The gross is 1300What is this 1300 lb airplane that flies with a 65 hp Rotax 582?
Anything bigger than the AM10 is going to do bad things to your useful load, unless you can shed a bunch of weight elsewhere.The gross is 1300
The flying weight as of now With the 582 is 1050, mfg GW is 1300.
I will be gaining weight with this new engine, so it will need to be capable of close to max takeoff weight.
sorry I should have been more clear.
Stock injected Lycoming engines can deliver .42 BSFC figures running LOP in cruise, modified ones with higher CR and EFI/EI better than .36. Stock Conti IO-550 around .38. I'll be doing a YT video soon on BSFC comparing legacy SI engines, clean sheet SI aero engines and aero diesel engines.Aeromomentum has good engineering behind it. And one more hint: fuel injected engines are substantially more efficient than engines with carburetors, let alone two-stroke engines. A typical carburetor-equipped Lycoming does .47lb/h/HP at best; a fuel-injected Aeromomentum (Viking 130 and Rotax 912 IS show similar numbers) easily does .38-.39 lb/h/HP. If the idea is a cross country aircraft, that is a huge difference.
Partly that (and Jan's reputation/ history did not end with his Subaru projects). But also, I don't see any advantages of the Viking product over the Aeromonentum product, and I see several significant disadvantages.Just curious, why did no one recommend the viking (aka Honda) engines? Is it due to Jan's reputation with the Subaru engines in the past or??
Please elaborate.Partly that (and Jan's reputation extends beyond his Subaru days). But also, I don't see any advantages of the Viking product over the Aeromonentum product, and I see several significant disadvantages.