My inquiry at UL engines is the i engines use 91 octane unleaded premium. The iS and iSA engines I asked about.Sort of:
The 260i through 520i require 95 octane fuel. I am not entirely sure how that relates to Swift Fuel and Unleaded Premium (we call it 91 octane in the US) but I have asked. If they require what we in the US call 95 octane, we are already out of business;
The higher power versions require 98 octane. Question in on that too;
Their claimed horsepower is at 3300 rpm, an unrealistic rpm for most of us. Scaling back to the claimed rpm of torque peak, the 260i is 83 hp at 2700 rpm, the 350i is 103 at 2400, the 390i is 126 at 2800, and the 520i is 155 hp at 2600 rpm;
There appears to be no option for a prop governor and hydraulic constant speed prop;
A UL520i is $30k!
Hmmm, a used O-320 with EFI and spark timing begins to look like a bargain next to a UL520i.
If you are throwing the B.S. flag, I hope it stands for Bill Simpson...I throw the B.S. flag; that's not a fair comparison. How about comparing a new 520 to a new O320 at $70,000?
There we go with the aircraft quality thing. What exactly is aircraft quality? The amount of paper that follows a part? What does it really represent?They might be able to build a stronger, lighter, longer lasting engine, but no way will they be able to sell it for $12K. The going market price for their product is $24K, why would they start a price war and lose $12K on every engine they sell. Makes no business sense. Their share holders want to make money, that's why they invest in companies. In addition a good SBC auto engine (New in the box) costs $8-10K. So your telling me they will sell an "Aircraft Quality" engine with a lot fewer numbers sold each year than an auto engine (Read supply and demand here), we know that aircraft engines don't sell in high volume, for $12K? No way! I believe all their claims except the sale price. Believe me I hope I'm wrong but I don't see it.
How much does volume really change the cost?$12,000 means volume. GM sells a LS-3 for close to $7,000. Including engines in cars they probably make 200,000 engines. They also offset cost with parts crossover to all the other modern LS engines which is probably 6,000,000 other V8s a year. There is not 200,000 buyers, not at least short term. 50 years worth maybe. You would be good to be successful at 500 engines a year.
All CNC is not created equal. Job shops working for a niche market and low production use multipurpose CNC machines - ones that can do just about anything the software can handle.does not matter if you produce 15 or a hundred. the cost per unit is the same. At what point in the number of engines
How does far faster equate to cheaper?All CNC is not created equal. Job shops working for a niche market and low production use multipurpose CNC machines - ones that can do just about anything the software can handle.
For high production that CNC machine may just do one little part of the job, but do it very well and far faster than the universal CNC could do. For example there can be no tool changes or part re-positioning. That difference can allow a significant cost savings if there is enough volume to justify the one-of-a-kind tooling.
For aircraft engines your point is valid. The only way we are ever going to see the kind of cost/part is if the aircraft engine industry finds a way to to Remora onto the auto industry. The O-100 is a step in the right direction, just the wrong industry onto which to suck.
I have direct experience with that. We refer to it as "transposition rate."How does far faster equate to cheaper?
I work in a large manufacturing organization and am very involved in establishing the costs of our products. Volume makes a HUGE difference in my world. That's the biggest problem in aviation - the volumes are sized for a cottage industry instead of mass production.To say there is no significant savings with volume is simply not true. We live it every day at my business. Prototypes kill us but are necessary.