Rotax 582 vs 503
CountVoo
what are the disadvantages of utilizing a 582 vs 503?
Please post messages..as to what you know...thanks
Richard Lamb
Rainier Lamers
Richard Lamb wrote in message <36DA62AF...@flash.net>...
503 appears to outlive the 582 all things considered equal in installations
that do not require more than 65% to 75% power for normal cruise. Weight is
about equal (not counting radiator). Compexity for the 582 has increased
thus more things can go wrong. 582 has a premature wear problem with rotary
valve. Rotax has tried several mods. Not sure how successfull.
If you need the extra power, go for it (but give consideration to extra drag
from the radiator). If you do not need the power, stick to the 503 and save
a lot of $$$.
Just my personal opinion
Rainier
mark smith
>
> Is there advantages in 'engine longiverty' of the 503 vs 582?
> what are the disadvantages of utilizing a 582 vs 503?
> Please post messages..as to what you know...thanks
The 503 will be short lived if used in a situation where it must run
hard to stay in the air. Clip wing planes are famous for high cruise
RPM's.
I am now using a 618 in my training craft for this year. last years,
although sold, gave good service with a 582,,,no more 503 trainers for
me, I have to watch the gauges much more than the students,,,,,,,mark
--
Mark Smith mailto:tri...@trikite.com
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620 http://www.trikite.com
Dave Loveman
power all the time or run at cruise all of the time. The life of the
engine is 300 hours. The difference between the 503 and 582 is power - you
get higher faster - the only advantage of cruise is fuel consumption.
Dave Loveman
http://www.ultralightnews.com
Dave Loveman
installed properly, propped properly, fueled and maintained properly. There is
also no difference in the complexity. One has a rotary valve shaft to operate a
water pump the other has a fan belt. If you counted all the parts that operated
the van vs the rotary valve shaft the 503 would have more parts.
Dave Loveman
http://www.ultralightnews.com
Rainier Lamers wrote:
> Richard Lamb wrote in message <36DA62AF...@flash.net>...
> >Besides nearly twice the weight???
> >
> >CountVoo wrote:
> >>
> >> Is there advantages in 'engine longiverty' of the 503 vs 582?
> >> what are the disadvantages of utilizing a 582 vs 503?
> >> Please post messages..as to what you know...thanks
>
Dave Loveman
the radiator and coolant.
Dave Loveman
http://www.ultralightnews.com
Bobby Hester
> Is there advantages in 'engine longiverty' of the 503 vs 582?
> what are the disadvantages of utilizing a 582 vs 503?
> Please post messages..as to what you know...thanks
Check out my crash site:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7373/Crash.html
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7373/
and see my Rans S12xl experimental aircraft.
jpmay
>
>There is no difference in the life of a Rotax engine if it is run a full
>power all the time or run at cruise all of the time. The life of the
>engine is 300 hours. The difference between the 503 and 582 is power - you
>get higher faster - the only advantage of cruise is fuel consumption.
>Dave Loveman
I definitely have to question this... I've never heard of an engine that
didn't have an RPM range that was best for the engine. Given proper
maintenance and usage, I should certainly expect the engine to last longer
than proper maintenance and a constant red-line.
If what you implying is that the Rotax engines can last at redline for 300
hours when you should give them a full overhaul anyways, you should be a bit
more explicit. Even so, I'd like to see one bench-tested at max throttle for
that long before I'd believe it.
Rainier Lamers
Dave Loveman wrote in message <36DB20D2...@ultralightnews.com>...
>There is no difference in the life of a Rotax engine if it is run a full
>power all the time or run at cruise all of the time. The life of the
>engine is 300 hours. The difference between the 503 and 582 is power - you
>get higher faster - the only advantage of cruise is fuel consumption.
>Dave Loveman
>
It should be noted that these Rotax engines are NOT certified for a given
lifetime. The 300 hours is a very conservative estimate by Rotax, no doubt
to "err on the safe side".
Engine wear is the only determining factor in an engines life. This,
naturally, is governed by many aspects such as stress, fuel/oil quality,
cooling and not to forget manufacturing tolerances and material quality of a
particular engine. Remember that the ONLY thing between your engine and wear
is "oil". Never ever skimp on the oil !
I would imagine an engine installed in a very light aircraft where little is
demanded of the engine to last very much longer compared to an installation
where the engine is under constant high stress, all other things being
equal.
During my short involvement with Rotax engines I have come across many
stories of these engines lasting well over 1000 hours before major rebuild
if you take good care of them.
It may very well be a good idea to perform a precautionary stripdown at 300
hours. In most cases you will probably find that very little if anything
will have to be replaced due to wear at this low engine time. Again, this
would be highly dependant on the demands put to your engine during its life.
You can play it safe and order a rebuild of your engine every 300 hours
regardless of condition, but then, I must admit, you obviously have more
money than I do. I prefer replacing parts that need replacing if and when
required, governed by a good inspection once in a while.
Rainier Lamers
Rainier Lamers
Dave Loveman
Rainier Lamers wrote:
One of the advantages of being in this industry since 1978, and flying on Rotax
engines between 600 and 1000 hours per year is experience, using the engine.
While it is a good idea to "replace parts when required and by a good
inspection" it is impossible to inspect a Rotax crankshaft without taking it
apart. Since it is press fitted and Rotax does not sell NEW parts for the
crankshafts used in aircraft application, there is no way of taking the
crankshaft apart for inspection and then properly reassembling it.
An aircraft is not like a snowmobile, or motorcycle, you can not just pull over
to the side of the road or wait for someone to come and get you from the middle
of a lake. Our engines are specifically built for our application, they are
detuned from in the case of a 582 Rotax from over 100 hp down to 65.
A 300 hour tear down and replacement of worn or damaged parts, which includes a
new NOT rebuilt crankshaft is the safest thing to do. Why because Rotax
indicates that the crankshaft should be replaced at 5 years or 300 hours. I
have known many engines of my lifetime of working on them that have gone "1000"
hours - remembering the average pilot flies 50 hours per year meaning this 1,000
hour engine is now 20 years old. I have also known many other engines that have
become hand grenades at 350 hours and over.
I am suggesting that if you take the engine apart at 300 hours, reseal, gasket,
and ring it and install a NEW crankshaft there is a much better chance of you
not ending up in a accident data base somewhere, than if you don't.
Dave Loveman
http://www.ultralightnews.com
mark smith
>
> Dave Loveman wrote in message <36DB20D2...@ultralightnews.com>...
> >There is no difference in the life of a Rotax engine if it is run a full
> >power all the time or run at cruise all of the time. The life of the
> >engine is 300 hours. The difference between the 503 and 582 is power - you
> >get higher faster - the only advantage of cruise is fuel consumption.
> >Dave Loveman
> >http://www.ultralightnews.com
> >
>
> It should be noted that these Rotax engines are NOT certified for a given
> lifetime. The 300 hours is a very conservative estimate by Rotax, no doubt
> to "err on the safe side".
> Engine wear is the only determining factor in an engines life.
Engine 'life' may not have much to do with wear.
The failure of the crank may be wear in bearings, but more likely, a
spot of rust caused by water condensation in an unheated hangar on a
bearing surface where the oil used didn't protect it and the time
between 'dryouts' from operation may have been all winter.
The next possible failure mode with nothing to do with 'wear' is
fatigue. This mode of failure is caused by microscopic failure of the
metal itself dur to a combination of the metal quality, treatment in
processing, stress levels and the number cycles for the given stresses.
This is the mode of failure when a crank breaks. The stresses are rather
precidtable from the engine torques, horsepower, etc, and the RPM at
which the engine is running and for how long.
Obviously a 582 MAY be run at a lower power setting, therefore lower
stresses for a lesser number of cycles than a 503 in the same
application. This should reduce the fatigue damage,,,,,,,
However, the same 503 may outlast a 582 with rust created from long
storage with poor oil protection with fewer hours,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and on
and on,,,,
Ny first trainer , an MX II, with a non'prov 503, points, ran almost
2000 hours before the crank failed at the center section. It was rebuilt
about every 300 hours, with new rear bearings once, and usually just a
cleanup and good assembly.
This same crank was remanufactured with a new stronger center section
and is still in service with about 300 hours on the last owner,,,,,,,,,,
Generalizations as to the life of engines are great to talk about, brag
about or argue about, but most are dependent on so many other things
than the particular aspect being discussed as too be almost meaningless.
I will say that during the 2000 hours, I watched the gauges for temps
and rpms,and always cut the throttle just after lift off, never running
full throttle to 4000 feet. This is nonsensical and will lead to
shortened life on any engine,,,,,,,,,
The 300 is conservative with most of todays designs, gear boxes and the
larger prop trend, than in the days of the 52 inch props.
The addition of the flexcoupler almost eliminated crank breakage in the
Quicksilver type drive system.
However the very large three blade props have their own set of problems.
the fatigue life is greatly reduced when cyclic stresses due to
torsional loads from poorly matched props, engines and gear boxes
increase the cycles of stress by multiple factors. These high cycle
vibrational loads may fail a crank very early in the 300 hours,,,,,,,,
This,
> naturally, is governed by many aspects such as stress, fuel/oil quality,
> cooling and not to forget manufacturing tolerances and material quality of a
> particular engine. Remember that the ONLY thing between your engine and wear
> is "oil". Never ever skimp on the oil !
I'm sure you don't mean to say add extra oil over the recommended 50 to
1 ratio.
>
> I would imagine an engine installed in a very light aircraft where little is
> demanded of the engine to last very much longer compared to an installation
> where the engine is under constant high stress, all other things being
> equal.
>
> During my short involvement with Rotax engines I have come across many
> stories of these engines lasting well over 1000 hours before major rebuild
> if you take good care of them.
,,,,,,,,,,,
> Rainier Lamers
But good care means a proper design of the whole system from the fuel in
the tank to the exhaust installed,,,,,,,,,,,
Dan's Newsgroups on IA
I think your reply mentioned two things:
1. that Rotax does not sell new crankshafts for the 503/582
2. that at 300 hours the crankshaft should be replaced with a new one.
If they aren't available from Rotax, what is the prescribed source for the
"new" one at 300 hours?
- Dan
Dave Loveman wrote in message <36DBE3E7...@ultralightnews.com>...
Rainier Lamers wrote:
> Dave Loveman wrote in message
<36DB20D2...@ultralightnews.com>...
> >There is no difference in the life of a Rotax engine if it is run a
full
> >power all the time or run at cruise all of the time. The life of the
> >engine is 300 hours. The difference between the 503 and 582 is
power - you
> >get higher faster - the only advantage of cruise is fuel consumption.
> >Dave Loveman
> >http://www.ultralightnews.com
> >
>
> It should be noted that these Rotax engines are NOT certified for a
given
> lifetime. The 300 hours is a very conservative estimate by Rotax, no
doubt
> to "err on the safe side".
> Engine wear is the only determining factor in an engines life. This,
> naturally, is governed by many aspects such as stress, fuel/oil
quality,
> cooling and not to forget manufacturing tolerances and material
quality of a
> particular engine. Remember that the ONLY thing between your engine
and wear
> is "oil". Never ever skimp on the oil !
>
> I would imagine an engine installed in a very light aircraft where
little is
> demanded of the engine to last very much longer compared to an
installation
> where the engine is under constant high stress, all other things being
> equal.
>
> During my short involvement with Rotax engines I have come across many
> stories of these engines lasting well over 1000 hours before major
rebuild
> if you take good care of them.
>
tonu and carol aun
>
> Dave:
>
> I think your reply mentioned two things:
>
> 1. that Rotax does not sell new crankshafts for the 503/582
> 2. that at 300 hours the crankshaft should be replaced with a new one.
>
> If they aren't available from Rotax, what is the prescribed source for the
> "new" one at 300 hours?
> You MISREAD---Dave said: "... new parts for crankshaft ..." NOT new crankshaft.
Jim M
hours being a product of RPM ??
I've got to believe I'm, going to be in the shop sooner if I'm flat out
all the time.
Dave Loveman
snowmobiles where the rpm ranged into the 9,000 range, and the clutch
doesn't even kick in until nearly 5500. In our application these engines
have been modified, and detuned to run in the 6500/6800 rpm range full
power.
We generally run them between 5200 and 5800 which is in th 80 to 90 %
range. Having used these engines in training, in two place application, I
have found that running them at full power hasn't bothered them at all, I
would rather have the extra altitude that 10 % of power gives me.
Dave Loveman
http://www.ultralightnews.com