a place as possible.

Short dissertation.. Fuel is a high vapour pressure liquid. When the suction pressure (suck of the fuel pump) exceeds the vapour pressure the fuel will boil. The pump cannot pump vapour, or at least not very well. Most suck is at max flow, i,e full throttle. Hot fuel has a higher vapou pressure than cold fuel.

In other words when you drop the hammer on a really hot day with your recently flown heat soaked engine, you might find the engine quits on take off.

Frank

THe items you mention are certainly of concern. In this configeration we are several inches away from the engine.
We plan on adding blast tubes to these items and the voltage regulatior.
We chose to minimize the expsoure to high pressue in the crew area.


Regards

AL
 
Al - thanks for your posts

Al, I have to thank you for taking the chance and expense on the new UL engine and reporting it to us. It looks like it is going to be very competitive with the Rotex and offer a different way to go for the 12. A little competition will help with price and innovation for all airplanes - especially for the RV 12 now. Im for anything that will or could make it better. It is an Experimental airplane!
 
Very Cool

I think what you are doing is very cool and applaud you for posting pictures of your install. Posting pictures of a unique approach in the land of experts is just asking for "wisdom." dag-nabit...you had two "uh-oh's" within an hour of your pictures finally making it to the forum. Too funny. Designers don't like experimenting unless they are the experimenter. You have managed to get past all of that and deserve to be recognized. A true experimental aircraft...good job.
 
Last edited:
It would seem that he Rotax may be a little heavier than the UL or Jabiru engines.
The total empty weight was 695 lbs as weighted during thw intial W&B.
The empty CG is calculated at about 80 inches with all available items less any fuel. Full fuel and one pilot we caluculate a CG at about the 82" range
We may be able to shortening the mount approximately 5"to move the CG slightly more aft, this possibility this is being considered.
We have the materials on hand.

UL Power Table of Weights for reference:

Weight of basic standard engine and accessories
Dry weight of the basic standard engine from serial production:........................60,1 kg (132,5 lb)
The total operational weight depends on the accessories installed. Typical accessories provided by
ULPower have the following weight:


Possible fully operational engine weight for the UL260iSA:.................................75 kg (165,3 lb)

I guess it all depends on how complete the airplane was when you did the initial weighing.
A basic RV-12 built per plans, and equipped with the standard seat cushions, but no exterior paint will weigh 720 lbs (give or take a pound or so).

I believe the RV-12 engine installation weighs in at 165 -170 lbs. That makes it very similar to the Jab. and the UL. If your initial weighing configuration was still lacking some finish details, a couple pounds here and a couple there can add up to another 20 pounds real quick. If that ends up being the case, to my eye your engine looks way to far forward (but actual numbers derived from weighing on reliable scales will be the real proof).

As a secondary note.... I am concerned that you are still using the original engine mount attach points with the engine cantilevered a long ways ahead of the fire wall, but apparently no change to the structure in the fwd fuselage? It appears you have done a good job of triangulating the engine mount so it will probably not be an issue with an engine of this weight. Where my concern lies is that you have greatly increased the moment of the engine loads that transfer into the fwd fuselage. It is my opinion, that if you repeat the landing gear drop tests that were required for ASTM certification (which were all passed by an RV-12 using the Rotax engine configuration), the greatly increased moment arm of the engine would likely result in a failure of the fwd fuselage and nose gear.
 
I think what you are doing is very cool and applaud you for posting pictures of your install. Posting pictures of a unique approach in the land of experts is just asking for "wisdom." dag-nabit...you had two "uh-oh's" within an hour of your pictures finally making it to the forum. Too funny. Designers don't like experimenting unless they are the experimenter. You have managed to get past all of that and deserve to be recognized. A true experimental aircraft...good job.

So, I guess you are thinking that any one nuts enough to be building an airplane in their garage (we probably all fit that category;)), should be able to do what ever they want while only receiving back slaps and high fives? Even if other people see things that they think might be an issue?

Sorry Peter, I can't do that. Especially, if I think others may blindly follow in their foot steps. To be fare, keep in mind that I try and remain open to others opinions regarding my work, and openly seek out others to inspect critical maintenance or design work that I complete.

In my opinion, if someone is going to post photos or ideas in these forums, they should be doing so for the input that is available, not just for a slap on the back.
 
So, I guess you are thinking that any one nuts enough to be building an airplane in their garage (we probably all fit that category;)), should be able to do what ever they want while only receiving back slaps and high fives? Even if other people see things that they think might be an issue?

Sorry Peter, I can't do that. Especially, if I think others may blindly follow in their foot steps. To be fare, keep in mind that I try and remain open to others opinions regarding my work, and openly seek out others to inspect critical maintenance or design work that I complete.

In my opinion, if someone is going to post photos or ideas in these forums, they should be doing so for the input that is available, not just for a slap on the back.

My comments were sincere Scott. This is an unusual situation and deserves a shot of confidence. If for no other reason, to encourage others to experiment yes, but even more so to post their efforts in front of everyone and welcome input. (few will go there!) Your comments can be very helpful to his adventure I'm sure. You have given me helpful assistance.

And yes, all of our comments should be directed from a point of encouragement even if he does want to build a secret deathtrap in his garage. If we don't, he will only build kits or worse yet...hire someone to build one for him/her. (48% of EAB accidents are purchased?)

Yes, its obvious the engine mount length is an eye-catcher. If it isn't going to work its going to fail a CG calculation or an airworthiness exam (or should!). I do applaud his sticking his neck out and you yours (you just can't bring yourself to butt out and that's a good thing too). But as you know, the critiques in here can be viscous and without thick skin like ours that confident experiment will be dead in a week.

Pete

Just wanted to give the man some balance instead of just the things he's doing wrong. I want to see him succeed...so do you.
 
Scott, I am glad you brought up the weight and balance. The plane certainly does not look compete enough for a W&B. The engine mount is very concerning to the eye. Hopefully, the op will take the care nessessary and have a few technical eyes looking over his shoulder as the engine mounting "system" is developed and proper W&B is achieved.
 
Last edited:
Scott, I am glad you brought up the weight and balance. The plane certainly does not look compete enough for a W&B. The engine mount is very concerning to the eye. Hopefully, the op will take tthe care nessessary and have a few technical eyes looking over his shoulder.

Weight and balance considerations (which are easily remedied) is only one item that must be considered with the suggested mount. The forces that act on each of the engine mount anchor points must be looked at in detail to ensure the mounting locations are strong enough to withstand the expected loads. The forces will be very different with this mount.
 
Weight and balance considerations (which are easily remedied) is only one item that must be considered with the suggested mount. The forces that act on each of the engine mount anchor points must be looked at in detail to ensure the mounting locations are strong enough to withstand the expected loads. The forces will be very different with this mount.

Agreed. :D
 
Just had to post my reaction to the engine mount pics. Don't know much about design loading, but that's (the engine) a long way out there. Why are the supports not made of tubing about twice the size normally used? Seems to me there would be considerable tendency for the mount to have a bit of twist and deflection in it under full power not to mention the concerns over pulling a few g's. Just sayin, be careful.
Dick Seiders
 
Yes, its obvious the engine mount length is an eye-catcher. If it isn't going to work its going to fail a CG calculation or an airworthiness exam (or should!).

That is part of the problem with modifications.
It is not an inspectors (DAR or FAA) job to make a determination of whether an airplane design or modification is safe. They are only to confirm that the construction meets standard practices, and that they issue operating limitations that will protect the rest of humanity from you and your experiment.
I hope no one ever makes modifications with a hope that at final inspection, they will be saved from serious mistakes. They might, because a good inspector will probably voice their concern, but no one should bet their life on it

I do applaud his sticking his neck out and you yours (you just can't bring yourself to butt out and that's a good thing too). But as you know, the critiques in here can be viscous and without thick skin like ours that confident experiment will be dead in a week.

Pete

Just wanted to give the man some balance instead of just the things he's doing wrong. I want to see him succeed...so do you.

I do hope he succeeds... I never mean to discourage innovation. That is what got us to where we are today. But I will always emphasize that when you get into modifications of this magnitude (this is far from changing a cowling shape or adding a fairing for drag reduction) their are often other design factors that get overlooked, and I will point out issues if they concern me enough.
I personally witnessed RV-12 landing gear drop tests. Based on that experience, this concerns me.

I have said before... to minimize weight, and maximize payload, the RV-12 was designed structurally to the bare minimum needed (probably more so than any other RV model because of the pre-dictated max. gross weight). For this reason, any modifications that effect any load bearing portion of the airframe should be done with great care.

I have said my piece... you can now consider me Butt'ed out.
 
Last edited:
Airworthiness Concerns

This aircraft is in the making. It is not finished.
The inputs positive and negative are considered with an open mind.
I am aware of the robustness of the firewall attachment points and the unique challenges the design presents.
We will address the long term serviceability of the installation.
It is interesting that while we have almost exactly the same CG as the 85 HP Jabiru installation, I have not seen the concerns mentioned in this thread.
The initial W&B was done with every item to include the seat cushions.
The next time we do a W&B I will include a picture and a list of the equipment.

Please keep the comments, observations and advice coming as I value each and everyone.
 
Last edited:
Keep up the good work Al. Take our comments with the grain of salt. Like Pete said, you are experimenting and put your work up for "review from the peanut gallery". We are gonna let you know about what we see and think, right or wrong. Sort it out, rework where you feel it is needed and move forward. Ultimately, it is your project and you are the decision maker.

Keep us posted.
 
This aircraft is in the making. It is not finished.
The inputs positive and negative are considered with an open mind.
I am aware of the robustness of the firewall attachment points and the unique challenges the design presents.
We will address the long term serviceability of the installation.
It is interesting that while we have almost exactly the same CG as the 85 HP Jabiru installation, I have not seen the concerns mentioned in this thread.
The initial W&B was done with every item to include the seat cushions.
The next time we do a W&B I will include a picture and a list of the equipment.

Please keep the comments, observations and advice coming as I value each and everyone.

One RV-12 build I was involved with has a C.G position of 80.66 inches.
This was built exactly per plans, ready to fly with all fluids and misc. parts/screws installed but no exterior paint. Exterior paint will move the C G a bit further aft because of the influence of paint on the tail.
 
CG of Jabiru vs UL

Al, I like what you are doing with the engine but please look at the CG numbers for Jabiru carefully. I am pretty new here...this being my second post on VAF but here is what I found about the Jabiru CG....

The kit plane article has the nosewheel weight as 160 lbs.
Katie has posted a weight of 705 lbs (not painted)

The arm from Vans W&B sheet are,
Nosewheel.... 29.75"
right & left main gear.......93.25"
Assuming the weight on both gear legs is same for now(which it is not), I calculated the empty CG as 78.8" that is outside the 80.49-85.39 in.

I have compiled a list of W&B of various Rv12 from the forum and most have an empty CG of >80"

Maybe Katie can jump in and correct my figures but I have used published numbers to get to the CG and it is well forward in the Jabiru 2200 :rolleyes:

Now we look at the Jabiru3300 from Oren using the same mount as 2200 but modifying it to accommodate the 3300's addition two cylinders and the CG becomes.......:(

Sorry about pitching in as a newbee. Everyone here is more knowledgeable than I am and I think the UL is a great engine and will work in the 12 with the right engineering but please e careful with how numbers will play games with you!.... Please be safe!
Rahul
 
RV-12 Weight and Balance

Al said,
The empty CG is calculated at about 80 inches with all available items less any fuel.
My RV-12 has an empty CG of 80.97" with autopilot, and no paint. The UL engine could be moved aft approximately 5" to move the aircraft CG 1" aft. I based that approximation on calculations done by an Excel spreadsheet. If anyone is interested in downloading this Excel spreadsheet for calculating weight and balance of their RV-12, see this post: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=481088&postcount=4
Joe Gores
 
Engine Mount Upper Firewall Distance

We have done an initial mounting of the engine on a first generation mount.
We will be weighing the RV this week to to verify the installation.
It appears that we may be able to move the engine 6" to 8" closer to the firewall, if so we may be able to adapt the Rotax Supplied Cowl.

We had ordered the materials lasr week.
I just received the materials to construct a modified Mount that
is 5 1/4" shorter than the initially designed mount.
We will report the results when available.

Regards
 
UL Mount

We had ordered the materials lasr week.
I just received the materials to construct a modified Mount that
is 5 1/4" shorter than the initially designed mount.
We will report the results when available.

Regards

Hi Al a new mount sounds the way to go I was a bit duvious about that Far Forward Engine mounting & COG Questions..! Appreciate all the Working & Investigations you are doing to get this Installation up and running Safely Buddy!
Cheers from Oz.
 
Last edited:
Quote from Rahul

Quote (Assuming the weight on both gear legs is same for now(which it is not), I calculated the empty CG as 78.8" that is outside the 80.49-85.39 in.

I have compiled a list of W&B of various Rv12 from the forum and most have an empty CG of >80"

Maybe Katie can jump in and correct my figures but I have used published numbers to get to the CG and it is well forward in the Jabiru 2200

Now we look at the Jabiru3300 from Oren using the same mount as 2200 but modifying it to accommodate the 3300's addition two cylinders and the CG becomes.......
Rahul

Rahul
The 3300 has a shorter engine mount placing the intake close to the firewall. Also the Battery is located in the tail cone to correct the weight and balance.Will wait to do final weight and balance when the cowl is on and it is painted. I also have servos and wheelpants that will also help the W&B.
 
Oren, I hope that it works out. I think most of us are eager to find the final answer and everyone wants you to be safe and successful in your experimental.

Just FYI, the Jabiru2200 RV12 in the current form is "NOSE HEAVY" with a 200lb pilot and 5 gallon of fuel (CG is @ 79.9"). It takes 9 gallon of fuel in the tank to get the CG within Van's limit(between 80.49"-85.39"). The CG with 9 gallon fuel & 200 lbs pilot is 80.6".

You can run the numbers yourself(& most likely have run them) but to me the jabiru 2200 is way too nose heavy. Imagine only flying with 11 gallons of fuel(including reserve) to be safe :confused:
Please be safe!

Quote

Rahul
The 3300 has a shorter engine mount placing the intake close to the firewall. Also the Battery is located in the tail cone to correct the weight and balance.Will wait to do final weight and balance when the cowl is on and it is painted. I also have servos and wheelpants that will also help the W&B.
 
Back
Top