Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

HKS 700E performance

29 posts in this topic

Posted

I was planning on using the Rotax 582 but the HKS has me second guessing that decision. Anyone here have experience with the engine first hand or just an opinion?

To me it looks like the 582 and the HKS are about the same HP at a cruise power setting but the HKS uses half the gas, no 2 cycle oil, has a 1000 hr TBO with reasonably priced parts and you dont need a bunch of special tools to take the engine apart like the rotax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I was planning on using the Rotax 582 but the HKS has me second guessing that decision. Anyone here have experience with the engine first hand or just an opinion?

To me it looks like the 582 and the HKS are about the same HP at a cruise power setting but the HKS uses half the gas, no 2 cycle oil, has a 1000 hr TBO with reasonably priced parts and you dont need a bunch of special tools to take the engine apart like the rotax.

Ive talked to guys that have the HKS 700 in Skyraiders and they like um.They dont climbout like a 582 but cruise is about the same,burns half the fuel.In powered parachutes I heard they dont perform near as good.Contact Greensky Adventures,they replaced a 582 with a HKS in a older Kitfox and were happy with the final results.Took awhile to get it propped right but after that it did good.Randy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ive talked to guys that have the HKS 700 in Skyraiders and they like um.They dont climbout like a 582 but cruise is about the same,burns half the fuel.In powered parachutes I heard they dont perform near as good.Contact Greensky Adventures,they replaced a 582 with a HKS in a older Kitfox and were happy with the final results.Took awhile to get it propped right but after that it did good.Randy

I've been e-mailing back and forth with Jerry from greensky getting info on the HKS but I'd like to hear from others that are flying the engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I flew a Powered Parachute with one for a while when my Dad was a dealer. I wasn't impressed. An exact same airframe with a 582 which we also had as a demo would fly circles around it. If you had a super light simple airplane it might work alright. The numbers really look good but to be honest it's 5 less horsepower and it's a 4 stroke. Those are two strikes against you in the performance dept. A 600lb MarkIV at Gross weight would be a dog with that motor IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I was planning on using the Rotax 582 but the HKS has me second guessing that decision. Anyone here have experience with the engine first hand or just an opinion?

To me it looks like the 582 and the HKS are about the same HP at a cruise power setting but the HKS uses half the gas, no 2 cycle oil, has a 1000 hr TBO with reasonably priced parts and you dont need a bunch of special tools to take the engine apart like the rotax.

hi, i will tell you my Pt of view as i was few months ago in same mind as you for my avid C.

it depends on many factors, if you want powerfull, light,simple and cheap, taking of short rnw heavy on hot days, go for 582. if you want four stroke, got enouth money and plan to fly a lot alone for long trips, go for HKS.

the fuel consuption of hks in more than 1/2 vs rotax 582 imo, the cost difference represents a lot of flight hours.

with hks, you'll have to build a new motor mont if you no order package from greensky...

personnaly,near my home, i could have a 6500euros new in box hks or 2500 euro overhauled blue 582 complete, i went for the second choice : i saved forward weigh, 4000 euro, and engine is already monted with cowl on fuselage, and i know there is a lot of used parts and good knoledge of this engine everywhere.

:BC:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I was planning on using the Rotax 582 but the HKS has me second guessing that decision. Anyone here have experience with the engine first hand or just an opinion?

To me it looks like the 582 and the HKS are about the same HP at a cruise power setting but the HKS uses half the gas, no 2 cycle oil, has a 1000 hr TBO with reasonably priced parts and you dont need a bunch of special tools to take the engine apart like the rotax.

I thought that HKS also made an 80 hp? Don't know much about any of these, except that I don't like expensive, high-maintenance engines like Rotax.

I have to put new plugs in my EA81 about every 1000 hours, for less than $10........But, I know it is heavy for some planes.

Ed in MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ed they do make an 80hp model but it gets the HP from a turbo. Very complicated and very expensive set up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How about a direct-drive VW? I think that it is cheap, long lasting, reliable, 4 stroke, and about 120 lbs, similiar to the HKS weight???? Several HP versions available. PRSU would add 40 lbs tho - so that would make it nearly as heavy as a EA81, but you should not need a PRSU???

Ed in MO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ed they do make an 80hp model but it gets the HP from a turbo. Very complicated and very expensive set up.

OK - I'm hip to that "more expensive" - Looked it up - about $7000 more. I hate turbos too - just more to go wrong, and very costly.

U know anything about the VW's?

Ed in MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

U know anything about the VW's?

Heavy. (needs Redrive)

No FWF support.

Poor performance.

Poor reliability at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Heavy. (needs Redrive)

No FWF support.

Poor performance.

Poor reliability at best.

What about the Hirth engines? I am also getting some free education, since I have not studied any of these alternate engines.

RAM listed a 115 hp Soob as 120 lbs dry in the KP or SP mag - but that dont jive with any Soob that I know of. Got to weigh mine someday, but bet it is 180 or more.

Ed in MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

120# Subaru? Hahahahaha!

More like 200# without coolant exhaust oil or HEADS!

I don't know anything about the Hirth motors. I didn't thing they had the best reputation, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How about a direct-drive VW? I think that it is cheap, long lasting, reliable, 4 stroke, and about 120 lbs, similiar to the HKS weight???? Several HP versions available. PRSU would add 40 lbs tho - so that would make it nearly as heavy as a EA81, but you should not need a PRSU???

Ed in MO

I had a Revmaster (VW) direct drive in my Q-2 years ago. It wieghted 200# even, when I pulled it out to install the Jabiru 3300. I know they claim they weight 170# or so but it just isn't so.

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I talked to the folks at Murphy about the 700 (non T). The Maverick was originally designed for HKS for the Japanese market. Murphy built 20 I think he said? Maybe 10. Anyway, he said the factory was unimpressed with the performance compared to the Rotax two strokes. So.....similar to what folks here are saying. There is no substitute for cubic inches as they say. The HKS is a lightweight in that department.

I don't think there is anything very scary about the 700T except the price. These things have come a long way since the days of Ray Jay turbos on your Mooney. If anyone can figure out how to make them pay it would be the Japanese. The projected TBO is pretty low but the parts are pretty cheap. I'd like to see them build a real competitor to Rotax in the four stroke arena. I'm pretty sure they would build an amazing product. This is not a small mom and pop operation. They are big time in Japan.

Whatever

EB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The EA81 is 200# plus a little depending on your redrive and radiator system but so far I am pretty impressed with the performance and reliability. Mine is almost like a car; just look it over and go fly. I think using subaru's or VW's without redrives really sacrifices on their performance; you just cant get them to their RPM -HP range without a redrive. I always thought the VW's looked good by the numbers but there was an article in I think it was Kitplanes a while back on a guy who used one in a 701. I wish I could find the article because I don't know if I remember everything accurately but he had all kinds of problems with it; cracked heads, then replaced them with liquid cooled heads and then they had problems. I think he had a couple of in flight failures. In the end, he was looking to replace the engine with something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Here is a post I made on the Kitfox board regarding that VW (non)powered 701.

This is a link to the Kitplanes article.

Aircooled VWs are pretty cool. Just not in an airplane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Here is a post I made on the Kitfox board regarding that VW (non)powered 701.

This is a link to the Kitplanes article.

Aircooled VWs are pretty cool. Just not in an airplane.

Curious tho, there are lots of planes using the VW, evidently doing fine. HP varies greatly, like 65 to 120, with no apparent weight increase, except when redrive or water cooling are added.

Certainly there are lemons out there, but there are also some very reliable versions, according to what I read. My friend just put one in a Hummelbird, or some version of it. Will check with him when I can for results.

Ed in MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Airframes designed around the vw will work with them. (Hummel, Sonex, etc). Avids and Kitfoxes were not. Pretty simple.

As to reliability, I won't fly behind one. I know of too many of them that don't work to trust any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Airframes designed around the vw will work with them. (Hummel, Sonex, etc). Avids and Kitfoxes were not. Pretty simple.

As to reliability, I won't fly behind one. I know of too many of them that don't work to trust any of them.

Same way I feel about the 2 cycles - too many forced landings, IMO.

Like the John Deere Gator: That twin engine has a diaphram fuel pump which doesn't last, and it fills the crankcase with gas.

Speaking of ATVs, Been seeing the CAN-AM commercials on TV: 82 hp, 1000cc Rotax, (Twin?),I believe - will it ever be an aircraft engine??

To each; his own opinion and destiny ;<)

Ed in MO

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Same way I feel about the 2 cycles - too many forced landings, IMO.

Like the John Deere Gator: That twin engine has a diaphram fuel pump which doesn't last, and it fills the crankcase with gas.

Speaking of ATVs, Been seeing the CAN-AM commercials on TV: 82 hp, 1000cc Rotax, (Twin?),I believe - will it ever be an aircraft engine??

To each; his own opinion and destiny ;<)

Ed in MO

The question is, how do you separate the wheat from the chaff? These forum postings are all anecdotal and filled with personal agendas. Who knows what to believe? The more I hear about the 2 strokes the better I feel about them. They MUST be brought up to temp with about 4 minutes at 4500rpm (not 3000) prior to TO. If you do that, they are very reliable and pretty cheap too. I hate the sound of them but flown with cautious respect for proper procedure they are apparently fine. If you want to get an idea of how far ahead of the pack Rotax is, just look up their service bulletins. They read like Lycoming and Continental. I have not been able to find ANY such literature from Jabiru for instance or Hirth. The 582 Blue Head is one hell of low powered aircraft engine. Rotax Rick makes his 670 too. Very interesting with lots of power for takeoff and lower fuel consumption and rpm/stress for cruising. I'm slowly changing my mind. (what's left of it)
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I much rather fly with a Rotax 2-stroke than any automotive conversion.

For me that's an easy decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The question is, how do you separate the wheat from the chaff? These forum postings are all anecdotal and filled with personal agendas. Who knows what to believe? The more I hear about the 2 strokes the better I feel about them. They MUST be brought up to temp with about 4 minutes at 4500rpm (not 3000) prior to TO. If you do that, they are very reliable and pretty cheap too. I hate the sound of them but flown with cautious respect for proper procedure they are apparently fine. If you want to get an idea of how far ahead of the pack Rotax is, just look up their service bulletins. They read like Lycoming and Continental. I have not been able to find ANY such literature from Jabiru for instance or Hirth. The 582 Blue Head is one hell of low powered aircraft engine. Rotax Rick makes his 670 too. Very interesting with lots of power for takeoff and lower fuel consumption and rpm/stress for cruising. I'm slowly changing my mind. (what's left of it)

Who is "Rotax Rick"? What are the specs on the 670? Is it a 582 modified?

Thought maybe since we are dissecting engines, that the info might be useful to someone looking for an engine.

Ed in MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I much rather fly with a Rotax 2-stroke than any automotive conversion.

For me that's an easy decision.

Actually, the Soob is a RE-Conversion! The original EA-51 was for a plane, but the 50hp was not enough, so they put it in a car; so I've heard.

Then an experimenter put it back into a plane. (either the EA-51 or EA-71?)

The EA stands for "Experimental Aircraft", (so I've heard), but don't know why the Japs would label it in English, except Aircraft seems to be dominated by English language.

The Soob is just another version of the original "Boxer" engine, which was used by Lycoming, Continental, Franklin, and others, and then ended up in the VW and Porsche. Soob just took that engine and made it with water cooling and better engineering, and shorter stroke.

The original car bodies rusted out, but that engine just keeps on ticking. I have seen them with 3 to 400 thousand miles and still running with no major overhauls.

I believe it could have been made lighter if it had continued to be an "aircraft engine" instead of being put in a car.

There were tests done running this engine full throttle for about a week, 24 hours a day, non-stop: Much more than the 150hours at part throttle that it takes to "certify" an aircraft engine.

Sermon over! To each his own. Thankfully, there is room in the sky for differences. (Well, it is getting crowded in places!!!)

BTW: The Rotax is a "converted" snow-machine engine, (so I've heard).

Ed in MO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Who is "Rotax Rick"? What are the specs on the 670? Is it a 582 modified?

Thought maybe since we are dissecting engines, that the info might be useful to someone looking for an engine.

Ed in MO

Just look on Barnstormers under the "Engines"/"Rotax" category. Actually here's a link http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_638906_BE+READY+TO+FLY+WITH+MY+582+BH.html I talked to the guy for quite awhile yesterday. He talks two miles a minute. Though he's from Florida I would bet he's transplanted from the big apple. The 670 is a snow machine engine. Apparently it takes most of the same bearings, seals, carbs, cooling bits, and indeed even the same head as the 582. With the right pipe, it has the same power curve shape as the 582 only tops out at 87 hp. I've been told on good authority that most folks don't like the 583 red head because it's too peaky. It goes from 60 to 90 horse power in about 250 rpm. This 670, so I'm told, isn't that way. Much smoother. No personal experience here, just typical internet noise. But interesting. Just to throw out even more noise, one of the new Hirth engines develops similar power at 4800 (?) rpm instead of 6500. It's main problem is that it cost damn near as much as a 912, though it weighs considerably less.

Just spouting off here. Learning from my more experienced peers.....

EB

Edited by Emory Bored

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I had a 670 Rotax on my Avid Mk IV for about 250 hours until it nuked. Other than that is was a good engine. :lmao:

It had to have the big expansion chamber to run right; it wouldn't run right with the 582 exhaust and it would run best above 4500 rpm. You could not really throttle it back and run smooth below that ; it would either fall off to a high idle or want to run above 4500. Nothing really in between. It was not hard to fly that way because you are rarely in that RPM range but you could not smoothly back it into that range to try to fly slow.

Edited by SuberAvid

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0