UL Power Engines

[Kitfox Guy]

Does anyone have experience with installing the new UL Power engines in a Kitfox? I am not in the market for swapping engines myself, but I was curious about the engines application in a KitFox. The engines seem to come in a variety of configurations, but I don't have any info on their weight. Interestingly, they reportedly can use auto gas that is blended with ethanol. The price seems to be competitive with other light aircraft engines.

UL260i, 97 h.p., $19,400

UL260iS, 107 h.p., $20,850

UL350i, 118 h.p., $24,800

UL350iS, 130 h.p., $25,872

Michael Meyers
KitFox IV
Las Vegas, NV

[Cosmofly]

Howdy... maybe the McBeans will be able to give you some answers. Check out UL Power USA. Mostly Zenith aircraft, but they are now used as donkeys in most home builds.;)

[cap01]

whats a donkey ?

[Esser]

I was going to go UL. Even flirted with 180hp but I got too good of a deal on a 914

[jrevens]

I believe that these engines have been discussed here before. A few thoughts... they are a nice looking engine, and appear to be well designed/built to me. The published HP ratings are somewhat confusing in that they are listed at 3300 rpm. This is higher than many propellers can run efficiently at, as tip speeds approach or exceed the speed of sound. Company info at other speeds is available. For instance, the 260i is listed as 79 hp @ 2700 rpm. The prices you listed are considerably higher based on available horsepower than the current comparative Rotax prices in the US at this time. Rotax engines have no problem with ethanol blended fuel. One potential concern for me would be the relative newness of these engines in the market. I think that most of us would agree that Rotax engines are now very reliable engines, and one of the lightest (if not the lightest) installed weight/hp of any available brand. I understand that in the over 25(?)years that the 912 series have been built, over 3200(?) design changes/improvements have been incorporated in the design, many based on field experience. Nothing beats time and experience on a lot of different airplanes. Just look at the experience with new "improved" cylinder designs for simple Lycoming engines that turned out to have serious issues. Or look a the issues that became evident with the Jabiru engines. I'm not trying to belittle the UL Power engines - they look very good - but it will take time to know for sure.

[rosslr]

Michael,
I too was looking closely at the UL engines. I have just bought the Rotax 912is. Reason, just couldn't get good information re the in field performance and reliability of the engines even though they have ben around for a fair time now. Hence, ditto John's comments. That said, if you get in touch with Robert Helms at Ul Power US, he has a discussion forum that he might give you access to. They are a nice looking engine. However, here in OZ they were pretty expensive compared to the 912is ... and they aren't cheap! UL Power will tell you, however, that you should compare the UL350 to the Rotax 914. Additionally, there is at least one guy on this forum with a 350 and the Kitfox factory has a limited FWF package I understand. It will be interesting to see how these engines work out over time. Meantime, there is (as John referred to) some previous threads on these engines. Good luck with your choice and keep us posted - We're all here to learn.

cheers

r

[Cosmofly]

Pardon my poor word choice, referring to an aircraft engine as a "donkey". It is a slang phrase, used by some people, as in the donkey that pull the horse cart, or in this case... pulling the aircraft through the sky.:rolleyes:

[jrevens]

I like "donkey", Tiaan... it made me smile!:)

[Russell320]

I'm in! Donkey it is.☺