Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - 582 vs 912 Safety in a Ktifox

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

582 vs 912 Safety in a Ktifox

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RotaxEngines-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

mikePuyallup

Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 2

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:02 pm Post subject: 582 vs 912 Safety in a Ktifox

I have been thinking of buying a Kitfox or Avid and can't decide if buying a plane with a 912 is worth the extra cost.



Does anyone know what is the difference in engine failure rates?  (Everyone who tells me that two strokes are bad seems to be quoting motorcycle engine stories.)



Is there a gearbox /engine (blue/grey head?) combination to avoid?



What about tbo's. Do 582's make it to 300 hours?

Any help is  appreciated

jkuehn(at)mountaintime.my
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:56 pm Post subject: 582 vs 912 Safety in a Ktifox

The 912 is a far superior engine, both in terms of reliability and 

cost.  By the time you get 1500 hours on a 582 you will have rebuilt it 

5 times, and burned much more fuel than a 912.  The 912 has a 1500 hour 

TBO and if you compare the cost of the two engines over 1500 hours you 

will find that the 912 is less expensive.   The 582 may be reliable as 

long as you keep up on maintenance, but the 912 is surely a more 

reliable engine.  I have one with 100 hours and it has earned my trust.  

Maintenance is easy and not expensive.  You also get much more power 

than with any two stroke.  Your Kitfox will perform far better with a 912. 



Jack

Sky Ranger N233GH



mikePuyallup wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



I have been thinking of buying a Kitfox or Avid and can't decide if buying a plane with a 912 is worth the extra cost.



Does anyone know what is the difference in engine failure rates?  (Everyone who tells me that two strokes are bad seems to be quoting motorcycle engine stories.)



Is there a gearbox /engine (blue/grey head?) combination to avoid?



What about tbo's. Do 582's make it to 300 hours?

Any help is  appreciated





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62651#62651





  




	


-- 

Jack Kuehn

5565 Brady Lane

Lolo, MT 59847



(406) 273-6801

(406) 546-1086 (cell)

(406) 273-2563 (fax)

akfotoman

Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 120
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject: 582 vs 912 Safety in a Ktifox

I am not using a 582 in a Kitfox but I would venture to say that the 582 is

a very resiliant engine. 

I think a 300 hour is a more of a recommendation and it depends if these are

all cruise hours or hard climb hours. 

The hardest thing on an engine is letting it sit and then running it hard. I

have seen 582s with 1000+ hours on them that didn't need a re-build yet. 



The trick, fly often, watch your EGT temps (1050-1150F)!

RS

--

_________________
Have cameras, will travel!

akfotoman

Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 120
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:55 pm Post subject: 582 vs 912 Safety in a Ktifox

I would agree with every point except the statement that you will have to

rebuild five time in 1500 hours. Perhaps two times would be a more accurate

statement. 

RS

--

_________________
Have cameras, will travel!

dhkey(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 4:17 am Post subject: 582 vs 912 Safety in a Ktifox

I've had a 503 and a 582 and now a 912 none of them quit on me. I love the 

912 the 81 hp is great, it's worth it to pay more. You get to fly at least 

twice as long. And if you get the 912 you don't have to fly wondering what 

it would be like if I did what I should of done. I do wonder what the 912 S 

would of been like

gfmjr_20(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:26 am Post subject: 582 vs 912 Safety in a Ktifox

I think first you want to insure you have a match of engine and plane.   The 

earlier Kitfox models I,II and III  were really meant to be powered by the 2 

stroke 532, 582 with the later models powered by the 582 or 912.

  I have a Kitfox III with a 582 (older version-non bluehead) with 400 hours 

on the plane.  I do believe in maintenance and rebuids as specified by 

Rotax, so I did have it rebuilt at 300 hours.  The engine has been 

completely trouble free for 400 hours.  It does require you to pay attention 

to EGTs whille flying and every 50-100 hours to decarbon the pistion/rings.  

The 582 will require more attention than the 912 and in a longer term cost 

evaluation will probably cost a little more, however the money is spread out 

over time.

   I currently have a 912uls on another plane that I just finished building 

so no long term report yet.  The reason I choose the 912uls is that it is 

just about bullet proof. I've been to a number of seminars by Phil Lockwood 

and was very impressed with the abuse the engine can withstand.



George May

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "mikePuyallup" <mikePuyallup(at)hotmail.com>

Reply-To: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com

To: rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: 582 vs 912 Safety in a Ktifox

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:02:06 -0700




<mikePuyallup(at)hotmail.com>



I have been thinking of buying a Kitfox or Avid and can't decide if buying 

a plane with a 912 is worth the extra cost.



Does anyone know what is the difference in engine failure rates?  (Everyone 

who tells me that two strokes are bad seems to be quoting motorcycle engine 

stories.)



Is there a gearbox /engine (blue/grey head?) combination to avoid?



What about tbo's. Do 582's make it to 300 hours?

Any help is  appreciated





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62651#62651






	


_________________________________________________________________

The next generation of Search—say hello!  

http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG

Guy Buchanan

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1204
Location: Ramona, CA

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:11 pm Post subject: 582 vs 912 Safety in a Ktifox

At 07:02 PM 9/19/2006, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  I have been thinking of buying a Kitfox or Avid and can't decide if buying 

a plane with a 912 is worth the extra cost.


	


You can do a direct cost / benefit using info from the web and here. One 

item to consider, though, is that you'll easily get the extra $6k back on 

resale. 582's don't sell well. So I guess that solves the cost / benefit 

question right off the bat!



 	  Quote: 	
		  Does anyone know what is the difference in engine failure 

rates?  (Everyone who tells me that two strokes are bad seems to be 

quoting motorcycle engine stories.)


	


 From what I can tell, 582's require a lot more attention. You have to 

watch EGT's, CHT's, and water temperatures diligently. (I use a GRT EIS.) 

You have to de-carbon. And, of course, you have to keep up with the oil. 

(This is probably the largest PITA, since literally no FBO's sell 2-stroke 

oil. If I go on a long cross-country, not only do I have to carry a case of 

oil, I'll have to have some shipped to strategic locations to get back!)



912's appear even more bullet-proof than Lycomings, et. al. once set up 

correctly. All you have to do is watch max RPM.



 	  Quote: 	
		  Is there a gearbox /engine (blue/grey head?) combination to avoid?


	


I have a grey head and watch water temperatures carefully. I understand 

that using silica-free coolant solves the problem with the grey-head's 

rotary valve seals, as well. Make sure you get the "newer" crank, though, 

as a replacement is about $800 in parts alone.

Guy Buchanan

K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.

_________________
Guy Buchanan
Deceased K-IV 1200
A glider pilot too.

mikePuyallup

Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 2

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject: Re: 582 vs 912 Safety in a Ktifox

Wow, thanks for the replies so fast.



I am going to buy in the winter or spring, not build, so the differnece in cost seems to be worth it.

It seems that catastrophic engine failure is really not that big a worry, it is more of an issue of constant rebuilding and poor fuel burn.



Any props to avoid?  Someone told me not to use IVO's in the rain due to abbrasion(I live near Seattle)

robh(at)hyperion-ef.us
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:52 am Post subject: 582 vs 912 Safety in a Ktifox

In re: composite props in the rain



Ivoprop uses a stainless steel leading edge strip for erosion protection.

Although electroformed nickel is preferred for this, that is no reason to

avoid a composite prop protected with SS.  The protection is still real and

the only difference for light aircraft, if any, would be how long the

leading edge lasts.



Nickel is the choice of most but not all propeller manufacturers primarily

because it offers the best compromise between protection from rain erosion

and sand erosion (with the emphasis on compromise - there are other

materials that are better for rain or sand but not for both).  Another

advantage of electroformed nickel is that the thickness of the nickel

abrasion strip varies from leading edge to trailing edge,  and from tip to

root, with the tip and leading edge considerably thicker than the trailing

edge and root end.  This permits a lower mass abrasion strip with longer

life  than that which is possible with a piece of constant thickness

stainless steel bent into the approximate shape of an airfoil.



My former employer was the exclusive supplier of abrasion strips to a very

well known propeller manufacturer.  Abrasion strips for turboprop aircraft

sold to that manufacturer for over $200 in fairly high volume.   A piece of

stainless steel sheet cut to size and bent into a U cross section would cost

a small fraction of that, so it's obvious why a prop blade that sells for

not much more than $200 has a SS leading edge.

Best regards,



Rob Housman

A070

Airframe complete

Irvine, CA



--

jkuehn(at)mountaintime.my
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:55 am Post subject: 582 vs 912 Safety in a Ktifox

I have an Ivo prop on my 912, and though it is OK, I have not been able 

to get the SS leading edge tape to last more than 10 or 15 hours.  If I 

were to buy another prop now it would not be and Ivo because of this.  

Take a look at:



http://www.ultralightprops.com/gsc_systems/gscsystems.htm



Jack

Rob Housman wrote:



[quote]



In re: composite props in the rain



Ivoprop uses a stainless steel leading edge strip for erosion protection.

Although electroformed nickel is preferred for this, that is no reason to

avoid a composite prop protected with SS.  The protection is still real and

the only difference for light aircraft, if any, would be how long the

leading edge lasts.



Nickel is the choice of most but not all propeller manufacturers primarily

because it offers the best compromise between protection from rain erosion

and sand erosion (with the emphasis on compromise - there are other

materials that are better for rain or sand but not for both).  Another

advantage of electroformed nickel is that the thickness of the nickel

abrasion strip varies from leading edge to trailing edge,  and from tip to

root, with the tip and leading edge considerably thicker than the trailing

edge and root end.  This permits a lower mass abrasion strip with longer

life  than that which is possible with a piece of constant thickness

stainless steel bent into the approximate shape of an airfoil.



My former employer was the exclusive supplier of abrasion strips to a very

well known propeller manufacturer.  Abrasion strips for turboprop aircraft

sold to that manufacturer for over $200 in fairly high volume.   A piece of

stainless steel sheet cut to size and bent into a U cross section would cost

a small fraction of that, so it's obvious why a prop blade that sells for

not much more than $200 has a SS leading edge.

Best regards,



Rob Housman

A070

Airframe complete

Irvine, CA



--

ElleryWeld(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: 582 vs 912 Safety in a Ktifox

I have been Flying in the pouring rain with My IVO and it didnt bother it but You might have a problem if you use it on a seaplane and really try to use it as a Submarine

 

 Ellery 

 

 do not archive

                               [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RotaxEngines-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum