"Like." Hmmmm.
When I put my data analyst hat on, I see that the 582, like other two-strokes, has a higher rate of engine failure than traditional engines, as well as higher than new-technology four-stroke aircraft engines like the Rotax 912. This I do not like.
When I put my EAA hat on, I recognize that the power-to-weight ratio provided by two-stroke engines has led to the development of some very good light aircraft. I like that. We wouldn't have the Kitfox, for instance, without two-stroke engines, nor most of the ultralights nor the ULs that have morphed into Light Sport Aircraft. These are also slow, light aircraft that have a better chance for a successful forced landing after an engine failure.
When I put my Fly Baby hat on (I own a ****-load of hats), I feel that the 582 is not suitable; it's TOO light and the CG issues, while not insurmountable, are a lot more problems than putting a 70-year-old Continental on the nose. That I do not like.
Earlier this year, I got asked about putting a 582 in a Fly Baby. Here's part of my response:
"There are guys who successfully and safely operate two-stroke engines, and do so for years. But while they might be expensive to maintain, and PIA to hand-prop, the little Continentals don't seem to be as "delicate." The average Joe seems to be able to keep them running, more than they can the two-stroke engines.
"So if you do it, you REALLY have to pay attention to the engine."

Ron Wanttaja