Rotax 583

46 posts in this topic

Posted

in order to make the EPA regs they dropped all but the direct injected 2 strokes from the production line for snowmachines.. They are able to make the "aircraft" engines still but who knows how long before the Kalifornication bunny huggers shut those down too..

:BC:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My question is: If this is such a great engine, then why did Rotax quit making it, and continues to make the 582?

Ed

I started selling the Rotax 583 in 1988 and still do , but not too many now as I have bought all the brand new 583s that were available , no more left , out of 214 of them i recently ran out and have no more and with the economy the way it is now and not many people buying and building aircraft , Gyros, PPC, airboats ect its ok that i ran out of new engines . IThe other question as why haven't i come up with somebody to tell the world how great the Rotax 583s are ,I can see that fiasco now ! , REALLY , is that what Steve told you to say about the Rotax 583 , WOW thats unbleavable , WOW Is that true ECT.ECT , Sorry you find them on your own and if they either mislead you or convince you its totally up to you who or what to beleave , I know how well the 583 works as do many others as well, Besides flying nearly everyday i have other things to do rather that be belittled by no-matter what i say. Just the facts .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

in order to make the EPA regs they dropped all but the direct injected 2 strokes from the production line for snowmachines.. They are able to make the "aircraft" engines still but who knows how long before the Kalifornication bunny huggers shut those down too..

:BC:/>

Thanks Leni, Finally an answer that makes sense out of all this 583 BS. It is a dinosauer.

ED in MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This was one of the ones I personally dealt with and had cash in hand to buy. Not blaming the engine here Steve. Could of been the operator. This guy traded his brand new 582 to you for this engine after being convinced how superior the 583 was. He said it ran awesome wide open and the plane really performed. The issue they had was whenever you tried to pull the power back to a cruise setting it wouldn't run right. After many jetting changes, adjustments, and scares he parked the airplane and it sat for 8 years before he finally lost his hangar space and was forced to sell.

I explained my 2 stroke experience and willingness to play with it. He would not let me even attempt to fire the motor. He was scared to death about liability. I filled out every liability form the EAA made and attempted to make 2 cash transactions for "parts" and he would not budge. The engine came off and I walked away. He eventually sold it as an airframe only for less than a 1/3rd what it cost him to build it not to mention 4 years of construction with less than 20 hours on the airplane. Truly a sad situation.

Sure the 583 may work awesome with a proper set up by a very experienced person. The 582 was designed for any Joe Schmoe who had never even seen a 2-stroke to pull out of the box

and go flying and actually enjoy it rather than spend all their time tweaking and adjusting on it to make it run reliably and for long periods. This is probably the reason why there are thousands of them flying all over the world.

You mentioned Merle Williams making a cross country trip with his... Awesome to hear! But...for those that don't know Merle is the KITFOX GUY! People haul their airplanes from all over the United states to have him tune, rig, and test fly them. If there's anyone on this planet that could get an engine to work on a Kitfox/Avid it would be him.

I'm sorry about getting pissy on here but I didn't appreciate the personal attack where you assumed I was just some jackass who had never seen one of these engines in operation before. I have 10 years behind a 503 and over 300 troublefree hours on my 582. I've raced two stroke dirt bikes competitively for over 20 years. Guess what kind of ignition and carb my bike on the stand in the garage has on it right now????It sure isn't a bing and ducati. Mikuni and Nippo Denso!! :angeldevil: I've never doubted those components. What I doubt is your average person being able to slap a 583 on the front of their Avid and head out on a 600NM cross country into the Idaho Backcountry which I do twice a year.

For those with the patience and inclination I'm sure a 582 would run good on this pipe too if set up properly.

exhaust-2.jpg

Just the FACTS

Flying to Idaho 2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Joey,

Since the photo is there to look at - A question I have wondered about for years has come back to haunt me:

WHY do they put the blanket on the outside of the firewall where it gets filthy? Why not on the inside?

Is the tin so thin it wont pass FAA? I could measure it.

Mine wont be that way. I'm going FAA regs stainless.

ED in MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I started selling the Rotax 583 in 1988 and still do , but not too many now as I have bought all the brand new 583s that were available , no more left , out of 214 of them i recently ran out and have no more and with the economy the way it is now and not many people buying and building aircraft , Gyros, PPC, airboats ect its ok that i ran out of new engines . IThe other question as why haven't i come up with somebody to tell the world how great the Rotax 583s are ,I can see that fiasco now ! , REALLY , is that what Steve told you to say about the Rotax 583 , WOW thats unbleavable , WOW Is that true ECT.ECT , Sorry you find them on your own and if they either mislead you or convince you its totally up to you who or what to beleave , I know how well the 583 works as do many others as well, Besides flying nearly everyday i have other things to do rather that be belittled by no-matter what i say. Just the facts .

Steve,

References are a natural part of business and so is word of mouth. I'm asking for someone to go and see their 583 in operation and fly behind it. I want to hear their experience, as a consumer and operator. There is a real conflict of interest on your part when you say the 583 is a great engine, you sell them, but you don't provide any happy customers out of 214 for me to go see. Just the facts, Bryce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This was one of the ones I personally dealt with and had cash in hand to buy. Not blaming the engine here Steve. Could of been the operator. This guy traded his brand new 582 to you for this engine after being convinced how superior the 583 was. He said it ran awesome wide open and the plane really performed. The issue they had was whenever you tried to pull the power back to a cruise setting it wouldn't run right. After many jetting changes, adjustments, and scares he parked the airplane and it sat for 8 years before he finally lost his hangar space and was forced to sell.

..... edited out the rest....

For those with the patience and inclination I'm sure a 582 would run good on this pipe too if set up properly.

Just the FACTS

Flying to Idaho 2012

I think the pipe is the KEY. Anyone who has built, run or raced a 2 stroke knows the head aches that most tuned pipes bring on. The pipe is normally tuned for best performance in a certain RPM range. You just cant get the perfect pipe that will give you the most HP AND the best mid range or idle. The factory pipes are a compromise to get GOOD, NOT BEST performance over the entire range. 2 strokes are very picky on pipes... For the guys that are not into 2 strokes, perhaps you have listened to the top fuel cars or dragsters.. They are damn sure not idling at the 5-600 RPM that you Chevy pick up is idling at. The cam etc is made to produce HP at HIGH RPMS but the idle gets so lumpy that it will have to idle at 1500-1800 RPM just to keep it from shaking the car apart.

Guys that are going for MAX performance dont fly them cross country, they are building them for STOL competitions etc.

As far as the 582... 62-65 HP in the airplane, but 110 HP on a snowmachine.. The 582 could produce alot more HP but do to the fixed timing and the exhaust it is set to run reliably at about 50% of the power it is capable of making.

I could get an EASY 165 HP out of my 800 conversion but I am only shooting for 110-115 running it at the same RPMS as we run the 582.

:BC:

Joey,

Since the photo is there to look at - A question I have wondered about for years has come back to haunt me:

WHY do they put the blanket on the outside of the firewall where it gets filthy? Why not on the inside?

Is the tin so thin it wont pass FAA? I could measure it.

Mine wont be that way. I'm going FAA regs stainless.

ED in MO

Ed,

Not everyone is as hung up on following the letter of the FAA suggestions or guidelines or regs as others are.... That is the beauty of the home built EXPERIMENTAL class... Big brother has alot less say in what we can and cant do or how we do it. We have the freedom to do dumb shit and kill ourselves if that is what flips our minnow. Yes it still needs to have a some what good chance of being safe and getting airborne :lol:

:BC:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Leni,

You didnt answer my question as to why they put the blanket on the outside - guessing metal is too thin to pass the flame test, and this is how they got it approved.

Not saying that the FAA is God, but lots of the regs are based on testing, as was this one, and are probably good guidelines to follow when building. Yes, there are regs and standards that defy common sense to some of us.

A DAR or FAA inspector COULD fail to pass a homebuilt if the firewall is not according to FAA regs.

I am going with stainless, #1 because I have to make a new firewall - #2 I dont like the blanket on the outside. I could go with galvanized, which is cheaper, but then it has to be thicker and heavier to meet FAA standards for firewalls.

ED in MO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ed, my Project Kitfox had an envelope of the blanket over both sides of the stainless firewall. The firewall is plenty thick for fire protection. Adding blanket to both sides aids in the sound and heat barrier because these planes, as a rule, don't use a boot cowl fixed to the firewall. The lip of the blanket envelope had a flap to make the seal to the cowling.

On my rebuild I am planning the blanket only on the inside, with silicone baffling seal material to seal the cowl, to keep the engine side cleaner and easier to work on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've owned and flown 4 different Avids that I didn't build. All of them had galvanized steel firewalls. They also had all been inspected and passed as airworthy, one DAR at least was an FAA employed inspector. Twice I had FAA inspectors inspect my Avids, once when I changed an engine, (major change, earlier experimental rules required an FAA inspection,) and one Avid that I bought had never had the Phase 1 hours completely flown off and the location of the Phase 1 area had to be changed, and that also required an FAA inspection. Nothing was said about the firewalls durring those inspections either. Actually the FAA guys didn't spend more than 5 minutes looking at the planes each time. That has been my experience, your's may be different. Take care, Jim Chuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've owned and flown 4 different Avids that I didn't build. All of them had galvanized steel firewalls. They also had all been inspected and passed as airworthy, one DAR at least was an FAA employed inspector. Twice I had FAA inspectors inspect my Avids, once when I changed an engine, (major change, earlier experimental rules required an FAA inspection,) and one Avid that I bought had never had the Phase 1 hours completely flown off and the location of the Phase 1 area had to be changed, and that also required an FAA inspection. Nothing was said about the firewalls durring those inspections either. Actually the FAA guys didn't spend more than 5 minutes looking at the planes each time. That has been my experience, your's may be different. Take care, Jim Chuk

I didnt mean that the stock firewall with blanket was not OK - I just dont like the dirty blanket on outside.

I would guess that most inspectors have a lot more to look at, and assume your firewall meets standards.

I really dont think that one will ever put a micrometer on a firewall to see how thick it is.

In an extreme case, say a wood or plastic plane, with a plywood firewall and no blanket, would surely not get passed, so the FAA standards can be applied to a homebuilt, IMO.

I dont like flames in the cockpit - never had any - dont ever want any!

Thanks,

ED in MO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I should have mentioned, none of my Avids had/have a blanket either. Take care, Jim Chuk

I didnt mean that the stock firewall with blanket was not OK - I just dont like the dirty blanket on outside.

I would guess that most inspectors have a lot more to look at, and assume your firewall meets standards.

I really dont think that one will ever put a micrometer on a firewall to see how thick it is.

In an extreme case, say a wood or plastic plane, with a plywood firewall and no blanket, would surely not get passed, so the FAA standards can be applied to a homebuilt, IMO.

I dont like flames in the cockpit - never had any - dont ever want any!

Thanks,

ED in MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There is not a standard that the DAR or FAA can use to tell me what thickness the firewall has to be on an EAB... that is the point I was getting at. Dont get faa rules or regs for "certified" production aircraft standards mixed up with EAB aircraft. Is it a good idea to follow some of the standards???? hell yes.. is it a rule that I must follow the standards??? no, its not. That is why we can put 20.00 marine nav lights on the tips instead of grimes etc.. alot of the rules simply don't apply to the EAB crowd.

:BC:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is not a standard that the DAR or FAA can use to tell me what thickness the firewall has to be on an EAB... that is the point I was getting at. Dont get faa rules or regs for "certified" production aircraft standards mixed up with EAB aircraft. Is it a good idea to follow some of the standards????/>/>/> hell yes.. is it a rule that I must follow the standards??? no, its not. That is why we can put 20.00 marine nav lights on the tips instead of grimes etc.. alot of the rules simply don't apply to the EAB crowd.

:BC:/>/>/>

Sometimes its hard to figure out which rules apply? Yes? I guess we all have to decide which ones we will follow.

ED in MO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The FAA mandated passenger warning on the instrument panel that is required on experimental aircraft tells a lot. It says, This aircraft is amature built and does not comply with the Fedral Safty Regulations for standard aircraft. Interesting note, you are supposted to point this out and read it to any passenger before flight. Jim Chuk

Sometimes its hard to figure out which rules apply? Yes? I guess we all have to decide which ones we will follow.

ED in MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The FAA mandated passenger warning on the instrument panel that is required on experimental aircraft tells a lot. It says, This aircraft is amature built and does not comply with the Fedral Safty Regulations for standard aircraft. Interesting note, you are supposted to point this out and read it to any passenger before flight. Jim Chuk

All I was bringing up was the question of why the kitmaker put the fireblanket on the outside of the firewall - I think they were trying to comply with FAA standards for firewalls. I dont know why they didnt use thicker metal, except trying to save money. But the blanket probably cost more than that, but it helped with sound too.

In order to stay with the same standards, and eliminate the blanket, I am going to use FAA approved materials for mine. If it is good for part 23 planes, then I want it on mine.

Someone can use cardboard if they want to and possibly get it approved, but I wont fly with them if that is the case.

Leni, as far as the lights are concerned: I know that Alaska pilots get by with a lot that you cant get by with down here on a ramp check - but in the Operating section of the E-AB papers, it usually says, "night flight when properly equipped as per part 91", or some such words. Your $20 marine lights are fine for daylight, but probably dont meet the requirements of part 91 equipment for night flight, IMO. What you get by with there might get a pilot in trouble down here.

Yes, you can do whatever you can get by with.

And I can too - and we dont have to agree.

ED in MO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My airplane is signed off as day Vfr only. I don't have lights. My DAR spent all of 5 minutes looking at my plane also. 90% of my inspection was going over the operating limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My airplane is signed off as day Vfr only. I don't have lights. My DAR spent all of 5 minutes looking at my plane also. 90% of my inspection was going over the operating limitations.

Mine was day vfr too - But the op lims say it is eligible for night flight when properly equipped per part 91, which includes lights, strobes, artificial horizon, spare fuzes, radio, etc. Lots more there than just lights that meet the specifications in the FAR. I put lights on it because I am a night person and often make landings at dusk.

I have been told of DARs that spent half a day doing an inspection and charged $400.

Ed in MO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have a new Rotax 532 w gear box and prop that came with my kit, i would like to put a 582 on it but would rather just get flying than wait until I can afford one. I see i can pick up a 583 for around 500.00 They claim to have 97 HP why don't we see more of these being used on Avids and Kitfoxes? is this a good alternative or am i better off just going with my 532 until i can afford to go to the 582.

 

-Robert-

I know this is an Old Post, but I want to add my 2 Cents! Almost ALL Rotax UL Engines, except the 185UL are based off the Skidoo/Rotax Core Engines! The Rotax 185 was used on Water Pumps, Weed Wackers, Generators, I have seen reference to them being used in Europe on some Sleds, But I have never seen any photo's of one used that way. Water Pumps was Rotax's Oringal Core Business. Skidoo/Rotax Engines started in 1963 and went from Bosch Points to Nippon Denso CDI around 1983. All Rotax 277UL Free Airs rated 26hp@6250rpm were Points Engines till discontinued around 2000, but could be converted to Nippon Denso CDI. Most of these Points to CDI Conversions were done by Air Screw and few other Big Ultralight Dealers. There was also a 277UL Fan engine used on SCAT HOVERCRAFT that was all Nippon Denso CDI and was rated 28hp@6400rpm. Rotax wanted to make their UL Engines with Dual Plug Ignition and Nippon Denso didn't want anything to do by then with Airplanes, so around 1993 about 10 years later Skidoo/Rotax and Rotax UL Engines were Switched over to Ducati CDI Dual Ignition for their UL Line of engines and the Skidoo/Rotax line of engines to Ducati Single Ignition. Around late 1992, 1993 is also when the Provision 8 Cases came out. The 670(Big Dog) actually came out in late 1992 in limited numbers and had a Crank Issue, it was corrected for the 1993 Model, and is also what Helped kill off the 617/618UL. The 583 was and still is a very Popular Engine as is the 670. 1993 was a very Important year for SKIDOO/BRP/Rotax, that is also WHY the 670 the last Provision 8 Engine made was never made into a UL Engine account that is the first year Rotax offered their New Golden Boy the 912 (80hp) which Cost about $4-5000 more than their 618UL(74.3hp@6750rpm). People would not have spent that much for just 5-6hp and more Weight than the 618UL made, and the New 670(Big Dog) Blew Both the 618UL and the 912UL out of the water, since it could make 95hp@6500rpm!

Rotax UL Motors don't really used a Tuned Pipe, they use more of a Tuned Muffler that is Tuned for the Sound Signature! Most UL Engines are rated at 6500rpm, the 618UL was rated at 6750rpm, the 185UL was rated at 5000rpm. The same Motors used in Sleds, Fanners are usually rated at 7000-7500rpm, Liquid Cooled(LC) at 7750-8000rpm.

A Skidoo 277F = Rotax 277UL. There is a difference in the 277 Case's around the PTO if you want to run a Gear Drive and around the Stator area if you want to make it into a Free Air. Some 277 Case's are drilled for both Bosch Points or Nippon CDI. 277UL with an R&D tuned Pipe. http://www.rotaxservices.com/dyno.html#7  

A Skidoo 377F/380F = Rotax 377UL. All 377UL's were Single Ignition.

A Skidoo 440F = Rotax 447UL. 447UL with an R&D Tuned Pipe. http://www.rotaxservices.com/dyno.html#15  

A Skidoo 500F/503F = Rotax 503UL. A 503UL with an R&D Tuned Pipe. http://www.rotaxservices.com/dyno.html#7  

A Skidoo 463LC & 470LC = 462UL. Wasn't a very popular Sled or UL Engine for either side. 463cc, HP vs Weight.

A Skidoo 521LC = 532UL. The 521/532UL was also dropped around 1991/92 that is why most are Pro4.

A Skidoo 580/582, and 583(RAVE) = 582UL. A 582UL with an R&D Tuned Pipe. http://www.rotaxservices.com/dyno.html#3  So your talking 97hp@7750rpm with a Tuned Pipe for the Sled Engine vs 65hp@6500rpm with a Muffler for Airplane use.

A Skidoo/Rotax 583 with an R&D 618 Tuned Pipe. http://www.rotaxservices.com/dyno.html#583  

A Skidoo/Rotax 617LC = Rotax 618UL. 618UL with an R&D Tuned Pipe. http://www.rotaxservices.com/dyno.html#1 

======================================================================

A Skidoo/Rotax 670 with an R&D 618 Tuned Pipe. http://www.rotaxservices.com/dyno.html#89

There was only one Provision 8 Triple I believe 738/748

Almost ALL Skidoo/Rotax's Liquid Cooled used 11.5cr, except the 380HO(11.2cr) & 670HO(12.5cr). I have seen Documentation of some 532UL's also used 12.5cr, but most were also 11.5cr. I have never found any reference to a 521HO. 380HO's 11.2cr Stock 48hp@7000rpm were only Sold in Alasaka and Euroupe! With a better Tuned Pipe Dynoed 57.26hp@7000rpm, it still made around 52hp at 6500rpm!

Some General Rules for 2 Strokes. A +/- 1.0cr = 2hp, so a +/- 0.5cr = 1hp. At 6500rpm(Industry Standard today) and using 11.5cr with a Good Tuned Pipe it takes on Avg 7cc to make 1hp! Fresh 91 Octane is good for 11.8cr or Cranking 175psi. If you look at all the different Engines Companies today, most have dropped the CR to 9.5cr for most of their Engines used on Planes today, Hirth, Simonini, MKz, etc. Atmospheric Pressure is 14.7 at Sea Level. 14.7 x 11.8cr = 173.4psi, if your Engine was Built Perfect, but most Engines aren't. The Higher you go, or start out at, that 173.46psi Number will be Smaller, as your Max HP will drop the Higher you go or start out at. Avg PSI Drop is about 3% for every 1000ft. 9.6cr x 14.7 = 141.1psi. Fresh 87 Octane is Good for around 125-130psi. Pump Gas can lose 2 Points in Octane in as little as 2 weeks. Go Bad in 6 months. 100LL has a 5 Year Shelf Life.

532UL 11.5cr 64hp@6500rpm 521cc/7cc = 74.2hp@6500rpm is possible!

582UL 11.5cr 65hp@6500rpm 580cc/7cc = 82.8hp@6500rpm is possible!

618UL 11.4cr 74.3hp@6750rpm 617cc/7cc = 88.1hp@6500rpm is possible!

670 11.5cr 669cc/7cc = 95.5hp@6500rpm is possible! A Rotax Rick 670 Dynoed 93hp@6350rpm!

=================================================================================

So YES, a Skidoo 583 can make you a Nice Engine for an Airplane. With Fresh 91+ Octane Gas and a Good Oil you can turn them Higher rpm, but the Service Life will go down. Rotax Service Life has more to do with WHO is Maintaining and Flying them, than Rpm used. 11.5cr is on the Edge with 91 Octane for Detonation, so run 93 or 100LL. With Higher Rpms you also make more Friction Heat & Hp Heat that you have to deal with. Can it be done, Yes, if you Design and Build it right. It's better to keep rpms down to Max 6500rpm and use a Tuned Pipe, and Higher CR if below 11.5cr, or use more CC to make more HP. Look what Rotax Rick does to make his 670's have a 450hr TBO, use 40:1 Amsoil Interceptor Oil premixed, Ceramic Top Coated Pistons, use's 6350rpm. With the 582UL Exhaust Muffler a 583 will make around same 65hp@6500rpm. With a Good Tuned Pipe it will make more HP at same 6500rpm! The 583, 670 were discontinued after 1999 when Skidoo came out with their New 2000 Line of Engines. The 521 was dropped in 1993, as was the 617. The 503 was dropped in 2003 by the introduction of the 550F, hence we never got a 550UL either. The 277F, 380F, 440F weren't dropped till around 2008 by Skidoo. I believe the 277UL was dropped around late 90's. Some of these Skidoo/Rotax Engines, 250F, 377F, 440F, 503F, 550F are still being made in Russia under the Brand Name RMZ!

http://russneg.ru/DVIGATELI-RMZ-pr-va-OAO-RM-i-dvigateli-LIFAN_100g.html 

That RMZ-250 Single(Skidoo/Rotax) 51,500 rub = $739.52 usd, is 22hp@6500rpm with a Muffler. Around 32-34hp with a Good Tuned Pipe! (72mm x 61mm) 248.5cc/7cc = 35.5hp is possible. Use's a 34mm Carb vs a 36mm.

IF, you notice, their RMZ-250F, RMZ-500F and RMZ-550F all have Provision 8 Case's, our 550F's Sold here US/Canada is not Pro8 on the Top Case Halve, but is on bottom Case! A fellow I talked to along time ago said he had his 2004 550F with 34mm Carbs and it Dynoed 70hp@7000rpm using 9.6cr! Newer 550F's Sold here in US/Canada now only have 30mm carbs and are rated 58hp@6800rpm. 550F(76mm x 61mm) 553.6cc/7cc = 78.6hp is possible. Hmmm, wouldn't sell many 582UL's with all that extra Weight & Cost for Cooling if we had a 550UL now would they. RMZ-550 Engine 89,000 rub = $1,364.62 usd, 93,000 rub = $1,425.89 usd, 96,000 rub = $1,472.00 usd in todays $$$. A 582UL Engine only today is around $5200 + Cooling.

Edited by Armilite
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Did you ever Ask yourself, How these different Companies have different TBO's and most using same Parts, same 50:1 Oil, same 6500rpm:

Rotax 300hr TBO.

Rotax Rick 670 450hr TBO.

Simonini 600hr TBO.

Hirth 1000hr TBO.

Compact Radial ???hr TBO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My 670 from Rotax Rick has a recommended TBO of 450 hours only if you limit the cruise power (through monitoring fuel flow) to 4.0 GPH. If you average higher fuel flow, then he recommends 300 hours. My guess is that is just what Rotax would say if they pared it down that fine. I know folks have better lives than 300 hours, and I bet it is because they limit time at full throttle, and take good care otherwise.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now