Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

582 vs 912

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ginge Sunley
    replied
    [QUOTE=Paul Dewhurst;

    And syndicates for modern weather capable 4stroke two seaters provide excellent value for money flying for most people - they can do their 30hours or so all in for less than the cost of hangaring an old thruster.[/QUOTE]
    Although of course a Thruster is well able to be tied down outside, unlike so many of the modern heavies, so hangarage does not come into it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Dewhurst
    replied
    582 vs 912 was the post wasn’t it?

    Skyranger with 582 vs 912 cost difference around 7K

    Resale value at 500 hours or so around 7K different.

    In the meantime you have saved around 10ph in fuel and maintenance. So the 912 owner has won by 5K. And enjoyed better performance, reliability range and usefulness in the meantime.

    So if you can afford the extra investment it pays back substantially.

    And that is why although 582 is still available as an option on lots of aircraft people stopped buying them for new two seaters a long time ago.

    As for cheap microlighting - it’s never been cheaper if you want twobstroke there are lots of machines on the market for less than 5K used.

    And syndicates for modern weather capable 4stroke two seaters provide excellent value for money flying for most people - they can do their 30hours or so all in for less than the cost of hangaring an old thruster.
    Last edited by Paul Dewhurst; 21st May 2018, 14:32.

    Leave a comment:


  • Martin Watson
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Dewhurst View Post
    But the resale value is also much higher ( often as much difference as the cost differential new) so you get a bigger payback when it’s time to sell.

    It’s definitely win win - if you can raise the cash in the first instance..
    Who in their right mind would tie up say 50k in an aeroplane they are going to fly 50-100 hours a year in? You could invest it and make 2k pa. I bet nobody factors that into their calculation of cost per hour!

    I seem to recall that in the dim and distant past Microlights were supposed to be the cheap way to get in the air. Not any more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Dewhurst
    replied
    But the resale value is also much higher ( often as much difference as the cost differential new) so you get a bigger payback when it’s time to sell.

    It’s definitely win win - if you can raise the cash in the first instance..

    Leave a comment:


  • Joan Walsh
    replied
    Bump...

    Originally posted by Steve Uzochukwu View Post
    ... snip ...
    Here are the figures for a crank that lasts 500 hours every time:

    (Table at http://forums.bmaa.org/showthread.ph...l=1#post129220)
    So the break even, by that estimate, is between 500 and 750 hours if you are buying new. For many microlight pilots that could be more than their whole flying career over many years.

    Of course if you are buying second hand the equation changes. It also depends if you pay for maintenance or you treat it as part of the hobby (or, in my case, have a hubby who treats it thus ).

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve Uzochukwu
    replied
    Originally posted by tomshep View Post
    Real Aviators fly anything they can get their hands on. Buy the 582 because you can afford it. Fly it. Be happy.
    I'm not worried about whether anyone thinks I'm a real aviator or not. Having spent four weeks grounded, getting the engine off and back on and the crank replacement, I can say from experience that there's a contradiction between flying, being happy and 582 ownership, especially when fixing it in the freezing cold.

    It would be nice if the next generation ATV/snowmobile engine Kev's playing with got wider acceptance and showed the door to the larger two strokes. It would be better for environment too, as we'd then stop blowing significant amounts of two stroke oil into the atmosphere.

    Don't get me wrong, the smaller two strokes like the Corsair, Polini and Cisco are modern marvels of lightness, and easy to fix. They are key to SSDR & sub-70.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ginge Sunley
    replied
    Whatever you buy a tip that can help is to study the log books before you realy look at the aircraft. It is too easy to fall in love with an aircraft and buy it almost regardless. Take an inspector to look, but check for yourself as well and you'll end up knowing your aircraft so much better.

    Well worth reading service bulletins, and checking log books to see what has been done it will help you form an opinion on how the owners have looked after aircraft and engine. You'll find bulletins for most flexwing types on P&Ms site
    http://www.pmaviation.co.uk/
    Look under "Downloads"
    Info on Rotax engines you can find here
    http://www.rotax-owner.com/en/suppor...vice-bulletins.

    Good Luck with whatever you go for and as Tom says "Fly it. Be Happy"

    Leave a comment:


  • tomshep
    replied
    Lots of terrifying figures here. Nothing that really helps, so here you go. Real Aviators fly anything they can get their hands on. Buy the 582 because you can afford it. Fly it. Be happy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve Uzochukwu
    replied
    Originally posted by Keven Gaffney View Post
    My blue top 582 quantum uses around 15 L/Hr cruising at 65 the 912 i fly with uses around 11 l/hr my crank is on condition so not being changed every 300 hrs . decoke every 150 hrs at the moment
    I also have a 582, and the crank croaked at 380 hours, so it's on condition, but when it it blows, there's no arguing that you don't have to change it.

    My maths is based on the cost of a new crank at between 300 and 600 hours, but even it runs to 750 hours, the 912 is still cheaper at 1,000 hours. It's fuel and oil burnt plus the cost of cranks that kills it.

    just missed a few weeks flying with dead 582, and would have been longer if I'd stripped the engine in the freezing cold to replace the crank myself.

    The vast majority of cost is parts not labour. Don't forget that the 2 stroke blows a lot of oil into the atmosphere, and there's a significant cost to that.

    As I fly a good deal more than 100 hours a year over all the stuff I fly, I'd rather fly than mend a 2 stroke.

    Here are the figures for a crank that lasts 500 hours every time:

    Stage
    Initial purchase
    250 Hours
    500 hours
    750 hours
    1000 hours
    1250 hours
    1500 hours
    1750 hours
    2000 hours
    Rotax 912
    16,200.00
    19,225.00
    22,250.00
    25,275.00
    28,500.00
    31,525.00
    34,550.00
    37,575.00
    40,800.00
    Rotax 582
    7,500.00
    13,237.50
    20,725.00
    26,462.50
    33,950.00
    39,687.50
    47,175.00
    52,912.50
    60,400.00

    Leave a comment:


  • Lauriehurman
    replied
    Hi Kai
    I agree about the weight advantage of the 582. I've flown P&M's SSDR 582 Quik and it really does benefit from the lower weight of the 582 (versus my own 912 Quik).

    What would I do with the 912 that I wouldn't do with the 582? - Long sea crossing. I wouldn't mind the channel but I'd think twice about going to the Faroe Is.

    Laurie (2)

    P.S. Remember the cruising speed of a Flexwing is dependent on the wing not the engine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Dewhurst
    replied
    Originally posted by Keven Gaffney View Post
    My blue top 582 quantum uses around 15 L/Hr cruising at 65 the 912 i fly with uses around 11 l/hr my crank is on condition so not being changed every 300 hrs . decoke every 150 hrs at the moment
    parts are cheap and all work done by me, the 912 will run you new carb rubbers regularly, if the ignition modules go thats a 1000 quid, cracked exhausts and engine mounts , so i think your 1000 hrs is a tad pessimistic Steve, really the only issue is the range which you get with the 912. also on average in this country most guys log around 100 hrs a year so thats 10 years of flying before the cost become an issue , buy which time most have moved on to a hotter ship. the hand start 582 is so light in roll and lovely responsive trikes to fly. my 2c (zim) worth
    582 parts just as expensive as 912 parts really. Basic servicing costs are greater than 912, and 582's in my experience need odds and ends like the occasional piston, small end bearings and rings and intake rubbers, that balances out against the occasional costs of 912's - we have run around 20000 hours on 912's in company aircraft at Flylight, and have only had to change one set of ignition modules (overhauled at Carmo), two sprag clutches, and generally get 4- 500 hours or so from a carb rubber. We have had no engine failures resulting in outlandings. We have run two engine to double the published TBO. The worse one we have had 'only' went to 1.5 times TBO. The reliability and low cost of ownership has been outstanding really.

    Cranks in 582's mostly need changing at around 6-700hours in my experience, 500hours if you want to be more cautious. That's 1100 plus just in parts and really needs a trained mechanic to do the job - which will cost several hundred quid more. Earlier ones with B boxes need 100 hour gearbox servicing too.

    The other factor is that the cost differential is not lost - its still there when you sell, with used aircraft pretty much retaining the cost differential and being worth 4-5K more than a 582 counterpart. So that money comes back if you sell up and walk away.

    So if you can stretch to the extra initial outlay the 912 will save you money. And whilst you are using it you have more power, range and reliability.

    That said if you are on a budget and cant afford that initial outlay, a 582 machine will work very well and is a hell of a lot better than having no aeroplane!

    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • Ian Garforth
    replied
    On Keven's numbers, and presuming petrol to be 1.18 per litre, then 100 hours in the 582 would be 1950 in fuel (assuming 2T oil at 6 per litre), whereas the 912 would be 1298 on fuel - a saving of 652 per year. So Steve's lower end estimate of 6 years amounts to a saving 3912.

    I appreciate this doesn't take account of servicing costs and repairs.
    Last edited by Ian Garforth; 5th February 2018, 10:31.

    Leave a comment:


  • Keven Gaffney
    replied
    Originally posted by Steve Uzochukwu View Post
    Costs and 582 v 912:

    If you look at total cost of ownership, then somewhere between 600 and 1,000 hours, depending on crank life, the 582 will become more costly to own.

    It's the cost of cranks, the extra fuel burn, and all the oil used.
    My blue top 582 quantum uses around 15 L/Hr cruising at 65 the 912 i fly with uses around 11 l/hr my crank is on condition so not being changed every 300 hrs . decoke every 150 hrs at the moment
    parts are cheap and all work done by me, the 912 will run you new carb rubbers regularly, if the ignition modules go thats a 1000 quid, cracked exhausts and engine mounts , so i think your 1000 hrs is a tad pessimistic Steve, really the only issue is the range which you get with the 912. also on average in this country most guys log around 100 hrs a year so thats 10 years of flying before the cost become an issue , buy which time most have moved on to a hotter ship. the hand start 582 is so light in roll and lovely responsive trikes to fly. my 2c (zim) worth

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve Uzochukwu
    replied
    Costs and 582 v 912:

    If you look at total cost of ownership, then somewhere between 600 and 1,000 hours, depending on crank life, the 582 will become more costly to own.

    It's the cost of cranks, the extra fuel burn, and all the oil used.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ginge Sunley
    replied
    Ahh, the 503 my favourite engine as long as the aircraft isn't too heavy for 50hp. Unfortunatly Rotax stopped production, probably unable to make enough money out of it

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X