msm_9949(at)yahoo.com Guest
|
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 2:01 pm Post subject: 582's - WAS Information on EA-81 |
|
|
Wurly:
Welcome to the list.
Can't beat the power to weight ratio of a 2 stroke. I love my 582-90 ("C" box) and it is dependable. However, its low TBO and staggering Rotax prices combine to make no "cheap" ride. Also, at 4.5 gal/hr avg burn, it's not as fuel efficient as comparably powered (if alot heavier) 4 strokes. I haven't done the calcs but it wouldn't surprize me to learn that the 912 costs less over the long haul, at least if you keep to the factory recommended inspections and overhauls.
Some on the list will say that the 582 doesn't need a 150 hour "inspection" and will go alot longer than 300 hrs. Question is, how much longer? All of this combines to make alot of us 582 drivers seriously investigate alternatives as we approach the 150 and 300 hour milestones. Suzuki (Geo) with Raven redrive starts to sound pretty good.
WurlyBird <james.t.trizzino(at)us.army.mil> wrote:
[quote]--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "WurlyBird"
So that brings up another question I have about two strokes. My initial reason for wanting a four stroke is, like many people who have been around aviation for a while, it is ingrained in me that four strokes are more reliable then two strokes. I don't have to many issues with landing in a field due to an engine failure but I didn't want that to be a concern of mine when my wife and son are out tooling around without me. I realize the two strokes have made huge leaps in performance in reliability but it is still hard to find any real statistics. So has your experience been with the 582? How strictly do you follow the 150/300 hr rebuild schedule and have you had any [quote][b]
| - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
|
|