seb7701 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Hi All. I saw an ad in the recent RAA mag for a great looking drifter with a 532 Rotax. I never did hear much about these engines. Are they any good and besides size, what is the difference between a 532 and a 582? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 532-582? They seem to have plenty of power, but were reported to be less reliable in the crankshaft/gearbox?area. I am sure TOSGCentral would have some knowledge of these. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Yes sort of the same as the 582 but with smaller cylinders. First water cooled 2 stroke from rotax, for aircraft. Most only had single plugs per cylinder, and I'm not sure if they had a dual plug per cylinder model. The earlier ones may even have had dual points ign like the earlier 503s etc. There was an 'Aussie dual ign' mod available that featured a new head with 2 plugs and a second redundant ign circut. Rotax at the time did go through a lot of g/box and starter position changes, so do a bit of research there. I have flown with a couple, one with the Dual Ign mod and they were fine. If the engine is in good shape and running fine with good coolant etc. than it's probabily worth running out, otherwise pick up a good 582 would be my recommendations. Recently had Wal at B Floods replace a waterpump/timing disc shaft with all seals for not a lot of money in a 532 so parts /service must still be available.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 The 532 was originally designed for snowmobiles hence plenty of top end power but not so much in the midrange. This maybe accounts for their reputation of having crank problems though I know several trikes with them which ran for years without problems. IIRC they are also single ignition - less of an issue with snowmobiles John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seb7701 Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 Interesting. Sounds like there have been plenty of them which have run well, but there's always that '1st of a model' issue where not everything has been sorted. I don't like the idea of anything LESS reliable than a 582 or 503. It's a wonder there was never a kawasaki attempt at an engine made. I have a 750cc jet ski a couple of years ago and I would swear it looked just the same as a rotax in terms of engine configuration. Gearbox would be the painful bit to work out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastmeg2 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Hmmm, . . . interesting thread, because the old Buzzard trike base I am getting comes with a Rotax 532 - condition unknown except that it's living under a few layers of plastic at the side of the sellers house and the carbies (Bing 54's) look like they need a lot of work, if not replacement. Although at this point I think the most likely outcome will be to get a 2nd hand 503 as a replacement (simpler with its forced air cooling) but keep the original Ivo 3 bladed prop and maybe the gearbox. Cheers, Glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seb7701 Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 Well, whilst I admit that there is no substitute for cubic inches, I am becoming an fan of the 503, particularly when I see people like Wayne FISHER using them in just about everything he builds and getting a good run out of them. If the trike can live with 50hp, I think I would lean towards the 503. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 choice of engine. With a few of these types discontinued, might be worth considering what parts are likely to be needed, and take this into account before you choose. nev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seb7701 Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 Fair point, but considering the options (ie none, if any) and the popularity of the 503 in the states, I would dare say that 503 parts should be around long enough to keep one out of trouble. (I hope.....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevorp Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 What engines would you be looking at to have simular weight to power ratio that would be sufficent as a replacement to the 447 and 503 which production cease2009/10, with 10yrs of shelve parts, after that private sellers. Will these aircraft disappear with ther engines. 10 to 15 yrs they probably have small turbine engines for LSA. cheers trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seb7701 Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 Not sure which one is the dud, but Hirth and HKS seem to be the main competitor, although Quicksilver were advertising a fuel injected donk with their latest ads. The only upside to Rotax winding up 503 production is that some industrious soul might commence making parts which would have to be cheaper than Rotax!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Small turbines. They are only useful for getting rid of kerosene quickly or starting grass fires. The future may be with small wankel engines with reduction gears derived from auto transmissions, probably the most reliable powerplant (potentially) available for small sport planes without getting into fringe territory. Regarding the small rotax's , you had better be collecting all the old motors for spares, The castings are not particularly good quality, and you might build one out of three. You would have to run a production quantity of complete motors, and let's face it that will not happen in the west. Specialists might do the cranks for a few of you but the supply of con rods would dry up quickly. Who would take the responsibility for it being in an aeroplane. If some bloke forgets to pre-mix he will try to blame the engine builder.. Nev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gofastclint Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 They are only useful for getting rid of kerosene quickly or starting grass fires. The future may be with small wankel engines with reduction gears derived from auto transmissions, probably the most reliable powerplant (potentially) available for small sport planes without getting into fringe territory.Regarding the small rotax's , you had better be collecting all the old motors for spares, The castings are not particularly good quality, and you might build one out of three. You would have to run a production quantity of complete motors, and let's face it that will not happen in the west. Specialists might do the cranks for a few of you but the supply of con rods would dry up quickly. Who would take the responsibility for it being in an aeroplane. If some bloke forgets to pre-mix he will try to blame the engine builder.. Nev. I think wankel engines are definatly the way to go. So much development has gone in to the making them work well. There is a german engineer who has made a 50hp single rotor that is better in fuel consumption and weight that the piston competition with the big plus being the rebuild time. The motor is called the XR50 and someone has already fitted it to a small rag and tube plane, I saw it on youtube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Seb7701 Kawasaki did have the 440 which came out in the Flightstars years ago. I remember flying one once and looking at the engine thinking, this think won't do much as they were so small. Wrong again, as power output was quite impressive. They had chrome cylinders as I remember. I have lots of time with the 503 and 582, both of which are near classics. The dual carb, twin plug DCDI 503 is now even better, and smmooooth. I now have gone to the 912s personally, and they have the same reliability and ease of maintenance. They 80 hp 912 is another great engine, and smooth as also. If stiffie had put 912s in Jabs there would be twice as many of them flying, and he would have retired years ago. Hell I might even fly one, as I would have no excuse not too. Bing 54 carbs need a rebuild kit around 600-700 hours of use, but may vary depending on use. They richen up when worn, but otherwise are pretty good performers also...................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gofastclint Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Done lots of time with the 503 and 582, both of which are near classics. The dual carb, twin plug DCDI 503 is now even better. I now have gone to the 912 s and they have the same reliability and ease of maintenance. They 80 hp 912 is another great engine, and smooth as. If stiffie had put 912s in Jabs there would be twice as many of them flying, and he would have retired years ago. Hell I might even fly one, as I would have no excuse not too. Bing 54 carbs need a rebuild kit around 600-700 hours of use, but may vary depending on use. They richen up when worn, but otherwise are pretty good performers also...................... Word on the grape vine is that stiffie has been talking with Kawasaki about using one of their new engines. Anyone know more on the topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now