UL260i certification

[Guest burbles1]

I was keen to find out what is involved in approval of this engine by RA-Aus. My letter to Steve Bell, and his response, is below. I made a mistake by stating '25' registration, when it should have been '24' because the Bantam is a factory-built type.

 

It'd be nice to see someone try this engine in an amateur-built at some stage - it sounds good.

 

Steve,

Re: Certification of new aero engine, UL260i

 

I would like to determine the requirements for certification of an aero engine to allow RA-Aus registration and insurance.

 

The engine is the UL260i manufactured by ULPower (Meet the future of light aviation: ULPower Aero Engines). This is currently undergoing certification by Micro Aviation NZ for use on the Bantam B22 ultralight. If the certification process in New Zealand is successful and the UL260i is accepted for use with the Bantam, is that certification acceptable to RA-Aus to allow that configuration as a 25 registered aircraft? If not, please advise what procedures I need to undertake for certification in Australia.

 

Thank you for your letter dated 08 September 2010 asking about the approval of the UL260i in Australia.Firstly RA-Aus will accept the approval of the NZ CAA for these engines, in particular the Bantam, even if they are 25 registered.

 

For other factory built types either the manufacturers approval or a CAR 35 approval will be needed.

 

For amateur built types, no approvals are needed.

 

I hope this answers your questions.

 

Regards

 

Stephen Bell

 

Technical Manager

[eightyknots]

The six UL engines' horsepower ranges from 97 hp to 130 hp. I like the fuel injection and FADEC features on these engines.

 

I can see that the 260i (97hp) UL engine is being fitted to the Bantam.

 

Any idea of the cost(s) of these engines Downunder?

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Any idea of the cost(s) of these engines Downunder?

12,400 Euros for the basic 97HP. So add shipping, GST, duties and you are looking at A$21,000. For a new unproven design you have to design your own FWF for.

Might as well get a Rotax 912ULS!

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

That price seems comparable to a Rotax 912 or Jab 2200 - right? I like the sound of a burn rate around 8 litres/hour, but then I don't like the lack of maintenance and support because it's such an unproven engine - the only dealers are in Europe and America, goodness knows where you send an engine if something goes wrong (and how long do you wait?).

 

If this gets accepted by NZ CAA I'll be asking a lot of questions before buying. Maybe Micro Aviation NZ has already looked into maintenance support.

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

I don't know if the UL260i was based on the Jab 2200, but it's intended to compete with the 2200 and is interesting reading about the history. The UL260 came about after development of the Masquito M80 helicopter fell through, and developed by the engineer who designed the Masquito's engine (Kevin's Sonex Website - Diary).

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

UL260i performance

 

I came across some good discussion of this on the BMAA forum (BMAA Forum) about how the engine is performing in various aircraft. Seems to be going well after 200+ hours. Apparently the fuel consumption is around 13 litres/hour, far from the manufacturer's claim of 8.

 

 

[facthunter]

Fuel Consumption

 

Yes there is no way that you would achieve 8 litres/ hour. If you are using about 75Hp in cruise. What is the engines Max for T/O.? Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

Max Power.

 

Checked it out 97 HP. This is a fairly conventional engine and at 2.6 litres should not be too overstressed The Jab is 85 HP at 2200 cc. so pretty similar specific power output...Nev

 

 

[David Alford]

Apparently it is proving to be excellent according to the Bantam headquarters. As in "faultless". I'm not sure what the real fuel consumption will prove to be...there is data and then there is data...

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

It would be good to see some performance data from Micro Aviation.

 

 

[David Alford]

As I understand it, over 200 engines have been sold, which is quite a lot. Max apparently loves the UL260i, which is getting a foothold in Europe with numerous planes flying. In the Bantam, it appears too make for a nice installation as does the Jabiru. My research has shown that there is considerable doubt amongst people who haven't seen the engine or flown it, which is natural. The adherents are those who have as well as those who have visited the factory. Apparently, the engine is extremely well made. I admit to having no direct knowledge of it, however.

 

I hope to visit the NZ factory in December and possibly will bring a Bantam over to Tasmania next year. While Micro Aviation's NZ website doesn't give much information, there is more on the Micro Aviation SA site. There are several other Bantam videos on YouTube, just search micro aviation SA, and Bantam. IMO, there should be a nice market for Bantams in Australia and it's a bit surprising it never took off here (if you'll forgive the pun) . Or perhaps I should say "yet"...

 

 

[David Alford]

Sorry, I had two thread open at the same time - one on the UL260i and one on the Bantam; hence the info. on Bantam. A bit more on the UL engine - Max at Bantam has done numerous Jabiru installations and is very familiar with both engines and prefers the UL260i. I believe he now has several years flying it. I check into the fuel consumption issue in December.

 

 

[jetboy]

Ulpower issued a SB 3 wks ago about ECU connections corroding, whether this has anything to do with the 3 Bantams currently inoperative and the other one's electrical failures I havent heard. Otherwise its been a good engine in NZ so far.

 

Ralph

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

I've read of satisfied customers in Europe, but I would be more convinced if there were a service agent appointed in Australia/NZ.

 

I like the Bantam's specs, but I'd be keen to see Max Clear relax his rules a little to accommodate options that they fit in South Africa - long-range tank, bush tyres. An optional factory fitted glass panel would be very nice and open up the Australian market much more. What I've surmised from Micro Aviation NZ is that the Bantam could carry more weight with these options, as it's been strength tested well beyond its current MTOW.

 

 

[dazza 38]

The 2 Gents in England, who do aero displays in the Silent Twister aircraft, likes the UL engine.

 

 

[jetboy]

Perhaps you should call Max and discuss the reasons for the Ulpower groundings and what is available with the Bantams. I have owned two B22, the last one just prior to the B22S modification and an owner nearby has a B22J.

 

I know they fit the 3300 to the SA versions but I'm fairly sure the NZCAA rules would not allow any more weights than whats currently on offer a microlight is just that - anything modified has to be drop tested and structural limits checked remember the sheet of paper started with an empty weight 148.5Kg before the rules changed to MTOW ratings, but if your market isnt fussy about design rules then you can use a 350 chevy if U want just wear steel capped shoes its might scary when the prop arc goes thru the pod where your feet are (dont ask)

 

Ralph

 

 

[David Alford]

I just returned from two days at the Bantam factory in NZ. Max and Maxine are convinced the UL260i is the Bantam's future over the Jabiru. I have to agree. It uses less fuel than the Jabiru, is slightly quieter, and runs MUCH cooler I flew both. The Jabiru runs hotter than I would have suspected on a relatively cool day partly because even though it's up front in the open on the Bantam, it was designed for an engine compartment enclosure so the air is funneled correctly. In a cross country flight with a Jabiru Bantam, several times we had to cut back on the throttle during extended climb (full fuel and 2 up) because the temps were getting a bit hot.

 

The UL260i also carries a bit more oil, and that helps no doubt. In the summer this is the engine you would appreciate. It was hard to get fuel consumption figures but I recall being told 9 or 10 litres/hr. but at what RPM setting I know not. Once you have seen how well the engine perform a lot of your criticisms begin to go away. No doubt Jabiru has the home field advantage, but the UL260i is simply better from what I saw and what the people who have experience with both believe.

 

It is possible Bantam will become a dealer for the UL engines in the S.Pacific, but this is not a given. Max Clear is a perfectionist as well as being very practical, and he really likes this engine. It does appear to beautifully built, more so even than the Jabiru although I readily admit I'm not an engine guru. All I can say is that I would choose the UL260i over the Jabiru from what I have experienced.

 

 

[eightyknots]

It certainly sounds like an interesting engine, a possible viable alternative to the ubiquitous Rotax and Jabiru engines. I have been following its development now for several years with interest.

 

 

[facthunter]

It could be a good engine, but is it interesting? In principle it is very similar to the Continental and lycomings. Mind you a gimmicky high tech engine is not where I see the answer to a reliable aircraft powerplant, either.. I wish them every success as competition improves the breed. It takes a lot of field service to "prove" an engine., but all other things being equal, simplest is best. Nev

 

 

[David Alford]

I'm not sure about simplest is best...for example carburetors are simpler than fuel injection, but who wants a car engine these days with the simpler carburetor? Fuel injection properly done is more reliable and it certainly saves fuel.

 

The history of the UL is that they looked hard at the Jabiru and simply improved upon it in a number of areas including the quality of construction from what Max has told me. I have little doubt it is a better and more reliable engine than the Jabiru, but there are some negatives such as what happens if the company folds. On the other side of the equation, perhaps it's just as probable that Jabiru could fold. Gosh, they have quite a few people ticked off because of reputedly poor service and workmanship (in the opinion of some). Who knows? If the Jabiru running much hotter is a concern for you I would seriously consider this engine. If you are still undecided, get on a plane and go to NZ and see for yourself. Actual experience easily trumps theoretical arguments/brochures.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

If I was putting together the lotto win Tornado I would definitely go for a UL350i engine but I would add a remote oil cooler and remote oil reservoir, 2.5L leaves no margin for error.

 

 

[David Alford]

You might want to do that for a Jabiru engine. As I said, the UL runs much cooler and it also has a larger oil sump.

 

 

[David Alford]

Incidentally, the UL260i comes with an oil cooler and that is figured into the engine weight. But it's not used on the Bantam at least in NZ because the engine runs very cool. I think the UL260i may have even increased their oil capacity/sump size but I'm not sure. I do recall Max telling me that had done a few minor modification on the engine to improve cooling even more since he got his. He went to the factory before committing and was duly impressed. It's a beautiful tidy engine and started up instantly and ran so smooth...

 

 

[facthunter]

David I did say "all other things being equal" simplest is best. What is good for a car engine can not just be transposed to having it presumed to be good for an aeroplane engine automatically. They operate in different environments to different criteria.

 

Fuel injection was used on the Continental 0-200D but I understand has been revised. The engine was FADEC. The basic engine itself is considered one of the most reliable engines around.

 

Oil quantity and cooling..... Most 0-200 installations and some Lycoming 0-235 do not require oil coolers. Wet sump engines (Which they all are), require no external oil lines which are a source of unreliability. Again IF you can do without it you are better off.

 

Oil quantity. The more you have - the slower the warm up. Oil QUANTITY once the temp has reached equilibrium, has little to do with oil temperature being maintained.. Nev

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

It could be a good engine, but is it interesting?

I don't find the 260 very interesting; to me it doesn't offer any advantages over a Rotax. (heavier, unproven, not significantly cheaper) But competition is always good!

What I do find interesting is their 350I(S) engine: 118 or 130 HP in 78.5 KG and 4 cylinders - shorter than a 3300, easier on CoG? Cheaper than a 914 and no turbos required.