# Rotax 582 Alternative Possibility

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### erkki67

##### Well-Known Member
Sorry, not at this time. I have run 2 stroke outboards for thousands of hours and have run 2 stroke snow machines for hundreds of hours all without any failures that were the fault of the engine so I know that a 2 stroke can be reliable and long lived. But we are too busy at the moment. I think our AM10 or AM13/15 gearbox could be made to work well with them.
How would you attach your PSRU's to the Block of a 600 or 850 etec engine?

The 4 bolts on the shaft output flange are only 6mm and the bigger 8mm are stepped behind

pictures found on a french Forum.

#### Marc W

##### Well-Known Member
water cooled?
Yes, the Yamahas are liquid cooled. As Dino says the 4 cylinder Yamahas are larger and they are usually considered to be replacements for the Rotax 912's, etc. I don't know anything about the 2 cylinder Yamaha. I am not sure what has been done about a reduction drive for them.

#### dino

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Those who have experimented with the 2 cylinder Yamaha Phazer have found the power curve so steep that powering a prop through the midrange is a problem.

#### Yellowhammer

##### Well-Known Member
The Yamaha 4 cylinder engines are much more powerful and heavier than the 582. The 2 cylinder 80hp Yamaha Phazer engine is what many think could make a good 582 replacement.
For my particular air frame, It has to be the same weight as the 582 or less.

#### Yellowhammer

##### Well-Known Member
==========================

Well the Pulsar is outside the 540 lb to 660 lb Average!

Pulsar Original model, powered by a 64 hp (48 kW) Rotax 532 two-stroke powerplant and introduced in 1985 by Aero Designs. Pulsar XP (also called the XP912) Improved model, with higher gross weight, powered by an 80 hp (60 kW) Rotax 912UL four-stroke powerplant and introduced in 1992 by Aero Designs. Pulsar Series IIImproved model, powered by a 100 hp (75 kW) Rotax 912ULS four-stroke or 115 hp (86 kW) Rotax 914 turbocharged powerplant and produced by SkyStar Aircraft.Pulsar IIIImproved model, powered by an 80 hp (60 kW) Rotax 912UL four-stroke or 85 hp (63 kW) Jabiru 2200 powerplant, tricycle landing gear or conventional landing gear and produced by Pulsar Aircraft starting in 1989. A total of 500 kits were claimed to have been delivered by 2005. Pulsar SP100Super Pulsar introduced in 2001, powered by an 80 hp (60 kW) Rotax 912UL four-stroke or 120 hp (89 kW) Jabiru 3300 powerplant, Continental or Lycoming engines, produced by Pulsar Aircraft.
Specifications (Pulsar Series II)

General characteristics
• Crew: one
• Capacity: one passenger
• Length: 20 ft 0 in (6.10 m)
• Wingspan: 25 ft 0 in (7.62 m)
• Wing area: 80 sq ft (7.4 m2)
• Airfoil: NASA MS(1)-0313
• Empty weight: 660 lb (299 kg)
• Gross weight: 1,200 lb (544 kg)
• Fuel capacity: 17 U.S. gallons (64 L; 14 imp gal)
• Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 914 four cylinder, air and liquid-cooled, four stroke turbocharged aircraft engine, 115 hp (86 kW)
Performance:
• Maximum speed: 190 mph (310 km/h, 170 kn)
• Cruise speed: 180 mph (290 km/h, 160 kn)
• Stall speed: 49 mph (79 km/h, 43 kn)
• Range: 900 mi (1,400 km, 780 nmi)
• Service ceiling: 17,000 ft (5,200 m)
• Rate of climb: 1,700 ft/min (8.6 m/s)
MTOW 1200 lbs = 544.3108 kg / 10 kg = 54.43108‬ kw needed = 72.99328 (73hp) needed!

With a Good Tuned Pipe at 6500rpm! Some Good Options:
Skidoo 550F = 553cc/7cc = 79hp!
503UL = 496.9cc/7cc = 70.9hp!
-----------------------------------------
532UL = 521cc/7cc = 74.4hp!
582UL = 580cc/7cc = 82.8hp!
618UL = 617cc/7cc = 88.1hp!
Rotax Rick 670 = 669cc/7cc = 95.5hp! He rates his 670's at 93hp@6350rpm!

Most excellent break down of the Pulsar series. I really like how you broke down the hp to mtow. Makes a ton of sense, no pun intended.

#### Yellowhammer

##### Well-Known Member
For my particular air frame, It has to be the same weight as the 582 or less.
Is the Phazer a Four Stroke?

#### Yellowhammer

##### Well-Known Member
The Yamaha 4 cylinder engines are much more powerful and heavier than the 582. The 2 cylinder 80hp Yamaha Phazer engine is what many think could make a good 582 replacement.
I read where the Phazer weighs in at 84 pounds. Very encouraging. I read where a gentleman bought one for $2,200. Right up my ally. Now about that redrive? #### Yellowhammer ##### Well-Known Member I read where the Phazer weighs in at 84 pounds. Very encouraging. I read where a gentleman bought one for$2,200. Right up my ally. Now about that redrive?

Also, 123 pound installed!

#### Marc W

##### Well-Known Member
I just read that Teal Jenkins, the man who builds the redrive for the Yamaha Apex engine, is now developing a redrive for the Phazer engine. No word on when it will be available yet. He said the engine weighs 31 kgs.

#### Armilite

##### Well-Known Member
Is the Phazer a Four Stroke?
============================

It's a Twin 4 Stroke. Some Info on it I found. 123.1 lbs Installed! 582UL is about 115lbs. A 618UL (73.4 hp) is about 4-5 lbs heavier than a 582UL, the Rotax Rick 670 (93hp) is about 9 lbs heavier than the 582UL. You don't have any Weight Restrictions other than your MTOW! The Pulsar was introduced in 2001, powered by an 80 hp (60 kW) Rotax 912UL four-stroke or 120 hp (89 kW) Jabiru 3300 powerplant, Continental or Lycoming engines, produced by Pulsar Aircraft. All of them Engines are way heavier than the 582UL, 618UL, 670! Fan and Free Air 2 Stroke Engines are lighter and cheaper than Liquid Cooled Engines!

I didn't see at what rpm that Phaser makes it's 80hp?

#### Armilite

##### Well-Known Member
I read where the Phazer weighs in at 84 pounds. Very encouraging. I read where a gentleman bought one for $2,200. Right up my ally. Now about that redrive? =========================== Don't be mislead by a cheap Price for an Engine that isn't really used much in the World in any big numbers or have any High Hours of use. You have a lot of R&D Time & $$to get it to work right. Any Motor you take from a different Type of craft like ATV, Snowmobile, Bike, etc., needs to be torn down and Inspected, Upgrades for Engine use Installed. Then you got to FAB an Adapter Plate$$$$, and then buy a Redrive for it, more$$$$, then FAB and Exhaust to fit your Plane, more Timed &$$$$. Before you Blink you will have$6000 to $10,000 Invested and a lot of R&D TIME that you're not out Flying. Even a New 582UL, with Redrive, Exhaust, Water Cooling is around$9000. A Custom made Tuned Pipe Avg $600 can make you 80hp. If you want a 4 Stroke 80+hp, I would find a Good used O-200 (100 hp). 201 ci = 3293.8 cc. Specifications (O-200-A) with a 2000 hr TBO! Data from Engine specifications: O-200-A & B. General characteristics • Type: Four-cylinder air-cooled horizontally opposed piston engine • Bore: 4.06 in (103.1 mm) • Stroke: 3.88 in (98.6 mm) • Displacement: 201 in³ (3.29 L) = 3,293.8cc/100 = 32.9cc to make 1hp! • Length: 28.53 in (724.7 mm) • Width: 31.56 in (801.6 mm) • Height: 23.18 in (588.8 mm) • Dry weight: 170.18 lb (77.19 kg) dry, without accessories Components • Valvetrain: Hydraulic lifters, two pushrod-actuated valves—one intake, one exhaust—per cylinder • Fuel system: Updraft carburetor with manual mixture control • Fuel type: 80/87 avgas minimum • Oil system: 6 US quart (5.7 L), wet sump • Cooling system: Air-cooled Performance There are some Upgrades, Piston CR, CAM, EFI, Turbo, for it. If you look hard enough, you can find a Good used Engine cheap. I saw a Terria II/T-Bird II the other day with a 618UL Electric Start and Floats for$2500 in Mo. on Facebook Market Place.

#### erkki67

##### Well-Known Member
But for most applications which require a 582 the O-200 is way too heavy.
So, just too sad that Rotax didn’t foresee to use the 600 and 850 E-TEC’s to be used as aircraft engines whit their well proven PSRU‘s!

#### TFF

##### Well-Known Member
Or they got smart and did not want product migration without their control. Make it hard to do, keeps product liability down and makes sure the aviation division gets it’s products sold.

#### Armilite

##### Well-Known Member
How would you attach your PSRU's to the Block of a 600 or 850 etec engine?

The 4 bolts on the shaft output flange are only 6mm and the bigger 8mm are stepped behind
View attachment 94682

pictures found on a french Forum.

View attachment 94683
===========================

A Newer 600cc is 594.4 cc, it's not going to make You any more hp than a Similar 580, 582, 583, 582UL, 617, 618UL, or 670. For Plane use, you're going to turn them 6500rpm, they all use 11.5cr.

580cc/7cc = 82.8hp@6500rpm! Provision 8 already!
617cc/7cc = 88.1hp@6500rpm! Provision 8 already!
669cc/7cc = 95.5hp@6500rpm! Provision 8 already!
670 Big Bore (82.5mm x 70mm)748.6cc/7cc = 106.9hp@6500rpm.
------------------------------------------------------------
600 594.4cc/7cc = 84.9hp@6500rpm!
850 849.0cc/7cc = 121.2hp@6500rpm!

1. Use one of the Non-Provision Belt Drives would be the easiest that uses the Motor Mounts Bolts!

2. Make a New Billet Case and Add the Provision 8 Data.

3. Make an L Shaped Adapter Plate, where the long part of the L goes under the Engine and uses the Motor mount Bolts, and the Short part of the L goes up the Face of the Engine that has the Provision 8 Data. This L Bracket was for a Skidoo 800HO.

4. Machine Case so you can Weld on some Metal for Adapter Plate then Machine Plate after Welding. Use the (4) Holes to Bolt on the Metal to be Welded to hold it in place. It will have to be Oversized then Machined once Welded.

5. The Case is Aluminium, you could Slice & Dice & Weld & Machine the Provision 8 Front off a 521, 580, 582, 583, 670 also.

Most Sled Engines have Motor Mounts on the Side also that can be used! Some use a Plate on Top and use Head Bolts.

#### Armilite

##### Well-Known Member
But for most applications which require a 582 the O-200 is way too heavy.
So, just too sad that Rotax didn’t foresee to use the 600 and 850 E-TEC’s to be used as aircraft engines whit their well proven PSRU‘s!
=================================

There are Options out there if you Look and want to spend the Money!

O-200 New $24,000+ 2000 hr TBO, Dry weight: 170.18 lb (77.19 kg) dry, without accessories! Rotax 582UL 65hp 300 hr TBO 115 lbs, New with Gear Drive, Exhaust, Water Cooling,$9000+! With a Good Tuned Pipe $600 Avg, 80hp! A Rotax Rick 670 is probably the best Bang for the Money. 450 hr TBO! The Crank Shop has some Billet Triple and Quad Cases. Crank Shop Engines go up to 1500cc/7cc= 214.8hp. 1019cc/7cc = 145.5hp@6500rpm! #### crusty old aviator ##### Well-Known Member These prices are similar to what 2SI was getting back in the 80's... #### Armilite ##### Well-Known Member These prices are similar to what 2SI was getting back in the 80's... ===================== Using 670 Big Bore parts! A (82.5mm x 70mm) 3 Cylinder 1123.0cc/7cc = 160.4hp! A (82.5mm x 70mm) 4 Cylinder 1497.3cc/7cc = 213.9hp! Tripple Billet Case$2550
Billet Crank $2500 Billet Head$400

Probably $8000 complete. Do you need Billet Parts for 6500rpm, No! I would find a new or good used Triple Case, make your Crank from 670 parts, with a 70mm Stroke, and also use 670 Cylinders Big Bored to 82.5mm. A (82.5mm x 70mm) 3 Cylinder 1123.0cc/7cc = 160.4hp! This Case lends itself to Weld on some Plate Stock that could then be Machined for an Adapter Plate for a Gear Drive. A New Case on eBay is$400. Used avg $200. The Case has a slight Taper around the PTO. 670 Core Cranks Avg$60-\$80.

#### koyama

##### Active Member
===========================

A Newer 600cc is 594.4 cc, it's not going to make You any more hp than a Similar 580, 582, 583, 582UL, 617, 618UL, or 670. For Plane use, you're going to turn them 6500rpm, they all use 11.5cr.

580cc/7cc = 82.8hp@6500rpm! Provision 8 already!
617cc/7cc = 88.1hp@6500rpm! Provision 8 already!
669cc/7cc = 95.5hp@6500rpm! Provision 8 already!
670 Big Bore (82.5mm x 70mm)748.6cc/7cc = 106.9hp@6500rpm.
------------------------------------------------------------
600 594.4cc/7cc = 84.9hp@6500rpm!
850 849.0cc/7cc = 121.2hp@6500rpm!

1. Use one of the Non-Provision Belt Drives would be the easiest that uses the Motor Mounts Bolts!

2. Make a New Billet Case and Add the Provision 8 Data.

3. Make an L Shaped Adapter Plate, where the long part of the L goes under the Engine and uses the Motor mount Bolts, and the Short part of the L goes up the Face of the Engine that has the Provision 8 Data. This L Bracket was for a Skidoo 800HO.

4. Machine Case so you can Weld on some Metal for Adapter Plate then Machine Plate after Welding. Use the (4) Holes to Bolt on the Metal to be Welded to hold it in place. It will have to be Oversized then Machined once Welded.

5. The Case is Aluminium, you could Slice & Dice & Weld & Machine the Provision 8 Front off a 521, 580, 582, 583, 670 also.

Most Sled Engines have Motor Mounts on the Side also that can be used! Some use a Plate on Top and use Head Bolts.

View attachment 94824View attachment 94825View attachment 94826View attachment 94827
You have to be EXTREMELY careful with adapting non aviation versions of Rotax and other engines for aviation use.
When using cog belts, they tend to fail without warning, usually by a bunch of the cogs being ripped off, then it turns into extreme airframe damaging vibration as the engine RPMs jump each time the stripped area passes by, and jerks the whole system as the remaining cogs catch in the few seconds before the belt or the drive is completely destroyed. This is not so bad on small engines, but when you have engines >35 HP, things are likely to dynamically disassemble before you can get the engine switched off.
Avoid using cog belts, use serpentine belts instead, they have a much safer failure mode, but they require more tension which causes other issues, see below.
Most of the bigger Rotax engines (especially jet ski and snow mobile engines) I see people adapting to belt drives have an extremely short life span, usually less than 200 hours and they are often damaged to the point that rebuilding does not make sense. Problems pop up:
1) The bearings on the PTO end just do not take the load of a belt drive, they are too small. If you look at the aviation versions of similar Rotax engines, they either double up the PTO bearings, use a much larger bearing, or both. (However, some of the newer ski engines use the larger bearings, so you have to pick your engine carefully.)
2) Rotax uses plastic ball retainers and loose tolerance main bearings on the aircraft engines, and they often use tighter bearings with metal ball retainers on non-aviation engines. In aviation use, it is common for the metal retainers to get damaged and cause the bearing to fail in a really bad way loading the inside of the engine with metal fragments as it destroys the cases before the crank breaks from the rod bearing failing due to contamination from the failed main bearing. (If you are lucky, the rod bearing just melts and locks up, and you can salvage the cases, but it almost always makes both cylinders, head(s) and pistons into scrap metal, as 2 stroke engines that use a Y exhaust tend to inhale into the other cylinder exhaled parts from the other.)
3) The cases crack. The reason that Rotax does not want the ski or sled engines adapted for aircraft use is the alloy of the cases is different for the aircraft engines. If you put them side by side, they are the same shape, but the metal is different. They use a more expensive alloy (and or heat treating) on the aviation engines, that is more resistant to cracking under the conditions of driving a propeller.
4) The crankshafts break. Most of the aviation crankshafts have a larger diameter shaft between the cylinders, and tend to use larger diameter bearings from end to end. Rotax and third parties produce a damper that can be installed at the MAG end of the engine. This only seems to increase the chances of the non-aviation cranks breaking due to the added mass at the opposite end of the PTO.
5) The aviation versions of the Rotax engines use cageless wrist pin bearings, most of the non-aviation engines use caged bearings. The caged bearings will almost never make the 200 hour mark alive. This one is easy to solve though by swapping to a cageless bearing. Some older Rotax aviation engines were shipped with caged bearings. Rotax issued a service letter years ago to replace them with cageless bearings with good reason. As it turns out, I have seen many Polaris, Yamaha, and Kohler engines that have been converted for aviation use fail at the caged bearings as well, so this problem is not Rotax specific.

#### daveklingler

##### Well-Known Member
===========================

A Newer 600cc is 594.4 cc, it's not going to make You any more hp than a Similar 580, 582, 583, 582UL, 617, 618UL, or 670. For Plane use, you're going to turn them 6500rpm, they all use 11.5cr.
Although I understand your displacement/7cc argument, the 582 is rated for 64 HP. A 600R E-TEC is rated for 125 HP. Part of that is increased RPM, which goes to greater longevity if you're only running them at 6500 RPM, but part of that is much, much better combustion efficiency.

The principal big game changers for two-stroke engines have been direct injection, HVOF ceramic coatings and electronic ignition and injection control, which benefit from big improvements in computer power in the 30 years since the 582 was introduced.

The 600R and 850 E-TEC are purported by snowmobilers to have much better longevity than their predecessors and competitors. If you go out to buy a new Skidoo, they're upgrade options from the stock 4-strokes. (You can buy one off eBay used.)

Other improvements in the overall design over previous generations include the mono-block cylinders, an electronically-controlled three-position exhaust valve, more accurate balancing, integrated electric start, and much higher combustion efficiency. The 600R and 850 E-TEC actually run clean enough to pass California's emissions standards.

So yeah, if you plugged up the injectors and stuck new heads and a carburetor on a 600R, you could downgrade it to only a little better than what a 582 produces, but it would still be more reliable. I hope nobody would try to do that.

Last edited:

#### daveklingler

##### Well-Known Member
I should add that you could go out and get the same ceramic coatings for an older engine if you wanted, and it might be worth doing.

2