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

582 vs 503

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Jeffrey Dill

Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 52
Location: Pleasant view, TN

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:48 am Post subject: 582 vs 503

Excuse the pun, I am weighing the idea of downsizing form a 582 to a 503 on my model 2. the main reason is weight savings to stay within 950 loaded with 2 adults. Rotax actually advertises a heavier weight for the 503, which is 71 lbs versus 65 lbs for a 582. I have to assume that those numbers do not include the weight of radiator and water, etc. The one I saw was absent the oil tank as well using premixed fuel. Does anybody know the actual weight difference between the installation of one versus the other?

- 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

_________________
Jeff Dill
Model 2

aerobatics(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:29 am Post subject: 582 vs 503

while  I don't know the answer....  I will chime in by saying both are 

good choices. I have exp with both....  there are model differences   

the 503 I used was twin carb oil injected and over 3 years and ablout 

250 it was perfect   Very simple light and pwerful.  A  cjouple years 

ago at OSH  I saw a mdl  4 on a 503 and it flew well.  But the 582 blue 

head is  significantly more powerfull  at a small  increase ase in 

burn. If climb and short field is important to you its hard to beat the 

582  lots of good choices.... if fuel burn is important concide HKS on  

a mdl  2   )

- 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

Tom Jones

Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 752
Location: Ellensburg, WA

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:36 am Post subject: Re: 582 vs 503

 	  Jeffrey Dill wrote: 	
		  Excuse the pun, I am weighing the idea of downsizing form a 582 to a 503 on my model 2. the main reason is weight savings to stay within 950 loaded with 2 adults. Rotax actually advertises a heavier weight for the 503, which is 71 lbs versus 65 lbs for a 582. I have to assume that those numbers do not include the weight of radiator and water, etc. The one I saw was absent the oil tank as well using premixed fuel. Does anybody know the actual weight difference between the installation of one versus the other? 	




Jeffrey, I have looked at this question quite a bit too.  On Kodiak's  website http://www.kodiakbs.com/ you can find the weights for both engines and accessories.  Added up the 582 installed weight is still 2.2 pounds lighter than the 503.  The only thing not included as near as I can tell is the coolant and maybe the coolant hoses and clamps.



I came to the conclusion that the only way to save some significant weight is to get rid of all electronic accessories and install a rope starter.  The battery being the big weight item.  Still I think I figured I could lose only a little over 12 pounds.  I have a small battery already though.

- 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

_________________
Tom Jones
Classic IV
503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
Ellensburg, WA

stan_tew(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject: 582 vs 503

Having had a model 2 for almost 11 years (crashed 9/5/08 - hoping for insurance to come thru) with 532, then 582 then blue head 582 I can say go for the power every time. I don't know of anyone who was carrying a passenger, or even alone and got into a spot a little (or more) tighter than expected and said to himself "Gee, I could use a little less power here"! 



I have used all the power I had and wished for more on some occasions. I really liked the oil injection unit. IMO pre-mix is substandard.

 

STAN 2

N8188F







         [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

Jeffrey Dill

Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 52
Location: Pleasant view, TN

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject: Re: 582 vs 503

Maybe some of you won't get this but here goes. When you wrecked your model 2, did the FEDS ask to see your weight and balance calculations? I like power, but I like my license more. Based upon most of the responses there is no appreciable weight advantage, but that was the real nature of my question.

- 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

_________________
Jeff Dill
Model 2

mikeperkins

Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 123

Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:01 am Post subject: 582 vs 503

Mike Stratman put together a good comparison between Rotax engines a few years ago: http://www.800-airwolf.com/pdffiles/ARTICLES/decision.htm . Either engine is ok on balance and weight, depending on how the airplane is loaded. The starter-equipped 532 with battery in my Model I is fine on weight and balance.   

   

The FAA will almost certainly look at the weight and balance in any accident. However, they may not compare the airplane in its wrecked condition to the weight listed unless they suspect that weight and balance had something to do with the accident. It’s good to always be in compliance.   

   

The installed weight of a 503 verses the 532 is only about 20 – 25 pounds. A dual carb 503 is 49 HP and a 532 is 63 HP. You’re going to lose 14 HP by saving 25 pounds.  

   

Let’s say a 532-equipped Model I weighs 525 EW. That leaves 425 for people and fuel. A 200 pound pilot can still fly kids with 20 gallons aboard (425 useful load – 200 pilot – 120 fuel = 105 lbs. remaining). That’s 14.8 lbs/HP.   

   

Let’s say a 503-equipped Model I weighs 500 EW. That leaves 450 for people and fuel. But the certified GW hasn’t changed, so it’s now 19.4 lbs per HP. You can now fly a passenger of 130 lbs (450 – 200 – 120 = 130 lbs.). But the same GW with a smaller engine means less performance.   

   

Losing 14 HP to save 20 - 25 pounds? My vote is to put the airplane on a diet, not the engine.   

   

Mike  

   

      [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

Jeffrey Dill

Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 52
Location: Pleasant view, TN

Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: Re: 582 vs 503

Thanks for the good info. This is a good forum. All the data suggests that there is zero weight savings going to a 503. Something about a water cooled engine makes the block lighter, add the radiator and you break even.

- 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

_________________
Jeff Dill
Model 2

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:51 am Post subject: Re: 582 vs 503

Even IF there was a weight savings, it would not be a good choice safety wise to have an underpowered engine on you plane.   The extra 14 HP will make a big difference in climb rates, there have been many many accidents where the pilot was close did not have quite enough power to make it.... Or to get himself out of trouble.  



The other issue to consider is power failure after takeoff.  If you lose your engine after takeoff, you will be a lot higher with the 582 than you would be with the 503, giving you more options and time to find a better place to land.  Power = More safety.



Mike

- 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

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

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-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