VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-14
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-22-2020, 02:19 AM
Mike Houston Mike Houston is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Bushmills
Posts: 22
Default UL520 new turbo 220 HP

I am looking to build my first plane. I really want a 2 seater touring type aircraft so the RV14 or 14A came to mind. However i live in europe and dont want to pay the huge prices here for 100LL that comes with a Lycoming engine.

I see though that ULpower are about to release their new 520 220HP Turbo engine. It struck me this could be a good replacement for the IO-390-EXP 215HP engine as it burns mogas up to 15% ethanol. Especially as the 520 is likely to have most of the power available upto height.


However one issue i see is the effect on CG. the 520 is about 30 kgs lighter than the lycoming, do more experience builders think this would be an issue? I may have to go for a europa elite + or Whisper 350 gen 2 if cant get a mogas power plant in the RV.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-22-2020, 06:40 AM
DeeCee 57's Avatar
DeeCee 57 DeeCee 57 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: LSZF
Posts: 552
Default

Quote:
100LL that comes with a Lycoming engine
Not necessarily. Quite a few people, including myself, are burning MOGAS with their Lycos. Guess the main issue is a well designed fuel system to prevent vapor lock.

We have one -8 here equipped with ULPower Motor, and as far as I know, the builder is quite happy with. He had to position the engine a few inches ahead of an original position to satisfy the CG envelope. Same would apply to the -14 I guess.

Last but not least, the turbo. The benefits are known, getting rid of the heat whilst using the tight RV cowling can present some challenges.

Good luck in your endeavor
__________________
Life's short... Enjoy

DC aka Dan

http://www.aerofun.ch

RV-6.9 #25685, slider, O-360-A3A (carb/dual Lightspeed II), MTV-12-B, HB-YLL owner & lover
RV-4 #2062 HB-YVZ airframe builder
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-22-2020, 08:13 AM
Southern Pete Southern Pete is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: England
Posts: 94
Default

The RV-14 comes the improvement with RV kits that started with the RV-7 where the kits just keep getting better and more straight forward to build. Installing a different engine negates a sizeable chunk of that improvement. You will be the development engineer figuring out fuel, oil, cooling and intake air routings. Then you will have to solve all the minor development problems you didn't consider when you designed the installation. 30kg off the engine is significant. It will completely screw up your W&B. Your baggage capability will be low, like some RV-6s with a light engine and prop. There are work arounds but you will always be limited on the amount of baggage that can be carried. Loading any RV at the aft CG limit is not something to be considered lightly as the handling can be quite light in pitch. Outside the aft limit and it is possible to venture into pitch instability territory.

I guess the question is how much will you save by burning Mogas over the time & effort required to install the engine? If both engines burn overall 30 to 35 lit/hr (7 1/2 to 9 usg) what will be your saving at 40 hours per year? Are you prepared to spend several hundred build & development hours to realise that saving?

BTW the Europa Elite is still a paper aircraft, I wouldn't buy one until the initial few aircraft had got a few hundred flying hours on the clock. At least the Whisper is flying, although not clear from the website how many customer built aircraft have been completed. I would be sceptical of low build time numbers as many builders find the engine installation, electrics and finishing take almost the whole of the quoted build time quoted by Whisper.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-22-2020, 10:20 AM
TS Flightlines TS Flightlines is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ridgeland, SC
Posts: 2,720
Default

The engine is just the first thing if you vary from the plans installed accessories.
Plumbing is always a headache with alternative engines, and I dont know if UL Power has come up with a true kit for FWF or not. Our last dealings with then was 2 years ago.
If youre living in Europe--you might be on your own for alot of items that are taken for granted in a plans built plane. Doubt UL has any install data on a RV14.
Tom
__________________
Tom Swearengen, TS Flightlines LLC, AS Flightlines
Joint Venture with Aircraft Specialty
Teflon Hose Assemblies for Experimentals
Proud Vendor for RV1, Donator to VAF
RV7 Tail Kit Completed, Fuse started-Pay as I go Plan
Ridgeland, SC
www.tsflightlines.com, www.asflightlines.com
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-22-2020, 10:54 AM
Mike Houston Mike Houston is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Bushmills
Posts: 22
Default responses

Yeah all good points. I suppose if i could burn Mogas in a Lycoming that would be my preferred solution. DeeCee57 did you design your own fuel system or just put in the kit supplied stuff. I see this guy went out and bought one from TSFlightlines.

https://vansrv14project.uk/2019/12/1...1-fuel-system/

I reckon the difference between Mogas and 100LL here is about $4.50 a US gal. It starts to add up pretty quick, i suppose i would be better going with a kit that was built with ulpower 520 in mind or maybe the new Rotax 915is but i want something that get me and the wife to south france, Italy in decent comfort and cruise at 150knts ish

Lol:- just realised TS flightlines has responded what a helpful bunch you all are.

I see Darkaero are designing a plane with the UL 520IS in mind. But it seems more like a pocket rocket cruising at 270 mph or their abouts and a small cabin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pkxNx4UYFs

But as you say i dont want to be the first to build anything

Last edited by Mike Houston : 12-22-2020 at 11:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-22-2020, 11:58 AM
Canadian_JOY Canadian_JOY is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,373
Default

Burning mogas is largely a function of engine compression ratio. Lycoming says 8.5:1 is the upper limit for the use of 91 octane fuels.

An IO-390 with lower compression would allow you to gain all the benefits of the RV-14's pre-made kit components while also giving you the ability to run mogas. Yes, you would sacrifice some horsepower, but what does that really mean for YOUR mission?

I'll provide one example for your consideration... I built a Glasair Sportsman with an 8.5:1 compression ratio, making 180hp. By contrast, the overwhelming majority of Glasair's Two Weeks To Taxi customers choose the IO-390.

So what to I lose in terms of performance compared to the IO-390 Sportsman? The answer is 'not much'. The 180hp engine doesn't get off the ground as fast, doesn't climb as quickly, and won't go quite as fast. For two identical Sportsman aircraft flying side-by-side, the IO-390 might provide very slightly better fuel consumption - maybe.

What do I gain in terms of performance compared to the IO-390? Lower engine weight so the airplane is a little sweeter in handling - other than that, one can hardly tell the two apart in flight, save for the points mentioned above. The IO-390 is a more expensive engine to buy and has cylinders which are MUCH more expensive to replace, like twice as expensive. And then there's the mogas thing... My last mogas for the airplane cost CAD$1.067/litre. 100LL at our airport is currently priced at CAD$1.81/litre. That equates to savings of more than CAD$26/hour. That's REAL money.

At the end of the day I'm very happy to not have the fire-breathing IO-390 installed in our aircraft. Being able to fly 50% more hours on the same fuel budget more than makes up for the slightly lower aircraft performance that comes from the lower power engine.

There is a Sportsman flying with the UL520 (sorry, not sure which variant, but it first flew nearly 5 years ago). He has high compression pistons so is supposedly making 200hp.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-22-2020, 12:12 PM
HAL Pilot's Avatar
HAL Pilot HAL Pilot is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Las Vegas NV
Posts: 172
Default

I looked into UL previously the RV14 is designed around a 4 cylinder so going to a six cylinder will involve a lot of development time on your end. Longer nose, CG, etc. The UL power folks at Oshkosh basically said it was not worth the effort.

If you start a kit now you might be at the engine install point where the Higgs Diesel will be available as a FWF kit. They will have an article in the kitplanes engine buyers guide when that comes out.

http://www.ac-aero.com/falcon-fl200/
__________________
Pete

RV14A Tail kit build mostly done
Wing kit in progress
RV 14 WIKI in process, residing on Drop Box

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xu5p6f4l7...bU0ck0pJa?dl=0

change dot org link http://chng.it/KBPtXZYD

---For Edit Access drop me a PM with your Email address.
EAA 1300
Donation Paid 2018,19,20,21 Military exempt but paid any way Cause its worth it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-22-2020, 03:44 PM
Mike Houston Mike Houston is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Bushmills
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAL Pilot View Post
I looked into UL previously the RV14 is designed around a 4 cylinder so going to a six cylinder will involve a lot of development time on your end. Longer nose, CG, etc. The UL power folks at Oshkosh basically said it was not worth the effort.

If you start a kit now you might be at the engine install point where the Higgs Diesel will be available as a FWF kit. They will have an article in the kitplanes engine buyers guide when that comes out.

http://www.ac-aero.com/falcon-fl200/
diesel is my dream engine. Jet A is about 35% of the price of 100LL around here and has about 30% more juice in each gallon. That would be sweet. Mind u i wonder what they will cost. Continental diesel seem to be crazy expensive and they wont sell them to experimental builders
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-22-2020, 03:51 PM
Mike Houston Mike Houston is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Bushmills
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian_JOY View Post
Burning mogas is largely a function of engine compression ratio. Lycoming says 8.5:1 is the upper limit for the use of 91 octane fuels.

An IO-390 with lower compression would allow you to gain all the benefits of the RV-14's pre-made kit components while also giving you the ability to run mogas. Yes, you would sacrifice some horsepower, but what does that really mean for YOUR mission?

I'll provide one example for your consideration... I built a Glasair Sportsman with an 8.5:1 compression ratio, making 180hp. By contrast, the overwhelming majority of Glasair's Two Weeks To Taxi customers choose the IO-390.

So what to I lose in terms of performance compared to the IO-390 Sportsman? The answer is 'not much'. The 180hp engine doesn't get off the ground as fast, doesn't climb as quickly, and won't go quite as fast. For two identical Sportsman aircraft flying side-by-side, the IO-390 might provide very slightly better fuel consumption - maybe.

What do I gain in terms of performance compared to the IO-390? Lower engine weight so the airplane is a little sweeter in handling - other than that, one can hardly tell the two apart in flight, save for the points mentioned above. The IO-390 is a more expensive engine to buy and has cylinders which are MUCH more expensive to replace, like twice as expensive. And then there's the mogas thing... My last mogas for the airplane cost CAD$1.067/litre. 100LL at our airport is currently priced at CAD$1.81/litre. That equates to savings of more than CAD$26/hour. That's REAL money.

At the end of the day I'm very happy to not have the fire-breathing IO-390 installed in our aircraft. Being able to fly 50% more hours on the same fuel budget more than makes up for the slightly lower aircraft performance that comes from the lower power engine.

There is a Sportsman flying with the UL520 (sorry, not sure which variant, but it first flew nearly 5 years ago). He has high compression pistons so is supposedly making 200hp.
Food for thought, Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-22-2020, 04:08 PM
BH1166 BH1166 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Eatonton Georgia
Posts: 351
Default Cowl, mount, CG etc

All have to be rethought for each RV model considering ULpower. Currently there is a RV4 with the 520 being tested. Next phase is altitude testing / data gathering .
__________________
Butch
RV6A Purchased N72TX
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:38 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.