Guest danda Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 Being very new to the graceful art of ultralight flying I am gathering in as much information as I can. I am thinking of buying a little beauty (well I think it is) and it has a 503 in it so I’m thinking in the near future of re-powering with the HKS I believe it is around 60hp can anyone tell if the HKS is a good option. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest micgrace Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 I've only checked out the manufacturers site, seems to be an excellent design, It is a dry sumped horizontally opposed engine of conventional pushrod design I haven't heard any bad reports. Micgrace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TOSGcentral Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 For what it is worth the following is anecdotal (I have never had anything to do with the HKS). When the Vision 600s came out a decision was made to fit the HKS to them rather than the 582. On paper they looked good, look good in the 'flesh' for an open air mounting and allegedly gave the right sort of power. Wade Mahlo really gave them a good go and persisted for some time with the first and second evaluation T600s he imported. But they did not work! There apparently was not enough power in them for the '600 and the 582 was significantly better performance wise. I got the impression it was a similar situation to the 503 v's 582 on any Thruster. The 503 works but limits operations and perfomance considerably in comparison with the 582. The problem (such as it was) was resolved when the Jab 2200 became approved for the 600 (still not the earlier Thruster models) and the proven 582 can haul a 600 along at 60 -70 knots, so why waste money on development? The J2200 became the main engine of choice but Wade (slightly reluctantly) offering the 582 as a lower cost option. Any Thruster is not exactly heavy but all of them are draggy (the 600 slightly less so) so I would imagine you would need something lighter and/or much less draggy to enable the HKS to give you other than basically 'one speed' performance like a 503 powered Thruster does where everything happens at basically 50 knots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest danda Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 The aircraft I am thinking of using it in is very low drag. the old 503 it presently has is operating with a 90Knt cruse. however its not speed I am after 10 LITRES per hour is attractive and the fact that it's a 4 stroke is also attractive. That's my thoughts at the moment I have know idea how much the extra10 hp will gain me my thought is maby another 5-10 knots cruse if i'm lucky. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 I've seen on a site about the Savannah bingo somewhere ,they were stating figures with a hks700e turbo engine offering from memory 78 horses,,,, sounds interesting but I bet with that turbo bolted on they also will bolt on the price tag and I'm guessing it will be a big one .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest danda Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 I've tried to get some infomation on the turbo engine but no one seems to know anything. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 http://www.outbackaircraft.com/bingox.html have seen it somewhere else as well and that would be http://www.icp-avio.com/bingo_en.htm here im thinking ,,guess if there is figures around for them they must be in testing i suppose but i have found nothing else on the net about it ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZULU1 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 HKS 700 E Good Day Chaps I think that i can speak with good authority on the motor, I have flown mine for two years now, 260hrs and no problems whatsoever. HKS originally had serious challenges as based in Japan have insufficient air test facilities. The original motors had serious oil leaks and power problems as well as overheating. They had two upgrades and after engine number 600 came right (mine is 605). They replaced all motors in the field at no charge. Some apparently were still OK. The motor has excellent torque and will swing a much larger prop than a 582. Unfortunately I cannot do this as clearance limitations and so on. If propped correctly it will give similar performance to a 582. Mine is on a trike and is more than a 503 and less than 582. Installed weight is 3 kgs more than a 582 BUT fuel burn is solo 6 litres an hour dual 9 litres so this makes up for the weight. It idles really rough and is sweet at 4-5,000rpm, starts first time and on the KZN coast which is really humid is prone to carb icing. I installed my unit with the 3 d modelling package in Solid Works attained the optimum mounting CofG position, oil tank location and oil coolers and so on. We laser cut all the toys and the unit just fell together. The oil tank location is critical, all details and motor drawings are available in drg./dxf. files which aids the assembly somewhat. I use Shell Ultra synthetic, oil filter is same as Rotax 912 (Honda part) and plugs are NGK motor cycle. Carbs are same as 912 but the mountings I believe are much better as a result the rubbers look to last longer. The mags and ignition is HKS. All in all sounds good as I made my own exhaust, in the air it is less obtrusive than a two stroke. Main thing for me is its half the price of a 912, very reliable, starts first time BUT it took nearly 50 hrs to run in, before that it was a dog!! I emailed HKS; advised same and they have heard that before !! All in all very happy and nice to watch those gauges "temperature and pressure in the green" over the Ocean. It likes to run hot at about 100 degrees plus. The Americans love them and have good back up..so go for it, buy one. I am sure that someone in Australasia has the agency, I know of a unit in NZ who has emailed me. But the best bit..long trips without extra fuel..My aerie ZU-LUI is on the HKS web site to view my installation. http://www.hks-power.co.jp/hks_aviation/english.htm Cheers Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZULU1 Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Supercharging the HKS I have contracted a SA based tuning company to Supercharge my HKS to about 90 hp. Will keep the forum posted. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Did they happen to tell you the amount of boost the supercharger will give ? just curious as thats a fair bit of extra gumption out of a 60 horse motor ,,,,thinking durability thats all ,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vk3auu Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 DANDA. I'm sorry to be the bearer of glad tidings (Not) but if you manage to get an engine that only uses 10 litres per hour, it is probably only producing about 35 horsepower, if the mixture is set correctly, so it won't exactly be propelling you at lightspeed. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vk3auu Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 ZULU1, the reason why it took so long to run in was that the oil that you were using was too good and it didn't encourage the rings to bed in. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 HKS 700 If you go by the dyno figures,supplied with it, the engine produces about 58 horsepower. They apparently require rejetting from ''as supplied' frequently as they run lean and the EGT's are too high as a result. Fix this early! The engine runs over 11/1 compression ratio and should run on high octane fuel ONLY. Since the temps seem to be on the high side I don't know how you would control them with a supercharger ( presumably turbo) fitted. The engine is air/oil cooled,& it would be a bit hard to force extra air over the motor to get rid of the extra heat.. N... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieselten Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 The 503 is forced-air cooled via its engine-driven fan whereas the HKS is free-air cooled. This means you will have to make a full set of baffles/ducts etc for proper control of airflow from front to rear of engine to ensure adequate and even cooling of cylinder barrels and heads. In particular the area around the exhaust-valve is going to need a very reliable supply of cool air otherwise that will be a major hot-spot and likely lead to premature valve failure or valve-guide wear and associated oil-loss. A baffle/plenum type of cooling system is reasonably straightforward for tractor applications, but for a pusher, that is a very different matter because there is no prop blade-root to help ram the air into the cowling and through the baffles. Bear in mind you also have the problem of getting sufficient airflow to the oil-cooler as well. Re-engining any aircraft is likely to be fraught with lots of "gotchas", but the HKS is a good powerplant provided the cooling issues can be handled. It isn't a 582 replacement, but it's a little more powerful than a 503 and has very attractive fuel-consumption figures when compared to the 503 at high RPM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 HKS Engine All true Dieselten. My reference to heat problems relate only to the proposal to supercharge this engine,which I would discourage. The incorporation of baffles is recommended with a cowled installation (tractor) by the maker. The oil temp. is no problem. ( except it takes a little too long to warm up). It starts cleanly & is smooth & quiet in flight N... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZULU1 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 HKS Injection Good Day Chaps The first stage is almost complete on dummy engine, we are installing a fuel injection system first, with a fully mapped ignition system. Primaily to get 582 performance. This will need about another 5-8hp. Mainly though for our country;more power at altitude. Johannesburg is 6,000ft before you take off. The main wild card for us is we have CAA intervention and all "NTCA" aircraft have to fully follow the engine manufacturers procedures (in brief). That means a 582 effectively has to have a crank change at 300hrs. Now how that slipped through we dont know.. So our motivations are slightly different here and really wish to find a highveld equivalent motor. As you can imagine in Summer we get the three Hs (Hot,high and humid). Engine tempeatures are not a major problem on my installation. (Yet). Will keep the forum updated. There are three HKS powered aircraft in the SA Microlight team competing in the Czech republic this month. I know the one engine on a solo "trike" is getting a fuel burn of 4 litres per hour. They have spent hours developing a prop to optimise its torque cappabilities. The others are getting dual figures of about 6 litres per hour. The motor is gaining respect here now.... Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 At 4 or 6 litres per hour what sort of power is being produced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZULU1 Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 HKS in world championships Take a look at this thread, the Czechs are also using the HKS as well as 508s, the Brits seem to be doing well with the 508 also, bit low on power compared to the hKS though. http://www.wmc2007.info/ The Poles are not doing as well, wheres the Australian team ?? Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 Horsepower produced. Yenn, About 15 Hp average is all you would get at those fuel figures by my calculations. The one I have had a bit to do with uses about 13 ltr/ hr and I reckon it operates at about 40 hp Average. I can obtain more accurate figures if anyone is interested, but I am sure that the maker will give specific fuel consumption figures, with the performance data it supplies. The word was that the carb. settings need attention with the engines as supplied, and this was the case with this engine. The engine ran higher than recommended EGT's & had to have the carbs richened......Nev..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vk3auu Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 HKS themselves are claiming only 2 to 3 gallons per hour which equates to something around 40 HP, so you won't be competing with a 582, even taking into account the two stroke vs Four stroke efficiencies. You can't get "blood from a stone", neither can you get Power without consuming fuel. Happy tinkering, David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 the Brits seem to be doing well with the 508 also, bit low on power compared to the hKS though.Paul I think the Poms have R508 on Chasers which are single seat. IIRC they are only about 220kg MTOW and less than 100kg empty so 40 hp is enough for competition-work (where there often tends to be a bias towards economy tasks) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest danda Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 I'm finding it most amusing that those who have the most to say are those who have never used them even to the point that they contradict the one who has. This all reminds me of the FORD V HOLDEN mindset it promotes such passion that there are those who can't see the woods for the trees. I know of a skyranger with a rotax 80hp that according to the pilot returns 10 lts per hour 2up Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vk3auu Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Danda, I am interested in the 80 HP Rotax which only seems to "sip" fuel. I wonder if you could also tell us what speed this aircraft is traveling at. The figures from Rotax themselves, indicate that an 80HP 912 uses around 23 litres at maximum power. At 3/4 power cruise, mine uses just under 17 litres per hour at just under 70 knots with the slats on. Most modern 4 stroke aircraft engines use between 0.45 and 0.48 pounds per HP per hour depending on the mixture. Two strokes are somewhat thirstier. My 503 in a Gemini, two up needed about 17 litres per hour to get anywhere. Power is definitely related to fuel consumption. You cannot produce power if you do not burn fuel. For example, the 100 HP Jabiru or 912S at cruise will use around 21 - 22 litres for 3/4 power. An engine which uses only 10 litres will only be producing 35 HP, possibly less. If you want to get below 0.4 pounds/HP/Hour you have to go to a diesel. If anyone out there says that their Dyno is producing better figures, then you are being snowed. Get then to check their instrumentation. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Responding. Danda, you started this thread and we are all trying to help. I for one, have been personally involved with the engine to which I am refering, including most of the initial test flying with it. You are free to ignore anything I say of course, that goes without saying. I would like you to re-read your last thread, I actually find it somewhat gratuitous and irrelevant. If you choose to believe that engines can run on air then do so but don't demean those who try to give you some facts. I stopped believing in the tooth fairy long ago. If you believe the fuel figures you are quoting, then you had better get some off-field landing practice in. Sorry mate, but that's what I think. Nev.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 vk3auu. Your figures for fuel burn seem a bit high. Have a look at Jabiru 2200 at 80hp. 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