UL Power has the best HP to weight of about anything out there. Plus the Direct Drive with FADEC makes it a safe option for experimental aircraft. And It seems to be a easy install for DIY. I believe Wicks carries any parts you would need for UL Power.. Loving Engine week. Great job Brian.
Very interesting line of engines. I hadn't seen the turbo version before. I know the 520s are FADEC which wasn't really explained as far as operation which is one power lever.
UL is definitely one of my top contenders when I get far enough to have to make that decision. They seem to have found a good balance between new engine technology and proven aircraft engine design. Plus they will run on 91 which is readily available in my area.
It would be great if at the end of the week you could do a comparison video. One part spreadsheet, Three parts discussion of pros and cons of each foor different applications
Honestly... many of the Engine Manufacturers do that enough on their own. And.... ANY GIVEN DAY on the Social Media platforms. I would rather YOU decide which engine best meets your needs, mission and budget rather I decide for you. :-) I am here to support all of Aviation and present the facts (as best I can) to you so that you can make an educated decision. Thanks for chiming in! I appreciate your support very much!
Awesome current tech and simple low parts count implementation. Now they just need to make a rotax killer by putting a turbo on the low compression UL260 for s sweet 130hp continuous up high HP. it would be lighter and simpler than the rotax, and is already built for 130HP, with the same basic internals, same bore, and the exact same heads as the 350. Would be just the ticket for my Europa build. :-)
Another great interview Bryan with pricing. One doesn’t realize just how much time is saved on wiring up an engine along with the mistakes that happen. Nice clean design! We’ve all watched UL grow over the years and improve their engine designs.
@@ExperimentalAircraftChannel To you Bryan and the Girls, get off the computer and have a great Thanksgiving. All this can wait until Friday so take the time and go make dinner with the wife & kids and enjoy this time because I can tell one thing it goes by in the blink of an eye! And then it’s gone forever... enjoy. We raised six kids now it’s grandkids that we can’t see this year. Spend the time.
@@MrWATCHthisWAY I hear yah! Half Day only today. HAHA. I have some last minute editing. Next year I won't wait until the last minute to produce all of this in ONE WEEK! :-O HAPPY THANKSGIVING friend!
@@ExperimentalAircraftChannel Just remember, a 1/2 day turns into 3/4 of a day, that turns into a full day, that turns into night. And Little Girls that misses their daddy! Take care Bryan
Thease Engines are a High Tech Modern Day Redesign of the Air Cooled Aircraft Engine!!! Great Work People, I want One for sure!!! Great Thinking here!!!
What are you speaking of? over half of this Builder Aviation Demographic is 65+! There is most definitely a project out there that could meet you where you are at in life. Just have to pick one and start. Buy a set of plans... scratch build. :-)
Props to you! You've become stronger over time which is reflected in your questions and how you approach the interview. Not being familiar with this manufacturer, I was hoping you'd ask "why....?" why, as an experimental builder, should I choose a UL powerplant? Otherwise, great job.
Right?! Hah! From what I understand... Ray is in Sandersville GA and he handles the shipping (importing) of the engines. Robert handles the sales and paperwork.
Power to weight ratio seems to be very good as well. I am seeing many installations with LONG engine mounts. Meaning they are light weight for the airframe. Thanks for watching!
I'd like to put one of those beauties in my Corvair. The oiling system is an excellent design, w/ oil squirters for the cylinders and the valve train, for reliability. Get's to the heart of the latent engineer in me.
Sounds Great. To better the small engine add a Turbo to low compression 98 H.P. version. It will be an absolute winner. H.P. too Weight ratio Fantastic application on ultralights on floats out of high altitude locations, mountain lakes, Denver Co. or YYC . J-3 Cub, Cherokee, Merlin. Giddy-Up Gents !
Agreed! I hope that one day I can jump across the pond and bring you all a Factory Tour of where they are actually made. Thanks for watching and supporting here!
So there is no hydraulic prop option.... fixed or electrical pitch control. What props are available and cost. Is there a DUAL engine controller for redundancy?
I like the engine, but the turbo plumbing is not great, particularly the collector, and the welding doesn't look great. Also why not use a turbo with integral wastegate? lighter, cheaper, and could use an N75 valve to electronically control it.
I think the greatest issue with aircraft engine is the price, there is no issues with the quality or reliability of lycoming, continental or rotax, I don't know how new engines builders wish to fight in this market offering products almost the same price of certified engines, good luck, we still having no options.
Well... hopefully out of all these ENGINE WEEK 2020 videos you might find something that matches your need. Thanks for chiming in today and saying hello.
@@ExperimentalAircraftChannel I think if Henry Ford didn't change the way that cars was produced and charged today everyone would be using bus, like is happening with aviation. Because of henry ford we have auto engines with high tecnology costing bellow of 3k dollars. We need of an Henry ford in experimental aircraft market.
Just a technical question Brian. Do you have back up red hats? It’d be a shame for you to have to change your brand if you lost your hat. Lol. I love your channel, man. Keep up the great work!
That wiring where it comes out of the engine looks like it is laying right on top of the exhaust. Is it really touching it? Or is that just a trick of the camera?
Europe and the US have different methods of measuring octane. 95 octane euro= 91 octane here, and 97 octane in EU is 93 octane here. Basically, the models ending in "i" run on 91, the ones ending in "is" run on 93.
and I thought that belgians could only produce the best beer and the best chocolate in the world! Now it looks like they are getting on the way to produce the best aero engine in the world too!
Project 2 Aero. I have been following your build and I think you should use this engine, its my top pick for the S-21 that I have on order. I have spoken With Robert and he thinks it will be ready this year.
One piece of that Elephant at a time. Eventually you will own the Elephant. Might take a few years... so start now. That is how I am approaching it. Thanks for chiming in today!
I hear yah! Well... if this one doesn't "fit" check out a few of the other videos in the "ENGINE WEEK 2020" series and find one that matches. Something for everyone I hope. Thanks for watching and saying hello here!
There is a guy that has a facebook group talking about some serious issues with this engine. I am gathering information regarding engines for homebuilts. There appears to have been some serious piston issues with these engines. The guy I am referencing switched to cast pistons. I am no expert on this though but an interesting read....
I'm building the gairplanes mule ( it's a highwing tube and fabric similar to a just super stoll) I'd like to install there 4 cyl or possibly the smart echo fly diesel
I'm sure its much better than lycoming or continental as its made in Belgium, but they are still an out of date engine. Inline 6, watercooled, 24v ohc is a much better engine.
@@timduncan8450 It's on YouTUbe, and it was one of the suggested videos when I watched this one: ruclips.net/video/NV4Rpzf5fOg/видео.html There is just this one turbo model and it's brand new (I think the US distributor said this was just the second one they had seen).
For a turbo 5 litre engine to produce only 220 horsepower seems ridiculously low, and don’t give me that crap about low horsepower and reliability. How does this compare with Rotax engines?
2 bad they messed up the exhaust headers or just didnt leave it off as to get the best power all the exhaust headers must be the the same length and go into a 2into 1 header or 3 into header.
@@scootypuffjr. all aircraft engines run at low rpm since propeller can only spin so fast. Its only non aircraft engines that run at higher rpms and they need to be geared down at propeller drive Yes it does make a difference in power. Also every aircraft has a different layout for what what fits where. Most experimentals i have worked on besides my stepfathers gyros which won a bronze and silver lindy at airventure dont have room for that single exhaust collector across the back of engine. Also i noticed it didn't have the enlarged areas, not sure what exact name is, where it comes out of the manifold, that all the new exhaust piping has to prevent it from cracking. Its especially a waste on the aerobatic engine as most aerobatic planes have very tight cowling and exhaust is routed to fit and must be 3 into 1 for smoke system. I really like these engines otherwise. I just wish they were higher hp for planes i build
@@cw93711 lots of real aircraft engines run faster than prop speed. Rolls-Royce Merlin ring a bell? Built in prop speed reduction units on some radials as well. Again, exhaust efficiency at such low RPM is secondary to packaging and aerodynamic constraints. These Corvair conversions are running direct drive, low RPM, low power. The extra weight alone of a tuned equal length system probably would not pay for itself in power returned.
@@1STGeneral the little planes that its intended for, the Experimentals (overpriced ultralights!) Jeez, I almost bought a Piper Seneca last year for 33k!
@@Bigsky1991 The type of aircraft that $44k engine would go into would be something like the RV-8 or RV-14, both of which are aerobatic 200+ mph "real" aircraft (hardly an "overpriced ultralight"). Oh, and they are a helluva lot more fun to fly than a boring clapped out 40+ year old Seneca that smells like a moldy wet couch inside. ;-)
It still boggles me that ‘real’ aircraft engines are basically unchanged from 1940 designs. In the misguided distrust of electrical systems, aero engines are now 80 years behind modern engines. And they still fail right? Toy aeroplanes at least use engines with 20 year old technology - a bit more up to date. It is also strange that the owners of these these real aircraft with ‘proper’ aero engines, that will run without electrical power, will then fill the same aircraft with every electrical flight device known to man with no consideration given to the fact that with the lack of backup steam gauges, the aircraft would be almost impossible to navigate safely to a landing anyway.
@@stephengloor8451 I'm not a "hater"! I think the engine is fantastic! Properly engineered, user/mechanic friendly (former Military crew Chief AND Pilot) it's just that I'm shopping , looking at Planes, prices, and when I stumble across an engine for 40k that is intended for a glorified Ultralight, I cant wrap my head around it. Thus, the real vs Toy plane categories. A real plane Carries 4 adults and modest luggage to the Bahamas or the Coast on a bag of gas. A toy plane Carries less fuel than a WaWa coffee mug. Putting a 40k engine in these tiny EXP "planes" is like putting a Lamborghini engine in a Civic.
Aircraft engines need to produce their power at a max of around 3000 rpm at the prop (otherwise they become inefficient & too loud as the prop tips approach the speed of sound). And unlike in a car where full power is usually produced only for short periods of time, an aircraft engine needs to be able to produce full power for 5 minutes at take off, and 75% power continuously (with absolute reliability) for at least 1000 hours of use before overhaul. So that 2JZ in an aircraft application would likely only be good for 'maybe' 300hp. Then there's the weight - a serious issue for both aircraft performance, useful load, and centre of gravity. A 2JZ is somewhere in the order of 450lbs, but you'd need a reduction gearbox to make it useful for spinning a prop, so probably closer to 500lbs all up- about TWICE the weight of this ULpower engine. Then you've got the problem of trying to physically fit the engine, plus radiator, intercooler (and probably an oil cooler) into the tight confines of an aircraft engine cowling.
UL Power has the best HP to weight of about anything out there. Plus the Direct Drive with FADEC makes it a safe option for experimental aircraft. And It seems to be a easy install for DIY. I believe Wicks carries any parts you would need for UL Power.. Loving Engine week. Great job Brian.
Thank You so very much for your support! I appreciate you. YES... these seem to be quite the package.
Very interesting line of engines. I hadn't seen the turbo version before. I know the 520s are FADEC which wasn't really explained as far as operation which is one power lever.
UL is definitely one of my top contenders when I get far enough to have to make that decision. They seem to have found a good balance between new engine technology and proven aircraft engine design. Plus they will run on 91 which is readily available in my area.
It is looking like a good option. Mixing a bit of old and a bit of new together. Thank you for your support here and taking the time to watch!
Great information about UL engines. Never thought I would get this dense pack about them in few minutes.
Thank You for that! I appreciate your support! Thanks for stopping by!
It would be great if at the end of the week you could do a comparison video. One part spreadsheet, Three parts discussion of pros and cons of each foor different applications
Oh man....that would be a comment thread spawner ;-)
Honestly... many of the Engine Manufacturers do that enough on their own. And.... ANY GIVEN DAY on the Social Media platforms. I would rather YOU decide which engine best meets your needs, mission and budget rather I decide for you. :-) I am here to support all of Aviation and present the facts (as best I can) to you so that you can make an educated decision. Thanks for chiming in! I appreciate your support very much!
Awesome current tech and simple low parts count implementation. Now they just need to make a rotax killer by putting a turbo on the low compression UL260 for s sweet 130hp continuous up high HP. it would be lighter and simpler than the rotax, and is already built for 130HP, with the same basic internals, same bore, and the exact same heads as the 350. Would be just the ticket for my Europa build. :-)
I agree... I'd be interested in a turbocharged 260.
It only takes money and an email.... hah! Try it. :-)
Incredible engines and power ranges!!
The design and packaging is beautiful. I hope they prove themselves and can increase the scale of production eventually
Another great interview Bryan with pricing. One doesn’t realize just how much time is saved on wiring up an engine along with the mistakes that happen. Nice clean design! We’ve all watched UL grow over the years and improve their engine designs.
It does seem quite all inclusive. Even the baffling for your cowling! Thanks for your support @John Paul Lafferty !
@@ExperimentalAircraftChannel To you Bryan and the Girls, get off the computer and have a great Thanksgiving. All this can wait until Friday so take the time and go make dinner with the wife & kids and enjoy this time because I can tell one thing it goes by in the blink of an eye! And then it’s gone forever... enjoy. We raised six kids now it’s grandkids that we can’t see this year. Spend the time.
@@MrWATCHthisWAY I hear yah! Half Day only today. HAHA. I have some last minute editing. Next year I won't wait until the last minute to produce all of this in ONE WEEK! :-O HAPPY THANKSGIVING friend!
@@ExperimentalAircraftChannel Just remember, a 1/2 day turns into 3/4 of a day, that turns into a full day, that turns into night. And Little Girls that misses their daddy! Take care Bryan
Thease Engines are a High Tech Modern Day Redesign of the Air Cooled Aircraft Engine!!! Great Work People, I want One for sure!!! Great Thinking here!!!
Another great, informative video...how I wish I were younger so I could take up this awesome way of life! Very interesting!
What are you speaking of? over half of this Builder Aviation Demographic is 65+! There is most definitely a project out there that could meet you where you are at in life. Just have to pick one and start. Buy a set of plans... scratch build. :-)
Looks beautiful, simple and reliable 👌
Impressive engines! Every bit of it looks well engineered and well built.
Agreed! Very interesting option aren't they? Thanks for saying hello here today!
Props to you! You've become stronger over time which is reflected in your questions and how you approach the interview. Not being familiar with this manufacturer, I was hoping you'd ask "why....?" why, as an experimental builder, should I choose a UL powerplant? Otherwise, great job.
Thank You! I appreciate you taking the time to watch and say hello here. I am learning. A little more each day.
This is the first UL Power interview I've seen that wasn't with Robert Helms.
Right?! Hah! From what I understand... Ray is in Sandersville GA and he handles the shipping (importing) of the engines. Robert handles the sales and paperwork.
I hear a lot about UL. They seem to be an excellent engine.
Power to weight ratio seems to be very good as well. I am seeing many installations with LONG engine mounts. Meaning they are light weight for the airframe. Thanks for watching!
@@ExperimentalAircraftChannel and perrrrrfect weight for those many airframes designed around the 9 series rotax.
How costly is a engine like this
@@bendaves77 rotax price range.
Nice engine. Thanks for sharing.
You are very welcome!
Love the simplicity of the engine maintenance.
Excellent video !!!!!!
At the slow speeds the superstol flies, this engine gonna get real hot!!
I'd like to put one of those beauties in my Corvair. The oiling system is an excellent design, w/ oil squirters for the cylinders and the valve train, for reliability. Get's to the heart of the latent engineer in me.
THAT... would be a unique installation for sure!
I'm thinking an LS V8 in a Corvair. Put the air cooled six back in an aircraft where it belongs, lol.
Man, you lost me when you admitted to actually having a Corvair !
Sounds Great.
To better the small engine add a Turbo to low compression 98 H.P. version.
It will be an absolute winner.
H.P. too Weight ratio Fantastic application on ultralights on floats out of high altitude locations, mountain lakes, Denver Co. or YYC .
J-3 Cub, Cherokee, Merlin.
Giddy-Up Gents !
Love this channel
It rocks.....kepp’m coming!
Thank You! I appreciate you!
@@PeteZoot Thanks for showing up again! :-)
Sure is a pretty looking engine, and seems pretty well thought out and designed
Agreed! I hope that one day I can jump across the pond and bring you all a Factory Tour of where they are actually made. Thanks for watching and supporting here!
Plan on doing a 320is turbo for the kit built LSA market?
Pretty cool being able to remove the head from the barrels! As an Aircraft Mechanic... I appreciate this!
So there is no hydraulic prop option.... fixed or electrical pitch control. What props are available and cost.
Is there a DUAL engine controller for redundancy?
I like the engine, but the turbo plumbing is not great, particularly the collector, and the welding doesn't look great. Also why not use a turbo with integral wastegate? lighter, cheaper, and could use an N75 valve to electronically control it.
Ul Power sure are pretty to look at! That turbo needs to be in an 2 S21!
Are you going to be the first? :-O Have at it! Thanks for chiming in here today!
@@ExperimentalAircraftChannel Prolly not in the cards for this fella. Wine taste on beer money as they say🤷🏻♂️
@@Project2Aero So which one are you planning on going with again??? :-)
@@ExperimentalAircraftChannel Well I guess you’ll have to stay tuned to find out! lol 😂
@@Project2Aero Ahhh.. Such a tease! Love the S-21. Looking forward to it!
I think the greatest issue with aircraft engine is the price, there is no issues with the quality or reliability of lycoming, continental or rotax, I don't know how new engines builders wish to fight in this market offering products almost the same price of certified engines, good luck, we still having no options.
They fight with updated designs, fadec performance and **weight. :)
Well... hopefully out of all these ENGINE WEEK 2020 videos you might find something that matches your need. Thanks for chiming in today and saying hello.
@@ExperimentalAircraftChannel I think if Henry Ford didn't change the way that cars was produced and charged today everyone would be using bus, like is happening with aviation. Because of henry ford we have auto engines with high tecnology costing bellow of 3k dollars. We need of an Henry ford in experimental aircraft market.
What is the price of this engine and mpg and efficiency???
Wonder how his RV7 performs with that 6 cylinder UL engine. I recall following that some time ago on Vans Air Force.
I would be interested to visit back in Sandersville GA again one day soon. He has a hangar full of projects! Thanks for watching!
Just a technical question Brian. Do you have back up red hats? It’d be a shame for you to have to change your brand if you lost your hat. Lol.
I love your channel, man. Keep up the great work!
Looks like some competition for Rotax?
What’s that black T-tail aircraft?
have a nice day. I want engine details and price plan of 0 km 2 and 4 seater light aircraft. thanks.
That wiring where it comes out of the engine looks like it is laying right on top of the exhaust. Is it really touching it? Or is that just a trick of the camera?
If you mean the spark plugs wires on the top, that's the INTAKE manifold, not the exhaust.
Where does one find 97 octane mogas? Racetrack?
Europe and the US have different methods of measuring octane. 95 octane euro= 91 octane here, and 97 octane in EU is 93 octane here. Basically, the models ending in "i" run on 91, the ones ending in "is" run on 93.
and I thought that belgians could only produce the best beer and the best chocolate in the world! Now it looks like they are getting on the way to produce the best aero engine in the world too!
Project 2 Aero. I have been following your build and I think you should use this engine, its my top pick for the S-21 that I have on order. I have spoken With Robert and he thinks it will be ready this year.
Nice! Looking forward to it! Post your updates in our GROUP! :-)
These look awesome, now if I only had 20,000+ dollars.
One piece of that Elephant at a time. Eventually you will own the Elephant. Might take a few years... so start now. That is how I am approaching it. Thanks for chiming in today!
Nice looking engines, but breathtaking prices.
I hear yah! Well... if this one doesn't "fit" check out a few of the other videos in the "ENGINE WEEK 2020" series and find one that matches. Something for everyone I hope. Thanks for watching and saying hello here!
They are less than Rotax, and lighter.
@@thewheelieguy Rotax prices are breathtaking also so this isn’t a big win.
Simple man it also (hopefully..) has a MAP sensor....yeaha south
)
SO cost isn't a plus, does anyone have experience with these and others to give a comparison of why choose UL vs Lycoming?
There is a guy that has a facebook group talking about some serious issues with this engine. I am gathering information regarding engines for homebuilts. There appears to have been some serious piston issues with these engines. The guy I am referencing switched to cast pistons. I am no expert on this though but an interesting read....
Does anyone know what kind of aircraft the black one with T- tail is?
12:57 in video
It is a newer design I believe from the Czech Republic. Send Ray a message for details. Thanks for taking the time to watch today!
It is Ellipse Spirit. I have one in Canada - incredible machine.
I'm building the gairplanes mule ( it's a highwing tube and fabric similar to a just super stoll) I'd like to install there 4 cyl or possibly the smart echo fly diesel
Nice to see a turbocharged UL520. It wasn't clear t me how many HP it develops at 2700 RPM?
I think the NA model is 180
From the american rep:
“Turbo Testing Update
220 hp @
2700 rpm and
420 ft lbs of torque
And the toque curve is crazy flat.”
I believe Mr. Pete below is correct. Thank you for taking the time to comment and support here!
$21K for a UL260i. I'm just simply not able to pay that much. I would say they are very nice engines.
I'm surprised to see just two valves per cylinder instead of four.
I'm sure its much better than lycoming or continental as its made in Belgium, but they are still an out of date engine. Inline 6, watercooled, 24v ohc is a much better engine.
On the turbo engine, what’s max altitude with full power?
15,000 feet full power altitude, according to a video from UL Power themselves.
@@thewheelieguy Thx for the great answer, did you have a link? Is this on all their turbo models?
@@timduncan8450 It's on YouTUbe, and it was one of the suggested videos when I watched this one: ruclips.net/video/NV4Rpzf5fOg/видео.html
There is just this one turbo model and it's brand new (I think the US distributor said this was just the second one they had seen).
Did someone need a website? Contact me.
Get the RPMs up to 7,000 and put some real power on, this is strange. A 5.2 liter with only 200 hp? That's like a late 70's Dodge 318 power levels
All that racing engine technology behind the development of the engine but no roller valve train. Boo
Looking forward to putting the UL520T on my Lancair 360MKII. Check out my build here: ruclips.net/video/Ksl8RgtCsKI/видео.html
To many engines with to little gap in power. That turbo engine should put out at the minimum 300hp.
All else being equal, more power means less reliability. Take your pick.
For a turbo 5 litre engine to produce only 220 horsepower seems ridiculously low, and don’t give me that crap about low horsepower and reliability. How does this compare with Rotax engines?
the low rpm limit might have something to do with it!
Ouhps, 44K for an engine with an outdated concept? 😖
which part is outdated? This is a light FADEC engine which is presumably pretty efficient too, though that wasn't discussed in the video.
2 bad they messed up the exhaust headers or just didnt leave it off as to get the best power all the exhaust headers must be the the same length and go into a 2into 1 header or 3 into header.
Probably not enough to worry about at such low RPM. Sound on the other hand, now I do like the sound of an equal length set-up. Sounds clean.
Not an issue on a turbo
@@sledawgpilot even with a turbo i dont know of anyone whos going to run a 6 into 1 exhaust just because of the room it takes and where it is.
@@scootypuffjr. all aircraft engines run at low rpm since propeller can only spin so fast.
Its only non aircraft engines that run at higher rpms and they need to be geared down at propeller drive
Yes it does make a difference in power.
Also every aircraft has a different layout for what what fits where. Most experimentals i have worked on besides my stepfathers gyros which won a bronze and silver lindy at airventure dont have room for that single exhaust collector across the back of engine.
Also i noticed it didn't have the enlarged areas, not sure what exact name is, where it comes out of the manifold, that all the new exhaust piping has to prevent it from cracking.
Its especially a waste on the aerobatic engine as most aerobatic planes have very tight cowling and exhaust is routed to fit and must be 3 into 1 for smoke system.
I really like these engines otherwise. I just wish they were higher hp for planes i build
@@cw93711 lots of real aircraft engines run faster than prop speed. Rolls-Royce Merlin ring a bell? Built in prop speed reduction units on some radials as well. Again, exhaust efficiency at such low RPM is secondary to packaging and aerodynamic constraints. These Corvair conversions are running direct drive, low RPM, low power. The extra weight alone of a tuned equal length system probably would not pay for itself in power returned.
Yikes! 44k for an engine for Toy Airplanes?
200 plus HP compact turbocharged air-cooled engine with redundancy features. Where did toy aircraft come from
@@1STGeneral the little planes that its intended for, the Experimentals (overpriced ultralights!) Jeez, I almost bought a Piper Seneca last year for 33k!
@@Bigsky1991 The type of aircraft that $44k engine would go into would be something like the RV-8 or RV-14, both of which are aerobatic 200+ mph "real" aircraft (hardly an "overpriced ultralight"). Oh, and they are a helluva lot more fun to fly than a boring clapped out 40+ year old Seneca that smells like a moldy wet couch inside. ;-)
It still boggles me that ‘real’ aircraft engines are basically unchanged from 1940 designs. In the misguided distrust of electrical systems, aero engines are now 80 years behind modern engines. And they still fail right? Toy aeroplanes at least use engines with 20 year old technology - a bit more up to date. It is also strange that the owners of these these real aircraft with ‘proper’ aero engines, that will run without electrical power, will then fill the same aircraft with every electrical flight device known to man with no consideration given to the fact that with the lack of backup steam gauges, the aircraft would be almost impossible to navigate safely to a landing anyway.
@@stephengloor8451 I'm not a "hater"! I think the engine is fantastic! Properly engineered, user/mechanic friendly (former Military crew Chief AND Pilot) it's just that I'm shopping , looking at Planes, prices, and when I stumble across an engine for 40k that is intended for a glorified Ultralight, I cant wrap my head around it. Thus, the real vs Toy plane categories. A real plane Carries 4 adults and modest luggage to the Bahamas or the Coast on a bag of gas. A toy plane Carries less fuel than a WaWa coffee mug. Putting a 40k engine in these tiny EXP "planes" is like putting a Lamborghini engine in a Civic.
Ugh: "Contact Us".... how 20th!
220 hp from turbo 5.2 ?
Just take 2jz Toyota 3.0 and around
Safe 500 and north hp
Yes i know it's aircraft motor but ?
Aircraft engines need to produce their power at a max of around 3000 rpm at the prop (otherwise they become inefficient & too loud as the prop tips approach the speed of sound). And unlike in a car where full power is usually produced only for short periods of time, an aircraft engine needs to be able to produce full power for 5 minutes at take off, and 75% power continuously (with absolute reliability) for at least 1000 hours of use before overhaul. So that 2JZ in an aircraft application would likely only be good for 'maybe' 300hp. Then there's the weight - a serious issue for both aircraft performance, useful load, and centre of gravity. A 2JZ is somewhere in the order of 450lbs, but you'd need a reduction gearbox to make it useful for spinning a prop, so probably closer to 500lbs all up- about TWICE the weight of this ULpower engine. Then you've got the problem of trying to physically fit the engine, plus radiator, intercooler (and probably an oil cooler) into the tight confines of an aircraft engine cowling.