To the group.
Would appreciate your comments.
I always plan way ahead of my self when it comes time to drop this kind of money for an engine. I got it right when I did my research on my first airplane purchase. I bought my JT2 without even hearing it run or seeing it fly. I just knew what it was and its reputation.
As a new pilot I have now just completed 100 solo hours on my JT2 in a little over a year. If I had a pile of money to buy the next plane I would have to buy the plane from myself. There are no other planes that I would rather have. I plan to do long cross country flights and the Rotax 503, as good as it is doesn't exactly make me all that confident. (and its a gas guzzler) I have always liked the Rotax 912 idea but it seems to heavy and complex. The HKS is more appealing and easier on gas. Seeing Mark has something like 6000 hrs plus flying them and recommends them,they must be good. But that HKS Turbo seems like a better idea to me. (I only want to do this once and not want to work up to a turbo later).
The problem for me is that my heart is sold on the turbo version but my head hasn't caught up. I need more owner reports, bug reports if there are any. I just found a very useful review at the following site. I thought some of you would be interested.
http://www.greenskyadventures.com/Engin ... S/700T-vs-
912Rotax.html
It seems the HKS Turbo is going for about $16,500.00
The Aerolux 3 blade prop is about $1,200.00
So for about $18,000.00 plus whatever the mount from Mark would be, would get you a great setup.
Have I left anything out?
Fred
HKS Turbo engine
-
dickoreilly
Re: HKS Turbo engine
Fred,
First of all, congratulations on doing 100 hours in your JT2.
As for the HKS turbo, I think you're a little low on the cost. The base price of
the normally-aspirated HKS is about $10,000 and the turbo is $6,500 more.
When I talked with Mark earlier this year about replacing my 503 with an HKS,
the total was going to be more than $14,000 (with sales tax) if I did the work
and about $2500 more to have Mark do it. So I think you're really looking at
$20,000 or more for a turbo.
I don't remember if you were at the HKS seminar that Mark participated in at
Oshkosh, but the focus was the turbo and at the time my recollection was that
there were only about 18 turbos in the US. That kind of puts all those owners in
the product testing category.
Also you're not going to see much performance advantage until you're flying
high, like above 7500. Is that really where you're going to be flying? Will you
be flying over terrain that forces you to fly that high? Maybe from your place
direct to Kess's over the Montana Rockies.
If it was my money, I'd stick with the standard, well-proven normally-aspirated
HKS.
Of course when it come to my JT2 it is my money and there's not enough for any
HKS, so let me tell you what I'm doing to get a little more oomph and economy
out of my 503. I'm installing the HACman kit from GreenSky Adventures, the same
kit it includes with the HKS engines it sells.
Check out this link for a great article GreenSky's Jerry Olenik wrote some years
ago when he originally developed the HACman kit for Rotax 2-strokes.
http://www.greenskyadventures.com/bing/ ... rticle.htm
He references the old Rotax HAC system, which my plane has. I'm replacing it
with the HACman because I don't think my Rotax HAC system is working properly,
but there's really no reliable way to determine that. Even if it is working, it
can't lean the mixture as accurately as the HACman system. The HAC system also
is a mess of tubes at the carbs. The HACman kit is a little less cluttered,
although it still involves more tubes at the carbs than the standard fuel and
primer lines.
When I flew Pipers in my GA piloting days, leaning the mixture was an
every-flight experience. It's a little different with a 2-stroke because it
would probably sieze the engine by leaning until it ran rough and backing off,
like you do with a Lycoming. But now that I have an EIS installed, I think I'll
easily be able to lean to 1100-1150 degrees, picking up a few horsepower and
better economy at the same time.
Mark told me awhile back that he flew his 503 engine to 1100+ hours without an
overhaul and then sold it to someone who installed it in another plane and it
was still flying without overhaul. His recommendation for long life with the 503
is running it at 6000 rpm and 1150 degrees.
My engine has 69 hours since professional overhaul with new crank. I think I can
live with two-hour maximum flight legs, even in the desert southwest where
airports with fuel can be scarce.
I'd love to have an HKS. But then I'd have a $30,000 airplane instead of a
$15,000 airplane. If the FAA decides to add Cherokee 140s and Cessna 150s and
172s to the driver's license medical standard as EAA and AOPA have petitioned, I
might rather have a $30,000 Cessna 172 for cross country flying.
Then again, do I really want to make long cross country flights with all the
weather issues they present? Right now I'm really having fun going nowhere in my
JT2.
Dick O'Reilly
First of all, congratulations on doing 100 hours in your JT2.
As for the HKS turbo, I think you're a little low on the cost. The base price of
the normally-aspirated HKS is about $10,000 and the turbo is $6,500 more.
When I talked with Mark earlier this year about replacing my 503 with an HKS,
the total was going to be more than $14,000 (with sales tax) if I did the work
and about $2500 more to have Mark do it. So I think you're really looking at
$20,000 or more for a turbo.
I don't remember if you were at the HKS seminar that Mark participated in at
Oshkosh, but the focus was the turbo and at the time my recollection was that
there were only about 18 turbos in the US. That kind of puts all those owners in
the product testing category.
Also you're not going to see much performance advantage until you're flying
high, like above 7500. Is that really where you're going to be flying? Will you
be flying over terrain that forces you to fly that high? Maybe from your place
direct to Kess's over the Montana Rockies.
If it was my money, I'd stick with the standard, well-proven normally-aspirated
HKS.
Of course when it come to my JT2 it is my money and there's not enough for any
HKS, so let me tell you what I'm doing to get a little more oomph and economy
out of my 503. I'm installing the HACman kit from GreenSky Adventures, the same
kit it includes with the HKS engines it sells.
Check out this link for a great article GreenSky's Jerry Olenik wrote some years
ago when he originally developed the HACman kit for Rotax 2-strokes.
http://www.greenskyadventures.com/bing/ ... rticle.htm
He references the old Rotax HAC system, which my plane has. I'm replacing it
with the HACman because I don't think my Rotax HAC system is working properly,
but there's really no reliable way to determine that. Even if it is working, it
can't lean the mixture as accurately as the HACman system. The HAC system also
is a mess of tubes at the carbs. The HACman kit is a little less cluttered,
although it still involves more tubes at the carbs than the standard fuel and
primer lines.
When I flew Pipers in my GA piloting days, leaning the mixture was an
every-flight experience. It's a little different with a 2-stroke because it
would probably sieze the engine by leaning until it ran rough and backing off,
like you do with a Lycoming. But now that I have an EIS installed, I think I'll
easily be able to lean to 1100-1150 degrees, picking up a few horsepower and
better economy at the same time.
Mark told me awhile back that he flew his 503 engine to 1100+ hours without an
overhaul and then sold it to someone who installed it in another plane and it
was still flying without overhaul. His recommendation for long life with the 503
is running it at 6000 rpm and 1150 degrees.
My engine has 69 hours since professional overhaul with new crank. I think I can
live with two-hour maximum flight legs, even in the desert southwest where
airports with fuel can be scarce.
I'd love to have an HKS. But then I'd have a $30,000 airplane instead of a
$15,000 airplane. If the FAA decides to add Cherokee 140s and Cessna 150s and
172s to the driver's license medical standard as EAA and AOPA have petitioned, I
might rather have a $30,000 Cessna 172 for cross country flying.
Then again, do I really want to make long cross country flights with all the
weather issues they present? Right now I'm really having fun going nowhere in my
JT2.
Dick O'Reilly
-
fgayford
Re: HKS Turbo engine
The 80hp and near same fuel consumption as the 60 hp is the big draw for me. Also I really like the idea of getting away from carbs and going fuel injected. None of those jetting issues. Let the computer deal with it.
Fred
Fred
-
sadowin
Re: HKS Turbo engine
My understanding is that 4 strokes are better than 2 when it comes to carb jetting issues.
The Hks turbo weighs about the same as the Jabiru 2200 according to the numbers I seen. The Jab has been around for a long time and is quite dependable.
Mike
The Hks turbo weighs about the same as the Jabiru 2200 according to the numbers I seen. The Jab has been around for a long time and is quite dependable.
Mike
-
earthstaraircraft
Re: HKS Turbo engine
Hi Mike
I have experience with both the Jabiru and the HKS 700T,Because the Jabiru
has no gear box it can not realize its full potential in our airplanes.Take
off and climb performance was the same as a 503. the HKS on the other hand
will give the equal performance on 60 hp that the Jabiru needs 80 to
provide du to not having the proper gear ratio for the longer props needed for
efficiency and power. The HKS is orders of magnitude more reliable than the
jabiru.
I would use the Jabiru if HKS stopped making engines and Rotax stoped
making the 503. Rotax has stopped the 503. but it looks like electric power is
the current development to power our airplanes.
Bit for those old school pilots the best engine is the HKS. it is the most
efficient aircraft engine produced.
Happy Flying
Mark
In a message dated 11/17/2011 4:49:43 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
sadowin@yahoo.ca writes:
My understanding is that 4 strokes are better than 2 when it comes to carb
jetting issues.
The Hks turbo weighs about the same as the Jabiru 2200 according to the
numbers I seen. The Jab has been around for a long time and is quite
dependable.
Mike
--- In _Earthstar_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:Earthstar_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com) , "Fred" <gayford@...> wrote:
>
> The 80hp and near same fuel consumption as the 60 hp is the big draw for
me. Also I really like the idea of getting away from carbs and going fuel
injected. None of those jetting issues. Let the computer deal with it.
> Fred
>
> --- In _Earthstar_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:Earthstar_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com) , Richard OReilly <dickoreilly@> wrote:
> >
> > Fred,
> >
> > First of all, congratulations on doing 100 hours in your JT2.
> >
> > As for the HKS turbo, I think you're a little low on the cost. The
base price of
> > the normally-aspirated HKS is about $10,000 and the turbo is $6,500
more.
> >
> > When I talked with Mark earlier this year about replacing my 503 with
an HKS,
> > the total was going to be more than $14,000 (with sales tax) if I did
the work
> > and about $2500 more to have Mark do it. So I think you're really
looking at
> > $20,000 or more for a turbo.
> >
> > I don't remember if you were at the HKS seminar that Mark participated
in at
> > Oshkosh, but the focus was the turbo and at the time my recollection
was that
> > there were only about 18 turbos in the US. That kind of puts all those
owners in
> > the product testing category.
> >
> > Also you're not going to see much performance advantage until you're
flying
> > high, like above 7500. Is that really where you're going to be flying?
Will you
> > be flying over terrain that forces you to fly that high? Maybe from
your place
> > direct to Kess's over the Montana Rockies.
> >
> > If it was my money, I'd stick with the standard, well-proven
normally-aspirated
> > HKS.
> >
> > Of course when it come to my JT2 it is my money and there's not enough
for any
> > HKS, so let me tell you what I'm doing to get a little more oomph and
economy
> > out of my 503. I'm installing the HACman kit from GreenSky
Adventures, the same
> > kit it includes with the HKS engines it sells.
> >
> > Check out this link for a great article GreenSky's Jerry Olenik wrote
some years
> > ago when he originally developed the HACman kit for Rotax 2-strokes.
> >
> > _http://www.greenskyadventures.com/bing/HACman_Article.htm_
(http://www.greenskyadventures.com/bing/ ... rticle.htm)
> >
> > He references the old Rotax HAC system, which my plane has. I'm
replacing it
> > with the HACman because I don't think my Rotax HAC system is working
properly,
> > but there's really no reliable way to determine that. Even if it is
working, it
> > can't lean the mixture as accurately as the HACman system. The HAC
system also
> > is a mess of tubes at the carbs. The HACman kit is a little less
cluttered,
> > although it still involves more tubes at the carbs than the standard
fuel and
> > primer lines.
> >
> > When I flew Pipers in my GA piloting days, leaning the mixture was an
> > every-flight experience. It's a little different with a 2-stroke
because it
> > would probably sieze the engine by leaning until it ran rough and
backing off,
> > like you do with a Lycoming. But now that I have an EIS installed, I
think I'll
> > easily be able to lean to 1100-1150 degrees, picking up a few
horsepower and
> > better economy at the same time.
> >
> > Mark told me awhile back that he flew his 503 engine to 1100+ hours
without an
> > overhaul and then sold it to someone who installed it in another plane
and it
> > was still flying without overhaul. His recommendation for long life
with the 503
> > is running it at 6000 rpm and 1150 degrees.
> >
> > My engine has 69 hours since professional overhaul with new crank. I
think I can
> > live with two-hour maximum flight legs, even in the desert southwest
where
> > airports with fuel can be scarce.
> >
> > I'd love to have an HKS. But then I'd have a $30,000 airplane instead
of a
> > $15,000 airplane. If the FAA decides to add Cherokee 140s and Cessna
150s and
> > 172s to the driver's license medical standard as EAA and AOPA have
petitioned, I
> > might rather have a $30,000 Cessna 172 for cross country flying.
> >
> > Then again, do I really want to make long cross country flights with
all the
> > weather issues they present? Right now I'm really having fun going
nowhere in my
> > JT2.
> > Dick O'Reilly
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Fred <gayford@>
> > To: _Earthstar_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:Earthstar_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com)
> > Sent: Wed, November 16, 2011 9:33:32 AM
> > Subject: [Earthstar_Aircraft] HKS Turbo engine
> >
> > Â
> > To the group.
> > Would appreciate your comments.
> > I always plan way ahead of my self when it comes time to drop this
kind of money
> > for an engine. I got it right when I did my research on my first
airplane
> > purchase. I bought my JT2 without even hearing it run or seeing it
fly. I just
> > knew what it was and its reputation.
> > As a new pilot I have now just completed 100 solo hours on my JT2 in a
little
> > over a year. If I had a pile of money to buy the next plane I would
have to buy
> > the plane from myself. There are no other planes that I would rather
have. I
> > plan to do long cross country flights and the Rotax 503, as good as it
is
> > doesn't exactly make me all that confident. (and its a gas guzzler) I
have
> > always liked the Rotax 912 idea but it seems to heavy and complex. The
HKS is
> > more appealing and easier on gas. Seeing Mark has something like 6000
hrs plus
> > flying them and recommends them,they must be good. But that HKS Turbo
seems like
> > a better idea to me. (I only want to do this once and not want to work
up to a
> > turbo later).
> > The problem for me is that my heart is sold on the turbo version but
my head
> > hasn't caught up. I need more owner reports, bug reports if there are
any. I
> > just found a very useful review at the following site. I thought some
of you
> > would be interested.
> >
> > _http://www.greenskyadventures.com/EnginePricing/HKS/700T-vs-_
(http://www.greenskyadventures.com/Engin ... S/700T-vs-)
> > 912Rotax.html
> >
> > It seems the HKS Turbo is going for about $16,500.00
> > The Aerolux 3 blade prop is about $1,200.00
> > So for about $18,000.00 plus whatever the mount from Mark would be,
would get
> > you a great setup.
> > Have I left anything out?
> > Fred
> >
>
I have experience with both the Jabiru and the HKS 700T,Because the Jabiru
has no gear box it can not realize its full potential in our airplanes.Take
off and climb performance was the same as a 503. the HKS on the other hand
will give the equal performance on 60 hp that the Jabiru needs 80 to
provide du to not having the proper gear ratio for the longer props needed for
efficiency and power. The HKS is orders of magnitude more reliable than the
jabiru.
I would use the Jabiru if HKS stopped making engines and Rotax stoped
making the 503. Rotax has stopped the 503. but it looks like electric power is
the current development to power our airplanes.
Bit for those old school pilots the best engine is the HKS. it is the most
efficient aircraft engine produced.
Happy Flying
Mark
In a message dated 11/17/2011 4:49:43 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
sadowin@yahoo.ca writes:
My understanding is that 4 strokes are better than 2 when it comes to carb
jetting issues.
The Hks turbo weighs about the same as the Jabiru 2200 according to the
numbers I seen. The Jab has been around for a long time and is quite
dependable.
Mike
--- In _Earthstar_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:Earthstar_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com) , "Fred" <gayford@...> wrote:
>
> The 80hp and near same fuel consumption as the 60 hp is the big draw for
me. Also I really like the idea of getting away from carbs and going fuel
injected. None of those jetting issues. Let the computer deal with it.
> Fred
>
> --- In _Earthstar_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:Earthstar_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com) , Richard OReilly <dickoreilly@> wrote:
> >
> > Fred,
> >
> > First of all, congratulations on doing 100 hours in your JT2.
> >
> > As for the HKS turbo, I think you're a little low on the cost. The
base price of
> > the normally-aspirated HKS is about $10,000 and the turbo is $6,500
more.
> >
> > When I talked with Mark earlier this year about replacing my 503 with
an HKS,
> > the total was going to be more than $14,000 (with sales tax) if I did
the work
> > and about $2500 more to have Mark do it. So I think you're really
looking at
> > $20,000 or more for a turbo.
> >
> > I don't remember if you were at the HKS seminar that Mark participated
in at
> > Oshkosh, but the focus was the turbo and at the time my recollection
was that
> > there were only about 18 turbos in the US. That kind of puts all those
owners in
> > the product testing category.
> >
> > Also you're not going to see much performance advantage until you're
flying
> > high, like above 7500. Is that really where you're going to be flying?
Will you
> > be flying over terrain that forces you to fly that high? Maybe from
your place
> > direct to Kess's over the Montana Rockies.
> >
> > If it was my money, I'd stick with the standard, well-proven
normally-aspirated
> > HKS.
> >
> > Of course when it come to my JT2 it is my money and there's not enough
for any
> > HKS, so let me tell you what I'm doing to get a little more oomph and
economy
> > out of my 503. I'm installing the HACman kit from GreenSky
Adventures, the same
> > kit it includes with the HKS engines it sells.
> >
> > Check out this link for a great article GreenSky's Jerry Olenik wrote
some years
> > ago when he originally developed the HACman kit for Rotax 2-strokes.
> >
> > _http://www.greenskyadventures.com/bing/HACman_Article.htm_
(http://www.greenskyadventures.com/bing/ ... rticle.htm)
> >
> > He references the old Rotax HAC system, which my plane has. I'm
replacing it
> > with the HACman because I don't think my Rotax HAC system is working
properly,
> > but there's really no reliable way to determine that. Even if it is
working, it
> > can't lean the mixture as accurately as the HACman system. The HAC
system also
> > is a mess of tubes at the carbs. The HACman kit is a little less
cluttered,
> > although it still involves more tubes at the carbs than the standard
fuel and
> > primer lines.
> >
> > When I flew Pipers in my GA piloting days, leaning the mixture was an
> > every-flight experience. It's a little different with a 2-stroke
because it
> > would probably sieze the engine by leaning until it ran rough and
backing off,
> > like you do with a Lycoming. But now that I have an EIS installed, I
think I'll
> > easily be able to lean to 1100-1150 degrees, picking up a few
horsepower and
> > better economy at the same time.
> >
> > Mark told me awhile back that he flew his 503 engine to 1100+ hours
without an
> > overhaul and then sold it to someone who installed it in another plane
and it
> > was still flying without overhaul. His recommendation for long life
with the 503
> > is running it at 6000 rpm and 1150 degrees.
> >
> > My engine has 69 hours since professional overhaul with new crank. I
think I can
> > live with two-hour maximum flight legs, even in the desert southwest
where
> > airports with fuel can be scarce.
> >
> > I'd love to have an HKS. But then I'd have a $30,000 airplane instead
of a
> > $15,000 airplane. If the FAA decides to add Cherokee 140s and Cessna
150s and
> > 172s to the driver's license medical standard as EAA and AOPA have
petitioned, I
> > might rather have a $30,000 Cessna 172 for cross country flying.
> >
> > Then again, do I really want to make long cross country flights with
all the
> > weather issues they present? Right now I'm really having fun going
nowhere in my
> > JT2.
> > Dick O'Reilly
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Fred <gayford@>
> > To: _Earthstar_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:Earthstar_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com)
> > Sent: Wed, November 16, 2011 9:33:32 AM
> > Subject: [Earthstar_Aircraft] HKS Turbo engine
> >
> > Â
> > To the group.
> > Would appreciate your comments.
> > I always plan way ahead of my self when it comes time to drop this
kind of money
> > for an engine. I got it right when I did my research on my first
airplane
> > purchase. I bought my JT2 without even hearing it run or seeing it
fly. I just
> > knew what it was and its reputation.
> > As a new pilot I have now just completed 100 solo hours on my JT2 in a
little
> > over a year. If I had a pile of money to buy the next plane I would
have to buy
> > the plane from myself. There are no other planes that I would rather
have. I
> > plan to do long cross country flights and the Rotax 503, as good as it
is
> > doesn't exactly make me all that confident. (and its a gas guzzler) I
have
> > always liked the Rotax 912 idea but it seems to heavy and complex. The
HKS is
> > more appealing and easier on gas. Seeing Mark has something like 6000
hrs plus
> > flying them and recommends them,they must be good. But that HKS Turbo
seems like
> > a better idea to me. (I only want to do this once and not want to work
up to a
> > turbo later).
> > The problem for me is that my heart is sold on the turbo version but
my head
> > hasn't caught up. I need more owner reports, bug reports if there are
any. I
> > just found a very useful review at the following site. I thought some
of you
> > would be interested.
> >
> > _http://www.greenskyadventures.com/EnginePricing/HKS/700T-vs-_
(http://www.greenskyadventures.com/Engin ... S/700T-vs-)
> > 912Rotax.html
> >
> > It seems the HKS Turbo is going for about $16,500.00
> > The Aerolux 3 blade prop is about $1,200.00
> > So for about $18,000.00 plus whatever the mount from Mark would be,
would get
> > you a great setup.
> > Have I left anything out?
> > Fred
> >
>
-
jaimesadasalinas
Re: HKS Turbo engine
Mike:
Perhaps we are comparing Apples vs Oranges
Isn´t the Jabiru a normally aspirated engine ?
No. There is absolutely no sense in a turbo engine if you are going to fly
near sea level and cool climates
You are wasting a lot of money, adding weight and complicating things
mechanically
However, if you are going to fly at hot and high altitudes normally
aspirated engines degrade so much they are now the heavy and underpowered
choice
Is there an engine mount for the Jabiru ?
Is it proven ?
Is it as efficient in delivering the power given that its max output is at
3,300 rpms ?
There are reasons why direct drive aircraft engines are normally limited to
2,500 to 2,700 rpms. It would not be any trouble to make them go much
faster and make more power
One of the reasons is propeller efficiency
My 2 cents
Perhaps we are comparing Apples vs Oranges
Isn´t the Jabiru a normally aspirated engine ?
No. There is absolutely no sense in a turbo engine if you are going to fly
near sea level and cool climates
You are wasting a lot of money, adding weight and complicating things
mechanically
However, if you are going to fly at hot and high altitudes normally
aspirated engines degrade so much they are now the heavy and underpowered
choice
Is there an engine mount for the Jabiru ?
Is it proven ?
Is it as efficient in delivering the power given that its max output is at
3,300 rpms ?
There are reasons why direct drive aircraft engines are normally limited to
2,500 to 2,700 rpms. It would not be any trouble to make them go much
faster and make more power
One of the reasons is propeller efficiency
My 2 cents
-
gjcarter34
Re: HKS Turbo engine
Mike,
The turbo also adds boost pressure at sea level.
It's just that it doesn't loose as much power when altitude increases as does a normally aspirated engine does.
Gary
The turbo also adds boost pressure at sea level.
It's just that it doesn't loose as much power when altitude increases as does a normally aspirated engine does.
Gary
-
earthstaraircraft
Re: HKS Turbo engine
In a message dated 11/17/2011 9:49:04 AM Pacific Standard Time,
gjcarter34@gmail.com writes:
Mike,
The turbo also adds boost pressure at sea level.
It's just that it doesn't loose as much power when altitude increases as
does a normally aspirated engine does.
Gary
Hi Mike and Gary
The turbo will produce 80 hp all the way to 16,500 feet so it is working at
low altitudes also. but the power is maintained to high altitude.
The turbo is still making more boost that allows the engine to make more
power at higher altitudes but we don't want to go to 30,000 feet any way so
it is a mute point.
I like the HKS 700T primarily for the fuel injection but i am a high
altitude flyer since
I often fly my normally aspirated HKS from 7,000 + airports on summer days.
And cruse at 12,000 or so.
The density altitude at the 7,000 foot high airport, (Los Vegas, NM), is
often 12,000 feet at 97 degrees F. The turbo really makes a big deference in
performance in these conditions. If you don't fly in to these conditions
than maybe you don't really need the extra expense and complexity. But it is
a blast to have the extra power!
Happy Flying
Mark
gjcarter34@gmail.com writes:
Mike,
The turbo also adds boost pressure at sea level.
It's just that it doesn't loose as much power when altitude increases as
does a normally aspirated engine does.
Gary
Hi Mike and Gary
The turbo will produce 80 hp all the way to 16,500 feet so it is working at
low altitudes also. but the power is maintained to high altitude.
The turbo is still making more boost that allows the engine to make more
power at higher altitudes but we don't want to go to 30,000 feet any way so
it is a mute point.
I like the HKS 700T primarily for the fuel injection but i am a high
altitude flyer since
I often fly my normally aspirated HKS from 7,000 + airports on summer days.
And cruse at 12,000 or so.
The density altitude at the 7,000 foot high airport, (Los Vegas, NM), is
often 12,000 feet at 97 degrees F. The turbo really makes a big deference in
performance in these conditions. If you don't fly in to these conditions
than maybe you don't really need the extra expense and complexity. But it is
a blast to have the extra power!
Happy Flying
Mark
-
blaswichk
Re: HKS Turbo engine
I'm right on the same page. My 503 still kicks butt on the Gull 2000, even though I would like 4-stroke economy, engine noise reduction, and longer life, at 100+ hours a year flying, I can't afford to upgrade until my cookie jar gets full, (or even started). I really like the Jabiru, as it turns much lower engine speeds. If it will fit a Titan, it will surely fit a JT2, as they used the same motor mount configuration. The Gull 2000 has a 45 degree angled mount in a dynafocal configuration, still doable with some bracket creativity, it's just the $12k plus that's holding me back.
Oh, and my Jabiru will be fully cowled in, like I did on the 503. Not much faster, but keeps the weather and wind off the engine and looks sexier.
kb
Oh, and my Jabiru will be fully cowled in, like I did on the 503. Not much faster, but keeps the weather and wind off the engine and looks sexier.
kb
-
mikemarckel
Re: HKS Turbo engine
I know its not a favorite engine of mark and many others.The hirth 3202 in my gull purrs along at 3900/4200rpm gives me 85 or so at 2gph.... Its fuel injected. I dont know what top end is but 118 is doable and then some i'm sure. 55hp@5500 So far so good??