5 Reasons the Rotax 582 is AWESOME (& 4 reasons it SUCKS)

Подписаться 11 тыс.

Просмотров 25 тыс.

50% 1

Was the Rotax 582 secretly a great engine all this time? Some say all Rotax 582's will eventually give you an engine failure at some point, while others swear by it's reliability, hailing it as almost bulletproof. Despite these claims, it certainly has some features that make it unbeatable for certain applications, especially Ultralights (called Microlights in some countries, e.g. South Africa). Does upgrading to the Jabiru 2200 80hp give as much performance boost as people think? Is there a reason why the Rotax manual states that the engine, by it's design, is subject to sudden stoppages?
I cover 5 reasons why the Rotax 582 is an awesome engine, and 4 reasons why it isn't all that great.
Watch this next. Based on my own experience with the Rotax 582, is it powerful enough for Light Sport Aircraft? • Is the Rotax 582 Good ...
Like, comment and please do subscribe! / @letsgoaviate
Follow me on Instagram: / lets_go_aviate
#aviation
Timestamps:
0:00 - Intro
0:30 - 5 Reasons it's AWESOME
3:41 - 4 Reasons it SUCKS
5:46 - Outro
#rotax582

Опубликовано:

5 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 96

@aviator267 3 года назад

👏👏 Brilliant explanation.. really well done. Great knowledge. I don’t think there is better summary out there

@LetsGoAviate 3 года назад

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it

@aviator267 3 года назад

@@LetsGoAviate genuine.. simple, accurate and clear. I’ve watched a few videos from vloggers trying to cover technical subjects let me say simple well done man you know your facts

@LetsGoAviate 3 года назад

Really appreciate your comment! Cheers

@BJCulpepper 2 года назад

You are one of the few people online that doesn't take 30 mins to explain 5 min of information. Excellent job.

@LetsGoAviate 2 года назад

Thanks!

@Armilite1 2 года назад

You want Reliability in a 2 Stroke: 1. Bore & Hone Cylinders with a Toque Plate. 2. Use 93 Octane or better 100LL with TCP Additive. Detonation is the #1 Failure Point! 3. Use a Good High Flash Point Oil, preferably Hirths Blue Max or Amsoil Saber Pro, premixed at 80:1, 90:1, 100:1 depending on Weather Temps. This also means fewer Decarbons are needed 700+ hrs. #2 Failure Point! 4. Change Out your Fuel System, Carb Boots regularly, and use Tygon Fuel Line. #3 Failure Point! 5. Use Carb Heat. #4 Failure Point! 6. Warm UP your Engine before Takeoff. 7. Use gradual Throttle Settings. 8. Store your Engine Properly. 9. Actually READ your Engine Manual. 10. Use the different Engine Coatings that fight Heat ad Corrosion. 11. Use the Best Case Seals & Carb Boots, JBM. 12. Oil Injection can and does Fail. So Premixing is best. 13. Don't mess with the jetting if you can't READ and understand the Jetting Charts.

@LetsGoAviate 2 года назад

We followed the majority of these (some on purpose, some just by accident) when we still had the 582, but these points would have been great to know about as new 582 engine owners.

@davidrobins4025 2 года назад

A very simple, clear explanation of both sides of this engine. Thank you.

@danko6582 11 месяцев назад

Thanks! That last point explains why I was told to leave some power in on finals.

@LevPicaresco Год назад

Very informative, thanks.

@robgaskins6505 3 года назад

Great explanation! Thank you for your video. 582 Rotax is a great engine with proper maintenance and experienced pilot.

@LetsGoAviate 3 года назад

Thanks! Yes I agree. Know it's strenghts and weaknesses, treat it accordingly, and it will serve you well.

@danieloloughlin3259 2 года назад

Excellent video, with the 582 being discontinued you should consider doing another video like this on Hirth engines

@LetsGoAviate 2 года назад

Thanks. With Yamaha now entering the aviation market, they would be ideally placed to offer an engine in the 582 weight range and 80hp output range. High rpm (10,000+) 4 stroke power is probably the direction these engines will go in in the future. Hirth definitely well placed too with an air cooled and a water cooled engine in this class, though I know little about these engines from first hand experience.

@rickmcglone7382 Месяц назад

Using a clutch with a 'C' gear box greatly improves the life of Rotax 582/503 cdi engines in my opinion 😉🤔

@robertbristow6273 2 года назад

Super video

@philbrookman3126 2 года назад

u missed crankshaft failures how sporadic and how costly they are caa issed guidance for this crank ,,,

@EchoKilo 2 года назад

What higher HP engine would you recommend for an ultralight? I am looking into purchasing or building a 103 ultralight and the local area elevation is approaching 3000'.

@LetsGoAviate 2 года назад

Hard to say without knowing which ultralight and what your budget is. But in general you can't go wrong with a Rotax 912. But they are pricey and a tad heavy. If that doesn't work I personally would look at a Yamaha Phazer. It produces around 80hp and weighs about the same as the 582. You'll need to have it converted for airplane use (it's a snowmobile engine), but checkout Ben Kairys' RU-vid channel for more info on it. I believe he manufactures gearbox adapters for it. After that I would suggest the Simonini Victor 2. I personally know one pilot that flies an LSA aircraft with this engine. It's heavier than the 582, but lighter than the 912 and produces 100+ hp.

@EchoKilo 2 года назад

@@LetsGoAviate Thank you.

@eugeneoreilly9356 Год назад

Limbach.

@philipritson8821 7 месяцев назад

Reason 5? It's out of production!

@claeyer3866 Год назад

Good review , what about the rotax 447 and the 503 ?

@LetsGoAviate Год назад

Both end of production more than 10 years, but by all accounts the 503 is a great engine

@outlawflyer7868 2 года назад

So what's a good replacement since they stopped making this engine?

@LetsGoAviate 2 года назад

Glad you asked! I made a video specifically on that (title "Rotax Stops 582 Production - What Now?")

@richarddavenport5888 2 года назад

Thank you

@danko6582 21 день назад

5:20 I didn't know about that lean condition diving with the engine idle. I've been giving it RPMs on finals but I was told that was to avoid shock cooling. Either way, no slamming to idle in descent.

@destroytheilluminati770 2 года назад

i have an avid flyer, at cruise rpms around 5,200-5,400 rpms i get consistent 2.5 gal/hour fuel burn at those rpms,

@LetsGoAviate 2 года назад

That's a good fuel consumption, best I've heard or seen. Hold on to that engine, a lot of 582's are not going below 3.5 for those rpms and up to 4.5 at 6,000rpm.

@theaeronaut-channel Год назад

Two-stroke engines can be awesome if you know what you buy into: lightweight and quick acceleration, but it changes how you fly. I personally look at temperatures much more than altitude and speed. On a side note, I think there are two-strokes than are far better than Rotax, e.g. Simonini Flying 110HP in 53 kgs!

@LetsGoAviate Год назад

Yeah I know of one Simonini V2 on an airframe, that's a hell of a power to weight ratio

@theaeronaut-channel Год назад

@@LetsGoAviate i have it on my seaplane... It makes an incredible difference, especially when fighting the drag of the water

@kentwilkens3435 2 года назад

If you have high flying time then the TBO is an issue. If you are like most pilots, own the plane, and fly it not that much, then you hit 300 hours in about 5 years, which is the other metric used for an overhaul. If you are running a 912, 1500 hours, but you still have to tear down every 5 years.. so where is the savings?

@LetsGoAviate 2 года назад

Why would you tear down a 912 every 5 years? TBO is 15 years. 912's are cheaper to keep running than a 582 if staying faithful to both engines' TBO. It's the 912's very high once-off purchase cost that make them very expensive compared to the 582.

@user-se2sw3nj2g 10 месяцев назад

2 stroke have very few parts compared to 4 stroke. Given that all the remaining parts are critical for operation. Time, in calendar months, is far more sensitive to things like corrosion given no wet crankcase and a low hour high time engine usually will fail faster than one that flys all the time. The Rotax 4 strokes have had 2000 hour TBO and 15 years calendar time. so a lot of the speculation between Jab and Hirth and Rotax are not comparable. I personally have never seen a Hirth at 1000 hours.

@Armilite1 2 года назад

Also, there is nothing really different between a 1000hr TBO Hirth and any Rotax, other than CC used to make hp, CR used, Carb Size used, Exhaust used, Porting. The rest is Octane & Oil used. A Rotax Rick, Skidoo/Rotax 670 669.2cc blows the 582 580cc out of the water making 92hp@6350rpm. There are some 503UL and 582UL out there Flying with 1300hrs with just a Decarbon every 250hrs.

@LetsGoAviate 2 года назад

The 582 can be reliable if maintained well, the pilot knows the limitations and doesn't exceed it. Unfortunately the above sentence doesn't describe a large percentage of reality, I'm my opinion. Through my approved Rotax maintenance engineer contacts I've learned a lot about these engines when our airplane was still powered by one, and the consensus among them is that the 582 is sensitive, and requires more care than say a Rotax 912 to get acceptable relative reliability out of the 582. Some 582's will happily sing for 1000+ hours, others will fail before 300 (I'm aware of a few that did). There are many factors that determines this. I would put a 582 on the right platform and fly it, I don't believe I'm biased against it. Thanks for the comment!

@Armilite1 2 года назад

@@LetsGoAviate Your comparing a 580cc 65hp $6500 2 Stroke 582UL vs a $18k-22k 912 80/100hp 4 Stroke 1211.69cc! Your Rotax Maintenance Engineer as you call them is a Parts Changer Mechanic, not an Engine Builder who not only rebuilds them but who Improves them. Build a 2 Stroke using 1200cc and it will Blow that 912 out of the water. Your talking 580cc 11.5cr vs 9.0, 6500rpm vs 5500rpm, 580cc vs 1211cc. If built right a 1211cc/7cc= 173hp@6500rpm is possible. 2 Strokes Fail and 4 Strokes Fail, 99.9% is from Humans who don't know what they're doing rebuilding them, Humans who don't know how to maintain them, and those Humans who are Flying them. 85% of the Failures is from Humans using old low Octane Gas and using Poor 2 Stroke Oils. Rotax Rick in Flordia makes a 582UL/583 Tuned Pipe that he rates at 79hp@6400rpm.

@LetsGoAviate 2 года назад

@@Armilite1 I'm not sure if "Rotax maintenance engineer" was the correct term, but the ones I was referring to in my previous reply are actually both engine builders, not just "mechanics". I do believe your performance numbers, but I was talking strictly about reliability. My opinion is that the average 4-stroke engine can take more abuse from a nit-wit pilot than the average 2-stroke engine before failing. I concede that it is an opinion, although it's based on facts from people who have worked on these engines for decades.

@mattshubat2828 3 года назад

Consider overhaul cost of a 2 stroke vs 4 stroke even at 300hrs you can build the 582 for half

@LetsGoAviate 3 года назад

Very true! That's a good one, thanks Matt.

@patrickmckowen2999 3 года назад

Vs 912 at 1500hrs - example only(not real cost) 582 TBO is100$ vs 912 TBO is 200$ .... 582 TBOs are 5 x100 = 500$ vs 200$ I guess you cant compare to all 4 stroke -- I dont know my aviation engines that are in this class. Cheers

@LetsGoAviate 3 года назад

Yeah as you say, even with 582 overhaul at half the cost, by the time you get to a 912's 1500hrs the 582 would have been overhauled 5 times...

@patrickmckowen2999 3 года назад

@@LetsGoAviate what we really need is better improvement in batteries. Electric motors are superior, just not their fuel tanks. Cheers

@LetsGoAviate 3 года назад

Yeah endurance is the problem for electric motors (or rather, the batteries), they can't seem to get much past the 30 minute mark...OK for local flights, but will need to last 4 to 5 times longer before it can be considered a real alternative. Wont get there in the next few years, my opinion.

@matthewtaylor3351 Год назад

I’m looking to buy a boorabee ultralight with a rotax 582. Not sure if this is a good combination. 450kg max take off weight

@LetsGoAviate Год назад

They also fly with the Rotax 503, so yes that should be a great combo

@patrickradcliffe3837 3 года назад

It makes sense that the TBO is only 300 hours, when considering it uses gear reduction. The engine is going through more cycles of combustion per hour then similar engine without gear reduction.

@LetsGoAviate 3 года назад

Could be part of the reason, yes. Then again, the Rotax 912 also has gear reduction, and has a TBO of 1500 hours. It's max and continous RPM is only 1,000 less than the 582 (5,800 vs 6,800 rpm). So maybe it's a 2-stroke thing? 2-stroke engines are very inefficient, and doens't "burn" very clean compared to 4-stroke engines, and I presume this takes it's toll on components. I think that too has at least something to do with the low TBO.

@OldGlaseye-gf7si 3 года назад

Except many direct drive engines operating at 1/3 the rpm, have a 2000 TBO. Using you logic, engine turning 3 times as fast..TBO should be about 600-700 hours, not 300.

@patrickradcliffe3837 3 года назад

@@OldGlaseye-gf7si some engines do have a 2,000 TBO. I didn't say this was direct correlation . I just said it made sense that the TBO was much lower because the engine is cycling much more then a direct drive application. I looked up some other aero-engines with gear reduction and that the TBO time was lower then it's direct drive sibling. Such as the Continental O-300.

@multa765 3 года назад

I like its slimpicity as well.

@LetsGoAviate 3 года назад

Yeah I think a lot of people do

@suyogyacooloong6580 Год назад

sir iam from Nepal and i want to make some light aircraft. so i want to buy it Rotax 582 but how can i buy?? please help me to provide this engine in my country 🙏🙏🙏🙏

@LetsGoAviate Год назад

Rotax stopped making this engine more than a year ago. Still many around on the used market though

@jasonburks5911 2 года назад

can it be used on an ultralight helicopter.

@LetsGoAviate 2 года назад

I'm not that knowlegeable on helicopters, but I've seen them used in experimental helicopters in a few videos

@wingson8951 2 года назад

I use this engine, yes it sounds like a rickshaw, or tuk tuk, its true. It has all the problems of 2 strokes but remember 2 stroke engine has less moving parts compare to 4 stroke. So both they have advantages and disadvantages

@christopher.ellah123 3 года назад

How will I get this engine

@LetsGoAviate 3 года назад

I don't know where in the world you are, but you can find a Rotax dealer near you at the following website; dealerlocator dot flyrotax dot com

@jmsancho 9 месяцев назад

En general, estoy de acuerdo. Pero pese a las razones negativas (lo de ruido es una tontería y no es mayor que el ruido de otros motores), creo que es uno de los mejores motores que jamás se fabricaron. Es ideal para aviones pequeños que no pretenden hacer vuelos de 1000 Km. No entiendo que ha pasando en el mercado y porque ROTAX ha dejado de fabricar el 503 el 582. Espero que alguien los siga fabricando con la rigurosidad de ROTAX.

@tarekctg5698 3 года назад

how moni a Engine??????

@chippyjohn1 Год назад

FYI power is torque over time. So if you have the same power at the prop, you cant have more torque even if it has a reduction.

@LetsGoAviate Год назад

Horsepower is torque x rpm / 5252. The gearbox reduces the propeller rpm. Lets say we have an engine producing 100N.m of torque at 5000rpm. 100 * 5000 / 5252 = 95. This would result in 95hp. If we fit a 2x reduction gearbox to the engine, and the propeller turns 2500 rpm, does it halve the horsepower? 100 * 2500 / 5252 = 48. No. If rpm halves through a 2x reduction box, torque HAS to double. 200 * 2500 / 5252 = 95.

@chippyjohn1 Год назад

@@LetsGoAviate That is correct. But an engine that makes 95 kw at 2500 will have twice the torque as the engine that makes 95 kw at 5000 rpm. So once you halve the propeller rpm for the 5000 rpm engine, both will have the same power and torque at the propeller. 95 X 5252 / 2500 = 200. You said an engine with a reduction gearbox will be able to spin a larger propeller than a direct drive engine with the same hp. If the propeller speed is the same for both engines and they have the same power. neither will be more powerful, they are equal.

@LetsGoAviate Год назад

@@chippyjohn1 I get what you are saying, and yes they will have the same power (hp), but it will be able to spin a larger propeller because even though it has the same power, the torque part of the power equation is increased. The larger propeller's blades has a larger area/volume, which has more drag, and is more difficult to spin. But it also creates more static thrust. So while it has the same power to the prop, the one with the reduction gearbox and larger prop will be able to create more static thrust by swinging a larger, draggier prop. As in all things there is a trade-off. The larger prop has more drag and will be penalized in the cruise stage of flight. But in certain applications (STOL), spinning a larger prop (more static thrust) is an advantage.

@chippyjohn1 Год назад

@@LetsGoAviate Yes it will be able to spin a larger propeller if the propeller is turning at a lower rpm, but not if it is the same rpm.

@ianlewis6717 Год назад

No, power is torque x angular rotation speed. W = T x w, Watts = Nm x rads/s Work done in Joules = Watts x time in seconds

@gerhardoosthuizen3865 Год назад

Wie is jy asb.?

@LetsGoAviate Год назад

Jy is welkom om my te kontak op letsgoaviate at protonmail dot com

@jaessongee9893 3 года назад

Its sounds it should be in those snowmobiles or something like that.?...🤔🎤👍🇦🇺

@LetsGoAviate 3 года назад

The earlier Rotax engines was derived from snowmobile engines after people started using it in aircraft (in the late 1970's I believe). The 582 was specifically designed for aircraft though.

@avalanche9026 Год назад

You nailed it. Sounds like rc engine. Terrible anoyng. Low flight people call the cops. Sucks

@Mike-01234 Год назад

Rotax Rick in Florida for $2850 overhaul with updated rods I doubt you can beat those prices with a Jabiru. Your trying to compare engines that cost 4 times as much like a 912. The 582 and 912 are not even close to compare in reality if you want to compare engines compare other 2 strokes on the market like the Hirth. Not everyone can afford to buy a 912 or a jabiru they don't have 20k dollars to buy an engine nor do they need it. Many light aircraft that are not designed to use a 912 because they are too heavy, or just don't require more than 65HP. CASA Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority in 2014 had labeled Jabiru as an unsafe engine requirement that no passengers were to be carried. That was lifted later on but how many of those older engines are still floating around have hidden safety issues. Most people who have problems with a 2-stroke engine is because they neglected them didn't follow the manual how to service them.

@felixcat9318 2 года назад

"This engine, by its design, is subject to sudden stoppage!" 10 words that have no place in the Official Factory Manual of an Aircraft Engine manufacturer! Given the potential loss of one's aircraft in the event of sudden engine stoppage, I have had absolutely no interest in fitting this engine into a kit built helicopter. That it shrieks so hideously during operation might make some actually appreciate the "sudden stoppage!" I have always considered these engines to be utter garbage with clown town pricing.

@eugeneoreilly9356 Год назад

Rotax are ripping people off.They won't release their Vtwins for aviation use because their over rated 912,914s are a cash cow.

@StansWorld 2 года назад

I dis agree Air cooled is much better no pumps no fluids to worry about no hoses to pop less to worry about and being air cooled the motion is enough

@LetsGoAviate 2 года назад

I used to see it that way too. But water cooled is just so much lighter, and some of the most reliable engines are water cooled (Rotax 912). You're right though, air cooled = simplicity.

@chippyjohn1 Год назад

@@LetsGoAviate In your latest videos you state liquid cooled is heavier.

@av8tor261 3 года назад

All engines are subject to sudden storage. All engines are AIR COOLED. Some engines such as the 503 transfer heat directly to the air. Engines such as the 582 use fluid to transfer the heat to a radiator and the radiator transfers the heat to the air. 1. If you are worried about sound get a new hobby. (Most of the noise is the propeller and intake.) 2. OH @ 300 hours....LOL that's a lot of flying and the 300 hour is cheap. BTW it's only "recommended". Don't compare 2 stroke engines with 4 stroke engines. Your misleading. My 337 IO360's are $25K each to OH. 3. If you crying about fuel consumption. Fly sailplanes. 4. Engines fail for many reasons. Poor fuel, abuse and lack of preventative maintenance. This pilot/Aircraft Maintenance Engineer/ FAA A&P of 35+ years has hundred of incident free flight hours on Rotax engines. "Beware of the self proclaimed expert."

@LetsGoAviate 3 года назад

I gave more reasons to like the 582, than to dislike it, so this video isn't a "bashing". The noise point is subjective, but the rest is factual. Yeah 300 hours is a lot of flying, but 1500 hours is a lot more. Your reasoning about all engines being air cooled is scientifically correct, yes. But how about we call engines which require coolant in a radiator to function, "water cooled" and engines which doesn't we call "air cooled". Just so a layman like myself can keep up.

@vracan 2 года назад

I myself am about to buy an utralight but what is stopping me right now is the aircraft in question has a 582 becuase I always found 2strokes noise is very irritating compared to 4strokes. But It just happens to be the exact aircraft I was looking for at very good price and condition so I may give in.

@av8tor261 2 года назад

@@vracan Have a knowable person do a pre-purchase inspection B 4 you put any money down. Comparing 2 stroke engines to 4 stroke engines is like comparing apples to oranges.

@FairladyS130 8 месяцев назад

Using the following terminology illustrates the difference between direct air cooling and air cooled liquid cooling. To explain, the former impacts immediately which can result in metal cooling shock, the latter has to pass through the radiator material into the liquid and then be directed into the engine's liquid jacket which takes time involving slowing and mitigating the impact.