Video

That's a valid point. At this time, parts are available only from Blackhawk Paramotors, the US importer. Unfortunately, this is the same situation we are in for several engine designs available; parts only available from one source. No competition. The days of having several companies offering parts for ultralight engine manufacturers seems to be over. Even parts for the legendary 2 stroke Rotaxs are drying up. Those of us that overhaul Rotaxs have bo choice but to source parts from other than Rotax now.

Cubs are cool. However, that's not a "apples-to apples" comparison. The Continental A-40 weighs almost 3 times as much as the Aero 1000. And the J2 is much cleaner aerodynamically than an Aerolite. Simply comparing the 2 engines based on horsepower alone isn't realistic

Yes, pull start can still be mounted. Assuming the structure allows sufficient space for it. On the Challenger design there is not sufficient room for both the GPL and pull start

Glad you liked it!

I've always wondered why they call it Aero 1000 as it is a 250cc engine. The real benefit is the seriously reduced fuel burn, depending on cruise rpm, a bit under 1 gallon per hour, the old Rotax was at least double that !.

Thanks. We've more or less settled on the redrive ratio for now. Climb rate now averages about 350' per minute, which was my goal. Price is going to be in the neighborhood of $10,500 for the Aerolite package. I'll try to post a follow-up soon

I've worked with Dennis as a dealer for 6 or 7 years now with no problems. I don't know what to say about your situation other than he's having trouble securing some of the electrical components

@@markmurray8517 Thank you for the reply Mark. Dennis will not take our call, respond to our email, respond to a letter sent from our lawyer, nothing. We just want our money back now. This is the beginning of my public comments to see if he will make good on our deal.

Wow, one in every crowd, or maybe 2. My action camera doesn't record sound. Watching me fly around in silence would have been kinda stupid. If you want more engine noise, watch the first Aero 1000 video

@@markmurray8517 I actually did want to hear how it sounds.

​@@donhuffer5167no worries. Did you watch czcams.com/video/Dqson3_0kOo/video.htmlsi=7pqHGHzDT69_72DF ? Or, do you mean you want to hear in-cockpit sounds? I haven't recorded that yet. But, i can tell you its somewhat quieter than a 2-stroke.

Yes, I know Scott and the Thump-air well. We actually considered going that route at first, but the Thump-air was just getting started, and we decided to go with a design that's already flying

The connections are sealed, but I wouldn't call them water proof. No secondary fuel pump. Many ultralights don't have a back-up pump

Thanks

Thanks

We're still narrowing down the numbers, so all I can give are approximations at this point. Rate of climb is 300-400' feet per minute at a 1000' density altitude. Cruise is about 50mph, typical for draggy ultralight-type airplanes. Fuel burn is 1.5 to 2 gallons per hour. Conversion kit is $1750. All up is going to run about $30000 for the kit

Does this engine keep it in the ultralight category?

The engine is called the Aero 1000 built by Helvanco in Switzerland. In the US it can be purchased directly from Blackhawkusa.com. It is a purpose-built 4-stroke intaily developed as a high performance go-kart and parachute-type aircraft (ppg) engine, but was recently adapted to Quicksilver fixed-wing ultralights. We are creating a package for adapting to the Aerolite. Stay tuned for updates soon.

The price seems to constantly fluctuate because of shipping cost, but the engine alone will run $9000 to $9500. We haven't nailed it down yet, but the conversion kit will probably run about $1300-$1500

The conversion is mostly bolt-on. There are few fuselage frame members that have to be altered to make the engine mount work. The modifications were approved by the airframe manufacturer. the conversion kit comes with all parts needed and detailed instructions

Hey. We're still working that out. For now, I'm please to say performance is good. We're tweaking the redrive ratio and prop combination as weather allows. Stay tuned! Thanks for your interest.

You may also want to watch the follow up video, czcams.com/video/Lavo_RS42qo/video.htmlsi=jBubT6wVW0SRhKXY

Still folds up into a little ball of death all the same.

It looks like it's going to be about $11000. That includes everything to adapt the Aerolite for the engine, including instructions

@1:40

Not a thing. I was a little surprised, too. Aerolites tend to be pretty stable in the CG range, even with different engines, but I expected it to need a little adjustment. But, nope, perfect as is. On my next flight test sequence I'll try a few different power settings see if it has the typical pitch tendencies that come with high thrust line pushers.

Watch the first test flight video. Lots of engine noise 🙂

We haven't progressed to that yet. If your concern is takeoff roll, I can tell you I won't be as quick as a 2 stroke. Pound for pound, you can't beat the power to weight ratio of a 2 stroke. But, the power of the Aero 1000 has so far proven its sufficient enough that we're going to continue developing it as an alternative. Stay tuned for more videos as we progress. Thanks for the input.

@@markmurray8517 thanks, no i am comparing it to available 4 strokes, using the 503 6 seconds on grass as a benchmark. the worst is the 1/2 vw 20 seconds the best is the thumpair at 8 seconds then the briggs and the eos quattro at 11 to 13 2024 is going to be very competitive for ul 4 strokes, lots of choices and lots of documented stats and performance. the only one that matters, dead stop to wheels up.

Interesting. What airplane were you using for comparison? And was density altitude relatively the same for each test?

@@markmurray8517 no idea its not scientific, we go by whats the best we can find for the engine then let people make up their own minds, for example, the quicksilver mx single surface hi lift wing with a lightweight pilot on a paved runway at 4.5 seconds, we discount that completely. Anyone marketing an engine is going to put out the best video and info they can, lol like quicksilver, people buying have very little to go by when deciding, this is the one thing they can look at and go that could be me. headed towards trees., so its an important metric. right now, the thumpair has the lead with two videos on two different planes at 8 seconds. thanks

the only video I have found so far is this engine on a quicksilver single surface wing on pavement with a tiny pilot, 4.5 seconds to wheels up. but, its single surface hi lift, on pavement, with a lightweight pilot and headwind not disclosed, and its a marketing video and we dont know tire psi.

I appreciate your concerns about performance. Nothing is worse than a great airframe with an underperforming or unreliable engine. However, I don't think you can make real "apples to apples" comparisons on engines when not taking into consideration the differences between airframes and conditions. If you did all test in the same Legal Eagle, with the same pilot, with the same conditions (grass, similar density altitude, no wind), then yes, you could make some real world comparisons. I will record grass takeoff time and distance at some point, but even then it's more of a "apples to oranges" comparison.

@@markmurray8517 thanks, most of us can look at a aircraft, watch it fly, and come to some conclusions very easily. thanks for you participation, it is genuinely appreciated :)

@@markmurray8517 There is basically no airframe on this thing let alone a great one.

Thanks. I've got a good group of customers that make it possible 😊

Thanks!