ESPN168 Posted April 3, 2020 Author Report Posted April 3, 2020 This FADEC engine looks good too. 200hp. https://ulpower.com/en/engines/ul520 Quote
carusoam Posted April 3, 2020 Report Posted April 3, 2020 Looking up the UL520... https://ulpower.com/en/engines/ul520 It appears to be the size of a Continental engine using the same name... 200hp vs. 300hp... Trying to find information about the company on the site and what the price of the engine is is a bit of a challenge... Electronic ignition seems to be one of their strong points. Best regards, -a- Quote
AH-1 Cobra Pilot Posted April 3, 2020 Report Posted April 3, 2020 10 minutes ago, ESPN168 said: This FADEC engine looks good too. 200hp. https://ulpower.com/en/engines/ul520 The first line on that web page tickles me: "In 2015 we continued working on the 6 cylinder engines." Well, what have you been doing for the past 5 years? I am not so sure FADEC is the way to go. You move one lever and the program adjusts throttle, RPM, mixture,... All those parameters depend on the goals of the guy writing the program, not necessarily what I want the engine/prop to do. Quote
ESPN168 Posted April 3, 2020 Author Report Posted April 3, 2020 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said: The first line on that web page tickles me: "In 2015 we continued working on the 6 cylinder engines." Well, what have you been doing for the past 5 years? I am not so sure FADEC is the way to go. You move one lever and the program adjusts throttle, RPM, mixture,... All those parameters depend on the goals of the guy writing the program, not necessarily what I want the engine/prop to do. I can relate to your points. I understand that driving a 5 speed manual car you have more control of engine and somewhat fuel economy., but also burn more fuel if you drive a 5sp incorrectly. The FADEC system is tuned different for each engine of course. For work load and safety of new pilots its takes a lot of stress out of them. The FADEC engine is like flying for dummies engine management wise. Imagined all we have are stick shift cars? There would probably be a lot less drivers on the road and more accidents with new drivers popping their clutch and rear ending others. If GA is to grow the FADEC system would need to become the norm like automatic transmission in the automobile. I would trust the europeans on this.. North Americans are too slow at times. Remember how Porn was such a taboo topics? well the Europeans had SEKA as a household name and look at us now. Some parents even consider their daughters to have a career in Porn. Remember Weed was such bad drug and you would go to jail just mentioning it, the Dutch was selling it at corner stores. I wondered what percentage of cars in Europe are diesel? Edited April 3, 2020 by ESPN168 2 Quote
carusoam Posted April 3, 2020 Report Posted April 3, 2020 ESPN, Your insights are interesting... But some things are not very comparable... Socialism isn’t very friendly toward automobile owners... If you only can afford one car a diesel golf is a good one... Put your whole family in it. In the US... some people have multiple cars per person because the tax system allows for it... Price of gas has gone below $2 gallon... a corvette with a 6-speed can make well over 30mpg... How would having a single 1.6liter diesel be helpful today? (For an ordinary MSr?) For some reason... the US is centered on gasoline for cars, diesel for trucks... Europe is centered more on diesel for everyone... in limited amounts... I have spent significant amounts of time on both continents... taking in the differences... Not selecting which is better... that would be a personal choice. Getting paid as an actor... enough to make a healthy? living... that seems to be one in a million... hard to count on... PP wondering out loud... Best regards, -a- Quote
EricJ Posted April 3, 2020 Report Posted April 3, 2020 42 minutes ago, carusoam said: Socialism isn’t very friendly toward automobile owners... Until you need roads and streets to drive them on. I don't really agree with the initial premise, anyway. 2 Quote
Bentonck Posted April 9, 2020 Report Posted April 9, 2020 This topic has definately wandered off into the woods but in attempt to respond ... I recently purchased (as I mentioned in another thread) a 2007 Acclaim, right in time for the Zombie Apacolypse ... I put it in for the annual and I have no idea when I'll see it again although I already paid for it. In any case, I started out looking at Lancair's to go far and fast but ended up wanting a certified plane due to regulations here in Brazil that give some limitations on experimentals that are probably liveable if you are out in the sticks but not so much living in Sao Paulo (your experimental cert prohibits flights over most populated areas and Sao Paulo certainly counts) ... but I was trying to figure out out at the time if I got a Mako or an older ES if I could put one of those Continental diesels in it for all the reasons already discussed above. The cost and availability of Jet-A plus the challenge of doing overhauls overseas make the pop-it-out-and-replace-it 2000 or 2200 hour TBO liveable. The restrictions on the flights, though, make it tough to swallow here. If there was ever an STC to put a 250-300hp Turbo diesel in and sip Jet-A I would be all over it. The big Conti engines aren't STC'd for anything that I can find and they are heavy (someone said 50 lbs but it seems more like 100) ... On the performance side, though, I was reading Aopa Pilot back issues the other day waiting for the world to end or get better and they put the 172S head to head with the diesel version that Cessna briefly offered and with less nominal HP iand it flew faster, had shorter takeoffs, and burned less... so with nominal horsies at 155 for the Conti CD-155 vs. 180 for the IO-360-L2A that powered the conventional S model. While not impressive vs. a Mooney, the diesel powered was 132Kts true at 8,9GPH at WOT and 124KTS at 7,1gph at 80% power or 112 at 5,7GPH at 70%. The stock 172S has a normal cruise of 124 Kts @ 75% (WOT @ 8500ft) burning 9,5 gph of Avgas or 115 KTS @ 65% power burning 7-8 gph (I don't remember) ... Point being I don't think you would lose any airspeed up front and the economy would definately always be there. If anyone comes up with an STC to go diesel, even if I had to switch to an earlier airframe, I'd take a look. 1 Quote
carusoam Posted April 10, 2020 Report Posted April 10, 2020 Benton, Enjoy the Acclaim.... While doing that... Consider the Lancair with Walter Turbine Engine... diesel, without the reciprocation... 6000 hrs TBO? Sao Paulo is one of my favorite cities... Lots of Robinson helicopters being used for commuting... Best regards, -a- Quote
Bentonck Posted April 11, 2020 Report Posted April 11, 2020 Thanks for the return...I did see those Lancair with turbines.... I have a lot of hours in simple airplanes, spread over a lot of years. My last (owned) airplane was a 172 with a 180hp STC and a constant speed prop, and that was 10 years ago. The Acclaim was a stretch for me as a pilot, and I plan on taking a guy with a lot more experience than me on the first few trips,.... the turbine Lancair seemed more like assisted suicide and the chance of me finding insurnace was nil....but definately for the next plane... 2 Quote
philiplane Posted April 11, 2020 Report Posted April 11, 2020 On 3/31/2020 at 11:12 PM, MilitaryAV8R said: I have been watching these guys for some time. The primary engine they are focused on is the 180 HP, but they are also developing a 200 HP version that would be great in my M20F. Someday they may get the final FAA approval and then it will be a long time I am sure before it ever makes it's way into a Mooney. I would love to be the one to make it happen, but I assume that the FAA wold want an absolute mountain of paperwork and test data before they would allow it. https://deltahawk.com/content/deltahawk-dh180a4 I put a Delta Hawk diesel on a Cirrus SR20 for testing and certification purposes in 2013. It''s almost ready for prime time. This is hands down the best diesel option .Lightest weight diesel of the bunch, purpose built for aviation. Doug Doers and his team left no detail overlooked getting the engine right. That's why it's taken so long. Maybe it will be certified this year. The FAA had all the data during the fourth quarter of 2019. 1 Quote
Skybrd Posted April 11, 2020 Report Posted April 11, 2020 My two cents on this. If some of the engineers who developed hondas and their engines would join general aviation. They might design a more modern engine system. It would be turbo charged, run like a sewing machine, not burn oil, have feedback systems to adjust timing and fuel. Also change the engine prop controls, mixture and throttle to a simple single control. Also, I think, to get better speed, reduce drag instead of putting in larger fuel thirsty engines. Lets get the greatness that the Hondas in our Mooneys. 1 Quote
EricJ Posted April 11, 2020 Report Posted April 11, 2020 6 minutes ago, Skybrd said: My two cents on this. If some of the engineers who developed hondas and their engines would join general aviation. They might design a more modern engine system. It would be turbo charged, run like a sewing machine, not burn oil, have feedback systems to adjust timing and fuel. Also change the engine prop controls, mixture and throttle to a simple single control. Also, I think, to get better speed, reduce drag instead of putting in larger fuel thirsty engines. Lets get the greatness that the Hondas in our Mooneys. Lycoming has nearly all of that now.https://www.lycoming.com/engines/ie2 Quote
aviatoreb Posted April 11, 2020 Report Posted April 11, 2020 49 minutes ago, EricJ said: Lycoming has nearly all of that now.https://www.lycoming.com/engines/ie2 That’s the sad part - lycoming knows how to do it but the faa won’t let us have it. Quote
Andy95W Posted April 11, 2020 Report Posted April 11, 2020 1 hour ago, Skybrd said: . If some of the engineers who developed hondas and their engines would join general aviation. They might design a more modern engine system. It would be turbo charged, run like a sewing machine, not burn oil, have feedback systems to adjust timing and fuel. And it'll have a TBO of 400 hours. Quote
carusoam Posted April 11, 2020 Report Posted April 11, 2020 2 hours ago, Bentonck said: Thanks for the return...I did see those Lancair with turbines.... I have a lot of hours in simple airplanes, spread over a lot of years. My last (owned) airplane was a 172 with a 180hp STC and a constant speed prop, and that was 10 years ago. The Acclaim was a stretch for me as a pilot, and I plan on taking a guy with a lot more experience than me on the first few trips,.... the turbine Lancair seemed more like assisted suicide and the chance of me finding insurnace was nil....but definately for the next plane... Good thinking, Benton! We have one MSer that has gone from a Mooney Rocket (similar complexity of an Acclaim) to the Lancair IVPT... pressurized and turbine... Get used to the one you have... then transition to the next... it can be a long process unless it is the only thing you are focused on... Without doing the extra due diligence... it could very much be suicidal... our insurance companies are happy to explain... Follow some of the writing from our @Yooper Rocketman for an example of how it has been done before... including the construction part... An interesting annual training many consider is from MAPA... typically it is a low cost personalized training by Mooney specific CFIIs. An opportunity to demonstrate or learn to operate your plane at the highest level... The included documents are worth the entry fee... One interesting thing about MSers... some are incredibly skilled and are very able to pick up all the details required for getting to the next level... We have one MSer that just sold his Acclaim and has picked up a jet to fly his business personel around... Building a business with that level of important personnel must be interesting... All from the many pages of MS... Best regards, -a- 1 Quote
Joel Ludwigson Posted April 11, 2020 Report Posted April 11, 2020 It can be done. I transitioned from a 160 knot 201 to a Mach .87 (480 knot) Falcon 10. There was a fairly steep learning curve but most of it was flying complex departures and arrivals and getting used to flying 9 miles a minute instead of 3. Like any new airplane it took several landings to get used to the sight picture. I was glad the trailing link landing gear was much more forgiving than the Mooney! Takeoffs were a breeze, it's a little rocket ship and we usually only had one or two in back. But it's just an airplane. Don't get intimidated! Study everything! Fly disciplined. Treat it with respect but don't ever get cocky. But it can be learned. As you would expect, having an experienced captain in the 10 made a huge difference for me. Taking another experienced pilot on the first several flights in an Acclaim or any major upgrade would accomplish the same thing. But make sure you brief what you want to learn on each flight and specifically how you will divide duties. Who is the pilot flying (PIC). We had a clear division of duties between the pilot flying and the pilot monitoring. You should too. Fly it like a pro. 1 Quote
philiplane Posted April 11, 2020 Report Posted April 11, 2020 On 4/3/2020 at 5:01 PM, ESPN168 said: I wondered what percentage of cars in Europe are diesel? A high but declining percentage, due to diesel-specific pollution.Many cities are limiting or banning diesels outright. So maybe the Europeans are not so far ahead after all? Quote
Bentonck Posted April 11, 2020 Report Posted April 11, 2020 12 hours ago, Joel Ludwigson said: It can be done. I transitioned from a 160 knot 201 to a Mach .87 (480 knot) Falcon 10. There was a fairly steep learning curve but most of it was flying complex departures and arrivals and getting used to flying 9 miles a minute instead of 3. Like any new airplane it took several landings to get used to the sight picture. I was glad the trailing link landing gear was much more forgiving than the Mooney! Takeoffs were a breeze, it's a little rocket ship and we usually only had one or two in back. But it's just an airplane. Don't get intimidated! Study everything! Fly disciplined. Treat it with respect but don't ever get cocky. But it can be learned. As you would expect, having an experienced captain in the 10 made a huge difference for me. Taking another experienced pilot on the first several flights in an Acclaim or any major upgrade would accomplish the same thing. But make sure you brief what you want to learn on each flight and specifically how you will divide duties. Who is the pilot flying (PIC). We had a clear division of duties between the pilot flying and the pilot monitoring. You should too. Fly it like a pro. That is awesome. To be honest, I have a partner in my biz and we were between fractional ownership in a King Air or small jet (Phenom 100) or buying a smaller plane I could fly. I went back and forth 10 times and finally decided that I have missed flying too much. For what we spent on the Acclaim we could have had a third share of a King Air or a 1/4 of a Phenom but it wouldn't be "ours" and I wouldn't get to fly it....I traded off some of our mission capability for my own enjoyment of flying. Our mission would be much better handled with a jet, most of the places we fly to have asphalt runways that can handle jet traffic, but if we get there I want it to be me flying the plane. My dad went from C210 to C303 to C414 to C90A King Air to Citatation Mustang, and now back to C414 over the years of my flying so I've watched him transition up (and now back down after retirement) and I am getting my twin license so I can fly the C414 when I'm home as he doesn't put enough hours on it. I would have finished up my IFR rating this month and been doing the twin training by month end had the coronavirus not landed...I already paid the rest of the block hours to finish my IFR in the states and had reserved a Seneca for the twin rating but all that's getting pushed out now... Anyway, congrats on the move up to a Falcon 10, that's an interesting choice of plane but I'm sure there's a story.... 2 Quote
Joel Ludwigson Posted April 11, 2020 Report Posted April 11, 2020 Yes, it is an interesting story but probably too long to post here. Suffice it to say the job that fell into my lap after I retired from my [non-flying] career. I had my commercial and multi, and the ATP/CTP class and written passed when it landed in my lap. I learned the airplane at the ripe young age of 62. The job can best be described as being a high priced high speed Uber driver. Met some great people. Received a few great tips. Flew a few athletes, actors, and musicians, but mostly just rich people. 1 Quote
Bentonck Posted April 13, 2020 Report Posted April 13, 2020 Again, that's awesome. My dad was an MD and he always said he would retire to the islands to live out his retirement flying cargo in DC-3s but that didn't happen. He came to help me grow a business and kaboshed his flying in the islands dream....but he would probably be just as happy flying rich people and celebs but I guess he missed his window... Quote
lelievre12 Posted April 17, 2020 Report Posted April 17, 2020 (edited) Call me stupid but I actually bought a surplus Thielert CD155 (155HP) engine to install in a M20K or M20L. The weight of the turbo CD155 is 297# dry which is around the same as the IO360 and is actually less than the TSIO360. HP is less down low but once above 5000 ft the CD155 has more power than the IO. At 18000 feet the CD155 still makes 120HP whilst the IO360 only makes 94HP. The cruise numbers are impressive. At 71% power and 18,000 the CD155 will push the M20K at 186KTAS at 6.67GPH with a no reserve range of 1934NM (76 gallon tanks). At economy cruise 58% the CD155/M20K will make 156KTAS at 18,000 burning 5.2GPH. Thats 35 MPG!. No reserve range is 2266NM. So I am in the market for a post M20K airframe! If anyone knows of one? The plan is to take it experimental and fit the CD155. PM me if you know of any hangar queens out there. The other thing I am looking for is an M20L (Porsche) cowl as I think this will shroud the new engine perfectly. Any hints welcome! Should be a fun project. Peter 6505216872 Edited April 17, 2020 by lelievre12 1 Quote
Rumblestrip Posted April 17, 2020 Report Posted April 17, 2020 On 4/10/2020 at 10:15 PM, Andy95W said: And it'll have a TBO of 400 hours. You forgot a zero on the end there Andy. If I have one wish for this decade it's that people would take 30 minutes to research the actual load testing that goes on for modern auto engines, so we could rid ourselves of the FUD being ignorantly regurgitated about durability under load at higher engine speeds. Quote
lelievre12 Posted April 17, 2020 Report Posted April 17, 2020 19 minutes ago, Rumblestrip said: You forgot a zero on the end there Andy. If I have one wish for this decade it's that people would take 30 minutes to research the actual load testing that goes on for modern auto engines, so we could rid ourselves of the FUD being ignorantly regurgitated about durability under load at higher engine speeds. The early gearboxes did have a 400 hour inspection but the present TBO is 2100 hours for the CD155. The new dual mass flywheels are much kinder to the gearboxes. Quote
markgrue Posted April 17, 2020 Report Posted April 17, 2020 On 4/10/2020 at 7:44 PM, EricJ said: Lycoming has nearly all of that now.https://www.lycoming.com/engines/ie2 Was that not the goal of the Mooney PFM? Quote
aviatoreb Posted April 17, 2020 Report Posted April 17, 2020 The rotax 915iS is a thoroughly modern - car-like and very efficient engine much more efficient than our lycosaurus' and contymonsters we know and love, with more modern tooling in the build. At 141hp it is just not quite enough for a Mooney. It is a real shame they have not made a 6 cylinder version of the 915iS. It would be perfect. Or even an 8 cylinder. Or best of all - and what I would think idea, a twin package - essentially two 915iS engines in serial running a single shaft. Twin redundancy and power and one prop. Just guessing out loud, but I bet two 915iS could fit in there if you stagger them well. Other concepts- how about a hybrid electric 915iS system. The 915iS is happy at 135hp continuous. Why not steal 10hp or so to slowly charge an electric motor that then is asked to throw in to a single shaft an extra 100hp or so during short spurts like take off, etc. Otherwise the electric motor and batteries are charging and you are running on the 125hp of remaining gas power. ...I don't know much about efficiency. So I don't know if this could work. What would Anthony say.... just a pp not a aeromotive engineer. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.