Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Ultralight engine options

  1. #21
    Why meet 103? Because its a worthwhile challenge. I have no desire to give any more money to A/P mechanics for annuals and I don't want to get a repairman's certificate and go the EAB route.
    I guess letting 103 wither on the vine is one way to keep light sport on life support and keep the orders coming in for $125,000 rotax powered planes from europe.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    65
    There is a reason Rotax hasn't made that 'A' gearbox for many years-- it was very trouble-prone. Even with good maintenance practices.

  3. #23
    crusty old aviator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    You can't get here from there
    Posts
    237
    The Challenger was a great design and it still is. Thank you for your efforts in keeping this old girl flying! The 227 was a great engine in her day, compared to what else was available then, but Rotax divorced itself from their US based singles and twins a while ago, after basically declaring them all too old and no longer airworthy. Now, I'm well aware that was just the lawyers and bean-counters talking, and there are still enough parts around to keep the existing ones flying for a while longer, but I'd recommend snooping around for an alternate that's still supported by at least an owners group, and won't put your girl appreciably over the mystical 254 number. Belt drives are light and simple, and if you break a belt, you still have plenty more to get you home. What you see is what you have: no mystery as to what is going on inside the gearbox. You may want to snoop around for a lighter prop, though...

  4. #24
    old girl??! my challenger is 48 years younger than my chief!

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    old 15 acre homestead on N.D. prairie
    Posts
    45
    The wankel motor that Dick M. has shown us goes for a cool 15k in british pounds. If you want to order a dozen you can possibly get the cost down to about 10k. But it is a sweet motor at 22 lbs. core weight at about 11 inches tall 14" wide and reduction drives available, which would be needed as it develops 40hp a 8 grand with only 27 ft.lbs. of torque. If you got the bucks it's out there. The rep says it's not a certificated motor with the FAA so experimental or 103 would be all you could do in aviation use unless UAV.

  6. #26

    what airframe did you have a 277 mounted on?

    what airframe did you have a 277 mounted on?

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Redding, CA
    Posts
    11
    My 277 was mounted on a Sun Seeker ultralight. Kind of a rare bird. Only 17 were produced before the 20-20 hit piece killed the ultralight business.

    Here's a video of it

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLs2LsgOErI

  8. #28
    A very neat bird! I did a search for the 20-20 episode but could not find it. Thanks for the link, it clearly shows how the engine is mounted upright in the open. this is what I wanted to do with my challenger to get away from the inverted engine issues. what climate did your fly in? I had researched the F33 hirth (spendy) and they do make a pretty slick kit to mount on a challenger. I think this is probably a better way to go since that engine is in use in a pusher.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by aeroschmitz View Post
    A very neat bird! I did a search for the 20-20 episode but could not find it.
    It aired in ~1983 and was called "Ultralights, Flying or Dying" I'm sure with the right search you can at least find a transcript of the episode.

  10. #30
    15 minutes on google & youtube resulted in no transcript or youtube videoor "Ultralights: Flying or Dying". Other writers stated their own difficulties in finding that video as well.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •