Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

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

503 on MK-3

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

agustafson(at)chartermi.n
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: 503 on MK-3

Anyone with 1st hand experience. What are the pros or cons of a Rotax 503 on 

a MK-3. Should I consider it or is it too small? I want to know what to shop 

for. Plane will only be used for local site seeing and fun , mostly with a 

passenger(325# pilot & co-pilot total).



Aaron Gustafson

jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject: 503 on MK-3

Yep, 1st hand experience here. I had a 65 MPH  cruise ( indicated), single 

pilot, I weigh 200 lbs, took a 250 lb passenger  up once. it did it, but I 

wouldn`t do it regularly. for local flights solo, it it fine. There was a 

post not long ago about this same topic, & I`m sure  there are VERY 

different opinions. mine was fine, but if you want to go longer distances, & 

or regularly flying dual, you may want at least a 582.   Jim

---

herbgh(at)nctc.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject: 503 on MK-3

Two friends of mine...Rans S12's ..one with a 503 and the other 

582... The 582 delivered better fuel mileage...Herb



At 07:48 PM 2/8/2008, you wrote:

[quote]



Yep, 1st hand experience here. I had a 65 MPH  cruise ( indicated), 

single pilot, I weigh 200 lbs, took a 250 lb passenger  up once. it 

did it, but I wouldn`t do it regularly. for local flights solo, it 

it fine. There was a post not long ago about this same topic, & I`m 

sure  there are VERY different opinions. mine was fine, but if you 

want to go longer distances, & or regularly flying dual, you may 

want at least a 582.   Jim

---

NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: 503 on MK-3

Aaron



No question for the cost of a 503 or less put a redrive VW on it. You get 

912 performance, 4 stroke reliability and low cost.



 I flew in a 503 powered MKIIIC with another guy the total human weight was 

375-400. It did surprisingly good but not what you would want if your going 

to fly in and out of UP strips like Scott T. strip.



Also, you have the opportunity to make a Kolbra or a MKIIIX. Depending on 

you mission either one would be a better choice. The down side of a Kolbra 

is that it is two narrow for the VW mount. New Kolb will weld up a MKIIIX 

cage with a VW mount. Food for thought.



Rick Neilsen

Redrive VW powered MKIIIC



---

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:57 pm Post subject: Re: 503 on MK-3

The question you need to be asking yourself is not IF the plane will fly with a 503, you need to ask yourself if it will be any fun to fly with a 503.  Flying an underpowered plane and running the engine full out most of the time is definitely not as fun or rewarding, or as safe as flying a plane with a proper amount of power.   Just because it you can do it does not mean you would want to.



It all comes down to money, if you are able, get the 912-S, it is by far the best engine to put on a Kolb MK III.    Work overtime, do whatever it takes to put the best engine you can afford on that plane, it will make the difference between having a plane that is fun and enjoyable to fly, and building a plane you never really like.



If you cannot afford the 912-S, I would look for a used one.  If not that, I would look at the VW Rick talks about, if not that, I would look at the 582.  If you cant afford at least the 582, I would not build the MK III.  If I was stuck with nothing but a 503, I would build a firestar-II which is smaller, lighter, and will give acceptable flight performance with a Rotax 503.

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: 503 on MK-3

A MK-3C with a 503 will cruise at 65MPH, single pilot, & will climb with a 

200lb pilot steep enough,  & at plenty of "feet per minute" to get out of a 

SHORT strip. I would not call that underpowered.

: )  Jim

---

lcottrell

Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 1494
Location: Jordan Valley, Or

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:37 pm Post subject: 503 on MK-3

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 A MK-3C with a 503 will cruise at 65MPH, single pilot, & will climb with a 

 200lb pilot steep enough,  & at plenty of "feet per minute" to get out of 

 a SHORT strip. I would not call that underpowered.

 : )  Jim


	




I really hate to have to reply to this thread, but keep in mind that this 

guy is asking a pretty serious question that will affect him for a long 

time, good choice or bad one. There was quite a lengthy thread on this same 

subject that should be in the archives, so he might go there.



I live at 4000 feet, so that probably colors my opinion on the matter. Sea 

level might possibly be enough difference to make a 503 acceptable to a Mark 

III. If it is built light enough a 503 would push it around, but it wouldn't 

be as exciting a performer as a Mark III with 100 horsepower. I had a Mark 

III that had a 582 on it and sold it because to my thinking it was a dog and 

not as much fun to fly as my Firestar II. I guess that I have finally gotten 

old enough that I am not interested in OK, I want it to be the best that it 

can be, the first time.  With a 582  the Mark III, will give you about the 

same performance as a Firestar with a 503. You are going to burn about 1 to 

2 gallons more per hour to go the same speed. A 582 is going to cost you 

somewhere around $6000 and up. A 912 is somewhere around $14000 now I think. 

Rebuild time for a 582 is listed as 300 hours, compared to a rebuild time 

for a 912 is three to four times as long. Fuel burn is less than the 582 as 

well. The Mark III with a 912 is a "serious" airplane, any of the other 

engine choices leaves you with a "patch" type of airplane that you have 

problems going any distance due to the speed and fuel consumption. Not 

saying that it isn't possible, I am merely saying that for my self, I 

wouldn't do it on the cheap. I think if you pencil it out, over the long run 

a 912 would cost less than going with a two cycle engine.



It is not my intention to belittle any ones choice of engine. If it suits 

you then that is all that is necessary. Just trying to fuel thought and give 

the guy the information to make a choice.



Larry C

_________________
do not archive

agustafson(at)chartermi.n
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: 503 on MK-3

Thanks to all who have written. All comments are taken well. I don't want a 

dog but neither do I need a cruiser. I have a Zenith 601 for going places 

regionally. What I want now is a more around the patch fun flier. So I can 

keep an eye on the neighborhood and make sure no one else has more junk than 

me. It'll probably hardly ever get more than 50 miles from home. I have 

about ruled out the 503 though from the comments I have received thus far. 

This was what I wanted to hear. So I thank you for your perspectives and I'd 

still like to hear from others.



Aaron

 	  Quote: 	
		   

>  

>

> A MK-3C with a 503 will cruise at 65MPH, single pilot, & will climb>

>

 It is not my intention to belittle any ones choice of engine. If it suits 

 you then that is all that is necessary.>

HShack(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:37 pm Post subject: 503 on MK-3

My FS II w/ 503 DCDI cruises at 65 mph; how in heck is a heavier, less-  streamlined plane going to cruise at the same speed without running at 6000 rpm  all the time?

  

 At least get the 582; 912 better.

  

  

  

 Howard  Shackleford

FS II

SC   

  In a message dated 2/9/2008 6:38:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  A MK-3C    with a 503 will cruise at 65MPH, single pilot, & will climb with a    

 	  Quote: 	
		   200lb pilot steep enough,  & at plenty of "feet per minute"    to get out of 

 a SHORT strip. I would not call that    underpowered.

	

	






Who's never won?  Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.

  [quote][b]

HShack(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:39 pm Post subject: 503 on MK-3

Sounds like a FSII would suit you better.  A fantastic flyer with a  503.

  

 Howard  Shackleford

FS II

SC   

  In a message dated 2/9/2008 7:04:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  agustafson(at)chartermi.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  don't    want a 

dog but neither do I need a cruiser. I have a Zenith 601 for going    places 

regionally. What I want now is a more around the patch fun flier.    So I can 

keep an eye on the neighborhood and make sure no one else has    more junk than 

me. It'll probably hardly ever get more than 50 miles from    home. I have 

	






Who's never won?  Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.

  [quote][b]

planecrazzzy
Guest

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:28 am Post subject: Re: 503 on MK-3

I was thinking the same thing...



Gotta Fly...

.

.



 	  Quote: 	
		  

"HShack(at)aol.com"]My FS II w/ 503 DCDI cruises at 65 mph; how in heck is a heavier, less-  streamlined plane going to cruise at the same speed without running at 6000 rpm  all the time?

  

 At least get the 582; 912 better.

agustafson(at)chartermi.n
Guest

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:29 am Post subject: 503 on MK-3

I just sold my FS2 11 months ago. 440 hours on it all mine. It flies great  with a 447. Better than a 503 IMHO.

 [quote]   ---

planecrazzzy
Guest

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:04 pm Post subject: Re: 503 on MK-3

Well, tell us why you think it was better with the 447.....?

Gotta Fly...

.

.

.





  	  Quote: 	
		  

[="agustafson(at)chartermi.n"]I just sold my FS2 11 months ago. 440 hours on it all mine. It flies great  with a 447. Better than a 503 IMHO.

Rick Lewis

Joined: 03 Jul 2007
Posts: 122
Location: Kingston, Tn.

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject: Re: 503 on MK-3

I found out the other day, from Travis at Kolb, the latest price for a Rotax 912 is $21,000.  So much for a reasonable price engine from them.  There engines are good but NOT that good.   

Rick Lewis

slyck(at)frontiernet.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: 503 on MK-3

It looks like they anticipated our genius politicians "rebate"

BB

On 10, Feb 2008, at 8:05 PM, Rick Lewis wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I found out the other day, from Travis at Kolb, the latest price  

 for a Rotax 912 is $21,000.  So much for a reasonable price engine  

 from them.  There engines are good but NOT that good.  [Rolling Eyes]

 Rick Lewis





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=163385#163385

capedavis(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject: 503 on MK-3

A 503 will give you outstanding performance on a Firestar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Chris 



 ---

by0ung(at)brigham.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:07 am Post subject: 503 on MK-3

A MK-3C with a 503 will cruise at 65MPH, single pilot, & will climb with a 

200lb pilot steep enough,  & at plenty of "feet per minute" to get out of a 

SHORT strip. I would not call that underpowered.

: )  Jim

Maybe at sea level... try it on a warm summer day at 7000 ft...  while on a

cross country,,,,   you will be wising for a 912  or 912s  also if you want

to sell it,,,,  which plane would sell better...   the 912 cost more but

operates for less,  by the time you put on 1200 to 1500 hours,,, they cost

the same to own.



Boyd

NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:10 am Post subject: 503 on MK-3

Boyd



We have heard that claim for a number of years but with the current engine 

prices the average person will never recover the cost differences. Even with 

current gas prices I would bet that the difference put in savings, would 

earn more than the operational $ differences.



The bigger concern is that those 2 stroke engines run real close to self 

destruction. There are quite a few people that seem to keep them running 

fine but if your not one of them keep a landing site in your flight plan. 

Most four stroke engines just have more margin from self destruction.



I flew in a 503 powered MKIIIC and it was clearly having a hard life. I 

would personally never leave the pattern or fly in/out of a short strip with 

my 200+ lb. butt in one.



Rick Neilsen

Redrive VW powered MKIIIC



---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-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