Ultralight motors?

Richard Lamb wrote:
No pricing shown on their web page.
And the gearbox info was a little thin.
But that 498 does look like a potential winner.


Their claimed HP/weight ratios are pretty extreme, they
are claiming better than 1 HP /pound for their larger
engines. They also say they are using some fairly
exotic materials.

Perhpas that is why the don't bother listing
prices--If you have to ask, you can't afford one.

Still, it can't hurt to ask...

--

FF

The bad news is that the 498 isn't available in the US. And it's not
available for UL use, and there isn't a PSRU

The good news is that they do have a US distributor

http://www.compactradialengines.com/engines.html

Hmmmm,
I like the 85 HP three cylinder..110 lbs isn't bad. probably more money
than I can afford for it. The little radials are really cool!!!

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
oups.com...
The bad news is that the 498 isn't available in the US. And it's not
available for UL use, and there isn't a PSRU

The good news is that they do have a US distributor

http://www.compactradialengines.com/engines.html

110 pounds for engine dry weight is WAY too heavy, Pat.

Not that it's to heavy for an 85 hp engine (it's not bad at all)

BUT..
FAR103.7 dictates an empty wet (for the entire airplane) as 254 pounds.
So 110 pounds for the engine is completely out of the question.

I've thought about building another Texas Parasol - as light as
possible - with a
Rotax 503 for power - but it's looks like about 300 pounds is the best
I could
expect.

Nice airplane, but I don't think the Friendly Aviation Agency would buy
the idea
that the extra weight is purely a safety feature (a good solid
structure weighs more
than a fiberglass seat bolted to an aluminum tube keel "fuselage"
- but it provides much better pilot protection in case of an accidental
contact with
the ground, etc)

Well, put like that, maybe????


Richard

110 pounds for engine dry weight is WAY too heavy, Pat.

Not that it's to heavy for an 85 hp engine (it's not bad at all)

BUT..
FAR103.7 dictates an empty wet (for the entire airplane) as 254 pounds.
So 110 pounds for the engine is completely out of the question.

I've thought about building another Texas Parasol - as light as
possible - with a
Rotax 503 for power - but it's looks like about 300 pounds is the best
I could
expect.

Nice airplane, but I don't think the Friendly Aviation Agency would buy
the idea
that the extra weight is purely a safety feature (a good solid
structure weighs more
than a fiberglass seat bolted to an aluminum tube keel "fuselage"
- but it provides much better pilot protection in case of an accidental
contact with
the ground, etc)

Well, put like that, maybe????


Richard

http://www.hirth-engines.de/english/

http://www.recpower.com/f23.htm


David



"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm looking for a 35-50 hp 2 stroke suitable for a legal 103.7
ultralight. Anybody here know of a Rotax 477 or 503 - or a suitable
substitute that is not being used by some other fool?


Now I know that "friends don't let friends fly 2 strokes", but with
the (bleepin') catch-22 in the spot pilot rules, that about all that's
left to me.

Richard

Thanks, David.

I'll pass the link to that 3202 to Jim Bede.
Sure looks like what he wanted for the BD-5 ;^)

Richard

dje wrote:
http://www.hirth-engines.de/english/

http://www.recpower.com/f23.htm


David


That opposed 4 is rather impressive if it delivers what it promises, 102
HP and only 92.4 pounds. I hate to ask what one of those costs...

Tony

Yepper!
But what ever it costs, it;s going to be less (a LOT less) than a
Lycoming...


Richard

Richard Lamb wrote:
110 pounds for engine dry weight is WAY too heavy, Pat.

Not that it's to heavy for an 85 hp engine (it's not bad at all)

BUT..
FAR103.7 dictates an empty wet (for the entire airplane) as 254 pounds.
So 110 pounds for the engine is completely out of the question.

I've thought about building another Texas Parasol - as light as
possible - with a
Rotax 503 for power - but it's looks like about 300 pounds is the best
I could
expect.


That sounds odd, I have a set of plans on CD that claim the
Texas Parasol can be built as an ultralight.

;-)



--

FF