Flightstar 2 airplanes
Brad Boss
Thinking of buying one with the 503DC and the 3 blade Powerfin prop, but I
would like to get some feedback from the field first. I'm curious about
useful load, and other performance numbers everybody is getting. Thanks!
Brad
Mark Smith
I would get the 582 model,
the 503 just doesn't have the power to get two 'real' people in the air
safely,,,,,,,
--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620 mailto:ma...@trikite.com
Ernie
I'd recommend neither the 503 nor the 582 but the HKS700. It runs smooth
as a charm and delivers almost the same take-off power as the 582 with
less than half of the noise. 4 stroke reliabilty at only minor extra
cost. 800 h tbo (vs. 300 on the 582).
I've flown the FlightStar II with the HKS and liked it very much.
just my 2 cts ..
Ernie
Richard Carlisle
sized people with a decent climb rate and forget about floats...if that's
something that you might want to do down the road.
The Flightstar is a fine airplane and a good performer with a 582. The HKS
is about 10-15 HP short of being a good choice for any good performing two
place.
The FSII/HKS I flew in would not get me, 260 at the time, and the pilot,
160, in the air with a comfortable climb rate on a warm day with full fuel.
I have also flown them with a 582...the difference is night and day.
The HKS will perform about equal to a 503. It has a little more HP, but
also a little more weight to negate the extra HP.
Ross
msbelton
thrust with the HKS. You might want to check out there website.
http://www.greenskyadventures.com/
"July 03, 2004 Thrust comparison Rotax 582 vs. HKS 700E
We were able to perform a head to head comparison thrust test today using
two Summit powered parachutes. One with a Rotax 582 with 2.62 type E the
other with an HKS 700-E 2.58 reduction. We were a little disappointed
initially with the HKS Performance, that is, until we ran the 582. They
ended up almost identical. ...Slightly over 300 lb for the HKS, and 305 for
the Rotax. Density altitude at the time of the test was 3,200 feet. For the
HKS to achieve the same performance (in static thrust) as the more powerful
Rotax, a 64 inch GSC TECH III 3-blade prop was the choice. The 582 Summit
uses a 60-inch."
Mark
"Ernie" <novelistus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mCJGc.35$2i3.11@clgrps12...
Richard Carlisle
That means nothing when applied to faster moving airplanes. You need to fly
the HKS and 582 on the plane you want to buy. Do that and the clear choice
for performance will be the 582.
Static thrust is more of an issue with PPC's because they fly so slow.
Don't get me wrong, the HKS is a fine engine. It is just no substitute for
a 582. It is a fine substitute for a 503.
Static thrust testing also does not figure in the extra weight of the HKS.
If you're at all concerned with performance, you need to look at power to
weight ratios. Four strokes just can not deliver the power to weight ratios
that two strokes can...and the four stroke engine manufacturers will even
tell you that.
Now...If you want a smooth running engine with a bit less fuel consumption
and don't mind anemic performance, especially on warm days, then the four
stroke might be OK. Just don't go into it thinking the HKS will perform
like the 582...It will not.
Ross
Ernie
just my 2 cts of course ..
Ernie
Richard Carlisle wrote:
> The Flightstar is a slug with an HKS. Don't expect to carry two average
> sized people with a decent climb rate and forget about floats...if that's
> something that you might want to do down the road.
>
I agree that you get a bit of a better take-off performance with the 582
but in cruise settings there's hardly a performance difference and a lot
of NOISE difference.
> The Flightstar is a fine airplane and a good performer with a 582. The HKS
> is about 10-15 HP short of being a good choice for any good performing two
> place.
>
> The FSII/HKS I flew in would not get me, 260 at the time, and the pilot,
> 160, in the air with a comfortable climb rate on a warm day with full fuel.
> I have also flown them with a 582...the difference is night and day.
it sounds to me that you have flown them on different days ... or your
definition of night and day must be more blurry than mine ;-)
about weight 260 + 160 + 20 lbs extras 440 lbs + 60 lbs of fuel = 500
that gives you a gross weight of 900 lbs which is no problem to take off
and climb with a reasonable climb rate with either the 503, the HKS or
the 582.
I agree that you want to do a testflight in your potential engine
configurations and then you will see that performance day and night are
very close together, barely noticable in cruise, that the noise level is
a big difference and looking a the TBO's helps as well to make an
informed purchase decision.
Richard Carlisle
guys and full fuel). I flew the two on different days. In fact when I flew
the HKS it was a little cooler.
I agree that there are advantages to the HKS, but performance is not one of
them. I know a number of people who were told that the HKS would replace
their 582 by hungry dealers and they were disappointed with the performance.
Like I said...As long as you buy the HKS not expecting equal performance,
especially loaded, you won't be disappointed. For some, the 4-stroke is
worth a performance sacrifice, for some it's not.
If you want performance, pound for pound, you can't beat a two stroke.
Ross
Brad Boss
back and research more now, dang it!! Thanks again. If you have any other
ideas/opinions/advice, bring it on!!
Brad
Fr. John Elledge
time, they were using a 503 on their Flightstar II. In the winter, the rate
of ascent was between 800 and 1000 fpm. Granted, the trainer was smaller
than I, but still, it was like going up in a rapid freight elevator.
Summertime was around 500 fpm. I went back a couple of years ago to visit
for a few minutes. Tom Peghiny took me up in the Flightstar II with HKS. My
impression was that it had a little edge over the 503. I haven't flown one
with a 582, but would love to have the opportunity to do a head-to-head
comparison.
What I will say about the HKS is that it was like flying a BMW -- smooth and
much quieter. We took off the headsets in the open cabin and could converse
easily. If I had the bucks...that is, if my wife would let loose of the
bucks...I would have been flying a Flightstar II or a CGS Hawk a long time
ago. Both are quality machines, excellent engineering and materials. Both
you can zip up in the winter and go have fun without frostbite.
As to which engine, I really would have to try them both. I was very
impressed with the HKS. I've flown Quicksilvers with the 582 that were
great, too. We've had no engine outs in my area with the 582, but I do like
the idea of the 4 stroke reliability, plus the greater TBO.
You pays your money, you takes your choice.
Blessings!
Fr. John
"Brad Boss" <fly...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4_3Hc.11981$jJ3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Richard Carlisle
about 400FPM. I wasn't impressed. At the time I was 260 and Jonathan is
probably 180 or so.
Ross