Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

HKS flight
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:13 am Post subject: HKS flight

I don't have any economic dog in this fight, but let's be fair. The Rotax 503 (at) 49 HP is not the engine to compare the HKS with, the 582 is.With a "C" box and electric start a new 582 from Lockwood is $7951.00. Rotax says it's TBO is 300 hours. I don't know what others get but mine uses 5 gph in cruise (I define cruise as 60% power because I'm cheap).

 An HKS from Hpower is $9,371.70. Add an exhaust ,$750, oil tank and cooler ,$750, various and sundry (oil lines and such) ,$200. That's a total of $11,072. It's rated TBO is 1000 hours. At 60% power mine burns 2.5 gph.

 Lets just take that fuel burn and see where we are when the 582 reaches TBO. 5 X 300 = 1500 X $4.00 (you don't really think the oil companies are going to let the current aberrant prices stand, do you?) = $6000.

 The HKS is half that at $3000. 

That just negated the price difference between the two right there and you haven't paid for your 582 to be overhauled yet. With the HKS you'll be half way through your second set of plugs (at) $80 a set (iridium plugs are pricey), and less than a 1/3 of the way to TBO. Take the 582 to the HKS TBO you've now spent $20,000 for fuel + three overhauls (I had to go to LEAF for this) (at) $3150 = $9,450.

 At 1000 hours the 582 has cost $37,401. 

The HKS fuel cost is $10,000, and the first overhaul, with no crankshaft replacement requirement is about $2000, to be fair let's use the 582 cost (at) $3150.

 At 1000 hours the HKS has cost $24,222. 

That's $13,179 less than the 582. 

 Now there's an apples and apples comparison of engines and the reason my trike has an HKS and not a 582.

 

Rick

 



 On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Richard & Martha Neilsen <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net (NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net)> wrote:

[quote] --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net (NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net)>

 

 Lucien

 

 I didn't realize the HKS got that expensive. The HKS is a fine engine that will give its owners peace of mind that it will not let them down and that is worth some of the extra cost. The problem here is that again there is no competition, We need alternatives.

  

 When fuel prices come back up fuel burn will be a issue again. Most of the 503 powered FSIIs that I fly with burn about 4 gallons and hour and a bit more if they are trying to keep up with my VW powered MKIIIC burning 4 gallons per hour at 74MPH.

  

 I also didn't realize a 503 was $6,000!!!!! I rest my case......

 

 Rick Neilsen

 Redrive VW powered MKIIIC

 

 

 ---

aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:24 am Post subject: HKS flight

Addendum: I forgot to add the cost of radiator, and oil injection to the 582 so add another $1000 to its costs and the differential grows to $14,179. At that point I can throw the HKS in the trash, buy a new one and I'm still money ahead. :-} 



Rick



On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Mnflyer <gbsb2002(at)yahoo.com (gbsb2002(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:

[quote] --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Mnflyer" <gbsb2002(at)yahoo.com (gbsb2002(at)yahoo.com)>

 

 Cooling of the HKS is not a problem as posted the engine cyl are oil cooled, in 300+ hrs I've never had a cooling problem, in fact I can now fly in much hotter temps than I could with the Rotax 582.

 As for cost of the engine yes the HKS is now near $12000.00, the Rotax 912 is now near $20000.00 and the cost of a new 503 is near $7100.00. The cost per hour to operate the HKS is less than 1/2 of what it costs to operate the 582 . Having flown both engine for 300 hrs each I know this from my records and by my records my HKS is now free after 300 hrs of operation VS the 582 considering I would now be looking at another $3000.00 overhaul bill and the increased fuel costs (4.5 gph vs 3 gph), my HKS still has 700 hrs to go till overhaul, and when comparing operating cost one has to go by the manufactures TBO not what someone has gotten out of their engine and Rotax has a 300 hr TBO the HKS has 1000 hrs.

  

 --------

 GB

 MNFlyer

 Flying a HKS Kitfox III

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 

[url=http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 24934#224934]http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 24934#224934[/url]

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



[b]

lucien

Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 721
Location: santa fe, NM

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:48 pm Post subject: Re: HKS flight

 	  NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net wrote: 	
		  Lucien



I didn't realize the HKS got that expensive. The HKS is a fine engine that 

will give its owners peace of mind that it will not let them down and that 

is worth some of the extra cost. The problem here is that again there is no 

competition, We need alternatives.



When fuel prices come back up fuel burn will be a issue again. Most of the 

503 powered FSIIs that I fly with burn about 4 gallons and hour and a bit 

more if they are trying to keep up with my VW powered MKIIIC burning 4 

gallons per hour at 74MPH.



I also didn't realize a 503 was $6,000!!!!! I rest my case......



Rick Neilsen

Redrive VW powered MKIIIC

--- 	




Well, 5500 with a C box, but close enough.....



I dunno, I don't see all these high operational costs of the 2-strokes that most other guys seem to complain about, especially with the 503. I've always just bought em, bolted the boxes on em, installed them on the plane and went flying. 



I've never gotten a 503 to burn 4gph unless it was close to full throttle at all times, like was the case in my original ultralight when climbing to high altitudes. My FSII did 3gph max, cruising around places at 60 to 65mph. 



I've been flying the 503 (and a couple 447's) for almost a decade until I got my 912 and I just havn't seen all this expense and trouble. So I'm a little confused......



This isn't to knock the HKS, but it just doesn't seem like it's zounds better than it's competitors. I've already talked about the 503 and the 912 80 horse is only about 5 large away from the 10 large of the HKS. That puts you in a different class of plane you can fly too, such as the kolbra or the mark III (not that the FS isn't a bad plane of course)......



Anyway, just thinking out loud here and don't mean to stir up anything....



LS

_________________
LS
Titan II SS

HShack(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:11 pm Post subject: HKS flight

Only about a year ago the whole thing was just under $10k.

  

 Howard  Shackleford

FS II

SC   

  In a message dated 1/15/2009 10:53:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  fs2kolb(at)aol.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Close    to 12 grand to install an HKS on a FireStar II when you add the exhaust,    oil tank, oil cooler, mounting hardware and every thing  else. 

	






A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above.  See yours in just 2 easy steps!

  [quote][b]

lucien

Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 721
Location: santa fe, NM

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:00 pm Post subject: Re: HKS flight

 	  HShack(at)aol.com wrote: 	
		  Only about a year ago the whole thing was just under $10k.

	




Well didn't mean to stir up any broohaha on this, I know the guys who run the HKS love em and it does appear to be a really good engine out in the field. 

Even I'm a 912 driver these days and hope the sucker stays together for a long while.



I'm sure a lot of the increase over the last year is the falling USD. It's fallen against pretty much everything including the JPY, so that's just the cost of doing business.



LS

_________________
LS
Titan II SS

lcottrell

Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 1494
Location: Jordan Valley, Or

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: HKS flight

Pat Ladd wrote

  

 nice pics but I notice that you had nearly 5000 on  the altimeter. I assume that is not AGL. Is it usual to use that setting.?  

  

 That was the altitude above Sea Level  that I was flying, here when ever you go into an airport they give you on the  ATIS channel the altimeter setting - 30.1 - whatever it may be and that sets  your altimeter to the correct altitude. Since most of the areas rarely have the  same barometric pressure just setting it to 0 when you are on the ground would  quite likely not be the correct altitude for entering the traffic  pattern.

  

 Rick Girard wrote-

 Larry, From HKS Operation Manual, page 10:  

 3.8 Cylinder head temperature

 Max. permissible cylinder head temperature

 (Measured on the hottest cylinder): 170 Deg. C (338 Deg. F)

 



 Rick Girard wrote-

  

 Some how or the other I managed to lose my  manual ( I have since found it on the internet and printed up a new copy) I went  on line and found a site with "specs" and it said that the max temps were 446.  Might have been a typo. Thanks for the correction.

  

 "Thom Riddle" wrote

Larry,

Couple of questions:

How far away is  your nearest neighbor? 

What are the 5.0 and 5 (integer) on your EIS  measuring? I know the others... I think.

  

 Nearest neighbor is three miles away, after  that the distance really gets up there.  The middle figures 5.0 is my #1 aux  and that tells me that I have a full five gallons of fuel in which ever tank I  am drawing out of. I have two 5 gal tanks and control which be a valve. The  other one (lower) is #2 aux, and I do not use it. 5 is the default.

  

 Rick Neilsen wrote-

  Most of the 503 powered FSIIs that I fly with burn about 4 gallons  and hour 

  

 My 503 always burned 4 gph no matter what  throttle setting I used. I have never understood why, it just did.

  

 Someone mentioned that the price for the HKS  was almost the cost of an entire new plane. That may be true, I know that I  could have bought probably a couple of 150's for the money that I have invested  in the Firestar, but then I really like this plane more than I would one of  those or any other plane that I could think of. Including a Mark III or even a  Kolbra. The sucker suits me and my area better than anything else I could get. I  also penciled the cost out and figured that I would be money way ahead if I can  get the bugs worked out. It should last me without having to rebuild until I am  most likely not safe to fly any more. I don't know about the rest of you, but I  had trouble justifying my flights when the gas was up so high. I believe that I  can assure you that with the recent elections, and the ruling party in power,  that there is going to be little done to ease the fuel shortage any time  soon.

  

 I did not have any problems with the 503  that I had. I never worried about dropping 700 feet down into any of these  canyons on the Owyhee. What did give me fits was that my range was so short  without throwing in another 5 gallon tank in the back. That it cut into my  camping gear and therefore my comfort entirely too much. Not to mention that it  is 120 miles to decent gas, and the 4 gph cut into the number of trips that I  could take before I had to go get more gas.

  

 I synchronized my carbs today, and I want to  thank whoever that clever person was who mentioned that you could do it with  bing tubing. I put a bit of Marvel Mystery Oil in the tubing to act as level and  managed to get them set. I didn't get to go to as high throttle setting as I  would have liked since I was working alone and standing on a ladder in front of  the wing to do it, but it is a hell of a lot closer than it was. I was hoping  that it would reduce the CHT heat, but that was just wishful thinking. After I  finished I rolled it out and took off to see if there would be any difference.  It was smoother but not cooler. The OAT was 49, I too am wondering what its  going to be like at 95 degrees this summer. I was surprised to find that the  engine did not go as high on the RPM's today as it did before I worked on the  carbs. Could it just be the difference in atmosphere or what? Ideas  welcomed.

  

 The plane flies hands off with no climb at  5300 but the CHT was 328 degrees while the oil temps were less than 170. Not  sure what to think. I know the engine is tight and needs to be broken in, but is  it that tight?

  

 Larry C,  Oregon

   [quote][b]

_________________
do not archive

ElleryWeld(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:22 pm Post subject: HKS flight

When you get ready to throw your HKS in the trash can  use mine will yea 

  

 Ellery in Fridgid Maine

 do not archive

  

  In a message dated 1/15/2009 1:25:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Addendum: I forgot to add the cost of radiator, and oil injection to    the 582 so add another $1000 to its costs and the differential grows to    $14,179. At that point I can throw the HKS in the trash, buy a new one and I'm    still money ahead. :-}    



   Rick



   On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Mnflyer <gbsb2002(at)yahoo.com (gbsb2002(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:

    	  Quote: 	
		  -->      Kolb-List message posted by: "Mnflyer" <gbsb2002(at)yahoo.com (gbsb2002(at)yahoo.com)>



Cooling      of the HKS is not a problem as posted the engine cyl are oil cooled, in 300+      hrs I've never had a cooling problem, in fact I can now fly in much hotter      temps than I could with the Rotax 582.

As for cost of the engine yes the      HKS is now near $12000.00, the Rotax 912 is now near $20000.00 and the cost      of a new 503 is near $7100.00. The cost per hour to operate the HKS is less      than 1/2 of what it costs to operate the 582 . Having flown both engine for      300 hrs each I know this from my records and by my records my HKS is now      free after 300 hrs of operation VS the 582 considering I would now be      looking at another $3000.00 overhaul bill and the increased fuel costs (4.5      gph vs 3 gph), my HKS still has 700 hrs to go till overhaul, and when      comparing operating cost one has to go by the manufactures TBO not what      someone has gotten out of their engine and Rotax has a 300 hr TBO the HKS      has 1000 hrs.



--------

GB

MNFlyer

Flying a HKS Kitfox  III

     



Read this topic online      here:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224934#224934

          

     







="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List

.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	
	




A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above.  See yours in just 2 easy steps!

  [quote][b]

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:40 pm Post subject: HKS flight

That was the altitude above Sea Level that I was  flying>>

  

 Hi,

  

 Thanks, I assumed that must be the case. Here the  country is divided into 3 Areas with their own barometric pressure and that is  applicable above 3000 feet.  This means that everyone on a X country can  set 3500 confident that you dont run into someone who is on a different  setting.

 Airfields which are manned will give landing  instructions including pressure when asked. Larger ones broadcast  ATIS.

 Most microlighters fly from farmers to farmers  field and you must rely on heights given on your chart and adjust your pressure  to fit.

  

 Thanks

  

 Pat

   [quote][b]

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:00 pm Post subject: HKS flight

Patrick:

  

 Over here, USA, our sectional charts are based on  elevation above sea level.

  

 Common practice to set field elevation before  takeoff, updating during flight when altimeter settings are  available.

  

 Only time I ever fly from a field with zero set in  the altimeter is at Oshkosh and Lakeland.  For some reason the powers to be  (the guys wearing the orange vest) decided we could better keep up with our  altitude above ground that way, since we fly in a very tight box with other  traffic patterns right on top of us.

  

 At home field and everywhere else, I set field  elevation.

  

 john h

 mkIII

  

  

  	  Quote: 	
		      rent    setting.

   Airfields which are manned will give landing    instructions including pressure when asked. Larger ones broadcast    ATIS.

   Most microlighters fly from farmers to farmers    field and you must rely on heights given on your chart and adjust your    pressure to fit.

    

   Pat

 	  Quote:

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:42 pm Post subject: HKS flight

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED  

 

  

R.Neilsen wrote: << There are a number of good engines out there as Rotax alternatives.   

... Tell us about your Non-Rotax engines on your Kolb. >>  

   

   

Avoid the Verner.  

   

Dennis Kirby  

Mark-III, 912ul (formerly Verner-1400 powered)  

Cedar Crest, NM   

      

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED   

 

  [quote][b]

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:17 am Post subject: HKS flight

Over here, USA, our sectional charts are based on  elevation above sea level.>>

  

 Hi John,

 thanks. Here  in this little counry it is a  bit simpler. Flying charts are available in quarter million and half million and  8  quarter mil or 3 half mil charts cover the  whole country. Heights  are shown above sea level but of course only for `proper` airfields

 Obviously pressure changes across the country but  usually one decent sized High or one Low covers the UK.and 3 Regiional Pressure  areas  are enough. There are a couple of publications which give  details of airfields. Height, runway details, fuel available etc and one  publication which covers farm strips. These are usually Prior Permission only  which means you ring up before you leave to make sure that there are no sheep  wandering around the airfield and that the strip has been cut.

  

 Cheers

  

 Pat

   [quote][b]

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:00 pm Post subject: HKS flight

At 07:15 AM 1/17/2009, pj.ladd wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Over here, USA, our sectional charts are based on elevation above sea level.>>

  

 Hi John,

 thanks. Here  in this little counry it is a bit simpler. Flying charts are available in quarter million and half million and 8  quarter mil or 3 half mil charts cover the  whole country. Heights are shown above sea level but of course only for `proper` airfields 	


 But you still need to set your altimeter to sea level in order to enter the traffic pattern at the correct altitude at any destination airport other than where you took off from, no?



 I don't think your charts are all that different from ours.  Ours show some private airfields, if the owner wishes it to be charted.  Some are truly prior permission required; others are "private" for liability reasons but visitors are welcome.



 -Dana

 --

  A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. --Thomas Jefferson    [quote][b]

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:13 am Post subject: HKS flight

But you still need to set your altimeter to sea  level in order to enter the 

traffic pattern at the correct altitude at any  destination airport other 

than where you took off from,  no?>>

  

 Regional pressure (QNH) we would ordinarily set for  x-country. All being equal if you didnt change that and you landed at a field  shown as 447ft on your chart you would have 447ft on your  altimeter.

  

 Usually  an airfield will give you the local  pressure (QFE) along with landing instructions. When you have landed your  altimeter will show zero.

  

 The reason here for having `private` fields or PPR  is usually not for reasons of liability, which don`t feature as so important  here as they do for you. They are usually PPR so that landing instructions can  be given, `avoid flying over the village` `keep east of the railway line`   `watch for electricity pylons on the approach`. That sort of thing. Sometimes it  is because the local Council when giving permission for the field to be used for  flying have imposed a limit to the number of landings and take offs per  year.

  

 Cheers

  

 Pat

 



   [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum