One of my close friends built a bushplane around that engine, and enjoyed it immensely. It was quite reliable and effective - but now a bear to support (he did a complete overhaul for second owner a few years ago, but was not a simple affair). BTW: that engine is set up not only for normal aspiration or forced induction, there is (was?) and aerobatic version and one could easily switch from normal propellor control to beta pitch version quickly and cheaply. Quite handy on floats to have reverse thrust!
In-lines started upright and were inverted to improve visibility and aerodynamics, here are two variants of the DH.60 Moth series, one with the early upright engine and one with the later inverted engine. It did make a significant difference in both aspects.
View attachment 97353
View attachment 97352
You mean for instance with poppet valves, gasoline fuel and all of that stuff? Couldn't agree more: far, far better ways to do internal combustion.It is my understanding the inverted cylinder engines were popularly abandoned nearly 100 years ago for good reason...there's a better way to do it.
Musing about starting from scratch to build a motor one would be otherwise well advised to stay away from what we have known for many decades to be a bad idea.
Exactly.I think he's referring to air starters, and running out of high pressure air. With the high thrust line of the blue Moth, it would indeed be a full bother trying to start it.
The need to get their story straight. The spec table says "up to 17 kW (23 HP) at 6500 rpm", but the graph shows a max ("100% TPS") of about 14.6 kw (19.5 HP) at 6500 rpm.Two-cylinder, horizontal opposed, air-cooled, two cycle engine, with fuel saving electronic engine management system and mixture lubrication. Suitable for pusher and tractor installations.www.suter-aviation.ch
Like many, I’m not (psychologically) a Rotax fan; but they’ve stuck with the aviation hobbyist for decades now -- arguably refining the product and moving along as the application moves; usually to heavier, more-complex aircraft. The notion of the better motorcycle engines is appealing to me and power like the R-1 (I liked the Z11 series – Kawasaki) seem attractive, but unless you own a small machine shop and a modicum of skills to match, it isn’t something most of us can safely tackle from an airworthiness standpoint – it is one thing to chuckle through a power-out at 103 speeds, yet another to white-knuckle at LSA speeds and can be a whole lot more breathtaking when the stall speeds approach 60mph or so… and as Jab and UL (etc.) have shown, it is difficult to knock the Rotax cowboy off the saddle… I think about the only engine that has come close is the VW-Beetle in years gone by… but that was from an era when at least one shade-tree wrench in five actually has VW experience – not the case any longer, so while skilled folks may get an R-1, or such, nicely assembled, I don’t see enough interest/abilities/skills/passion to reach critical mass…
I too like the inline engine. I wish I could find an inline 2 or 3 cylinder four stroke about the same weight as the Rotax 582.For the record, my interest in inline engines has absolutely nothing to do with mechanical superiority, just that so many of the great old planes I like had inverted, air-cooled, inline engines and it's pretty much impossible to replicate that look with anything else. Here are a few, I can come up with many, many more.
View attachment 97428View attachment 97423View attachment 97427View attachment 97424View attachment 97426View attachment 97425View attachment 97429View attachment 97430
The 582UL Engine is $5000 today plus you need the Cooling. I have never seen a 582UL used in Direct Drive though. Those Airframe manufactures have the Rotax 582, 192/914, Hirth's, Simonini's, MKZ, etc., to pick from. They also have some of the 4 Strokes to pick from today.