BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
01-24-2006, 02:04 AM
#26
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere,
DC
Posts: 9,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
Shows what can be done if someone designs and machines the whole engine from scratch instead of buying a chainsaw crank, cylinder/s and piston/s, and than machines only the case and hub...
Sound familiar ?
Kudos to Keith, looks like a GREAT engine...
Sound familiar ?
Kudos to Keith, looks like a GREAT engine...
01-24-2006, 02:43 AM
#27
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hawthorne, CA
Posts: 5,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
I really hope it lives up to it's billing, we all benefit from increased competition among the manufacturers. I just gotta wonder why on earth they would formally announce it AGAIN. I think they lost some credibility from anouncing it so long ago and not coming through and to re-anounce it now seems like they didn't learn anything. Maybe I'm wrong and it didn't hurt business and they will sell as many as they can manufacter anyways but, it still makes me wonder.
01-24-2006, 06:25 AM
#28
Senior Member
My Feedback: (20)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Clayton,
NC
Posts: 2,249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
ORIGINAL: xcellheli
I personally jumped onto the list. I have had a 110 running on JMB canisters for 2 years. It spins a Mejlick 28x10 6800rpm and pulls 54lbs according to a fish scale. So far the thing has held up great. From what I can see comparing it to a DA 100, the light weight comes from many things.
The overall length of the motor is shorter.
The stroke is shorter, this makes the jugs shorter, the connecting rods shorter and the counterweights smaller.
The machining of the case is much more detailed with metal removed from every crack and crevis
The cooling fins are thinner (overheating has not been a problem)
If the 55 is anything like the 110, it will be great. My father is a die hard DA fan with 2 50's (one of which seized up), but after seeing my 110 had to order one. To date he loves it.
A guy I fly with has a DA150 (which also seized up), and was originally a nay sayer, but is now changing his mind as well. He says when BME makes the 8lb four cylinder 220, he is going to ditch the 150. He may be waiting a while for that one though.
I personally jumped onto the list. I have had a 110 running on JMB canisters for 2 years. It spins a Mejlick 28x10 6800rpm and pulls 54lbs according to a fish scale. So far the thing has held up great. From what I can see comparing it to a DA 100, the light weight comes from many things.
The overall length of the motor is shorter.
The stroke is shorter, this makes the jugs shorter, the connecting rods shorter and the counterweights smaller.
The machining of the case is much more detailed with metal removed from every crack and crevis
The cooling fins are thinner (overheating has not been a problem)
If the 55 is anything like the 110, it will be great. My father is a die hard DA fan with 2 50's (one of which seized up), but after seeing my 110 had to order one. To date he loves it.
A guy I fly with has a DA150 (which also seized up), and was originally a nay sayer, but is now changing his mind as well. He says when BME makes the 8lb four cylinder 220, he is going to ditch the 150. He may be waiting a while for that one though.
Wow you guys need to learn how to operatea two stroke engine! No kidding!!
You are using two stroke oil right?
01-24-2006, 10:10 AM
#29
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
ORIGINAL: Silversurfer
Ben,
Keith at BME is not a mass production kind of guy. From what I've seen, he'd rather take the time necessary to make sure it runs the way it's supposed to before releasing a design. I know that he's "hands on" with every engine that gets shipped, so that would limit production capability some. As for your Ultimate, using a light engine like the 55 would eliminate the need to move batteries under the canopy floor. You would have to install them more forward, and that's a good thing. The power available would be awesome!
Pat
Ben,
Keith at BME is not a mass production kind of guy. From what I've seen, he'd rather take the time necessary to make sure it runs the way it's supposed to before releasing a design. I know that he's "hands on" with every engine that gets shipped, so that would limit production capability some. As for your Ultimate, using a light engine like the 55 would eliminate the need to move batteries under the canopy floor. You would have to install them more forward, and that's a good thing. The power available would be awesome!
Pat
01-24-2006, 10:52 AM
#30
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
Stomper,
The 50 was one of the first ones from DA, which were known to be problem motors and are updated for free if sent in. The 150 was a failed bearing that seized up. This was a rare failure that DA contributed to a bad batch of bearings. As usual, DA bent over backwards to repair them for free. They are top notch. My only point is that even the bench mark motors have there problems with holding up and so far I have seen no failures with the BME. I am sure they are out there though. All motors are run on Amzoil synthetic oil.
The 50 was one of the first ones from DA, which were known to be problem motors and are updated for free if sent in. The 150 was a failed bearing that seized up. This was a rare failure that DA contributed to a bad batch of bearings. As usual, DA bent over backwards to repair them for free. They are top notch. My only point is that even the bench mark motors have there problems with holding up and so far I have seen no failures with the BME. I am sure they are out there though. All motors are run on Amzoil synthetic oil.
01-24-2006, 08:02 PM
#35
Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Longview,
TX
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
Let me get this straight. This engine is only ONE ounce heavier then OS 1.60 FX? Is that possible?
I was just about to toss some 600 dollars into an Evolution 45GX. However, I will now hold for BME 55 …
I was just about to toss some 600 dollars into an Evolution 45GX. However, I will now hold for BME 55 …
01-24-2006, 09:35 PM
#36
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hawthorne, CA
Posts: 5,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
ORIGINAL: Hajduk
I was just about to toss some 600 dollars into an Evolution 45GX. However, I will now hold for BME 55 …
I was just about to toss some 600 dollars into an Evolution 45GX. However, I will now hold for BME 55 …
01-25-2006, 01:00 AM
#38
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
RTK,
The BME's and the DA 50's are running on 50:1, the buddy of mine with the DA 150 is running 100:1.
BasinBum
After my positive experience with the 110, I have good faith that Keith will only put out a great product. I waited 3 months for my 110, and I think that was short, some waited much longer.
The BME's and the DA 50's are running on 50:1, the buddy of mine with the DA 150 is running 100:1.
BasinBum
After my positive experience with the 110, I have good faith that Keith will only put out a great product. I waited 3 months for my 110, and I think that was short, some waited much longer.
01-25-2006, 01:41 AM
#39
My Feedback: (29)
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
[quote]ORIGINAL: Hajduk
Let me get this straight. This engine is only ONE ounce heavier then OS 1.60 FX? Is that possible?
Its not impossible, just very difficult to accomplish and retain a good counterbalance. Its going to shake allot unless BME has removed excess of material from the piston and used an aluminum rod. The crank will also have to be very petite with a piece of tungsten for counter balance.
01-25-2006, 09:57 AM
#40
Senior Member
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Richmond,
WI
Posts: 3,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
ORIGINAL: Hajduk
Let me get this straight. This engine is only ONE ounce heavier then OS 1.60 FX? Is that possible?
Let me get this straight. This engine is only ONE ounce heavier then OS 1.60 FX? Is that possible?
The BME is 2.1 + 3oz ignition + 4oz pitts muffler + 3oz ignition battery + 3oz mount = 3 pounds RTF
I think you would run a 16oz fuel/gas tank with both motors.
You may be tempted to run a heavier prop on the BME and a larger spinner, but this is not necessarily so. If you compared the 1.6FX with 18x6w(4.75oz) & 3oz spinner against a BME with 22x10 or similar wood prop and no spinner BME would have the advantage.[8D]
Someone correct me here if I missed on my numbers.
01-25-2006, 10:44 AM
#41
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hawthorne, CA
Posts: 5,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
ORIGINAL: xcellheli
RTK,
The BME's and the DA 50's are running on 50:1, the buddy of mine with the DA 150 is running 100:1.
BasinBum
After my positive experience with the 110, I have good faith that Keith will only put out a great product. I waited 3 months for my 110, and I think that was short, some waited much longer.
< Message edited by hobbsy -- 1/25/2006 5:10:21 AM >
RTK,
The BME's and the DA 50's are running on 50:1, the buddy of mine with the DA 150 is running 100:1.
BasinBum
After my positive experience with the 110, I have good faith that Keith will only put out a great product. I waited 3 months for my 110, and I think that was short, some waited much longer.
< Message edited by hobbsy -- 1/25/2006 5:10:21 AM >
01-25-2006, 12:46 PM
#42
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
I think your numbers are a little low on all the accessories for the BME weight you posted. Here's what I'd change:
3 oz ignition to 4 oz.
4 oz pitts to 6 oz.
3 oz battery to 4 oz.
0 oz switch to .6 oz.
3 oz mount to 6 oz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Almost 8 oz difference. So it's more like 3.5 pounds.
Edit: but it's still at least a pound less than most of the other light weight 50cc gassers.
3 oz ignition to 4 oz.
4 oz pitts to 6 oz.
3 oz battery to 4 oz.
0 oz switch to .6 oz.
3 oz mount to 6 oz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Almost 8 oz difference. So it's more like 3.5 pounds.
Edit: but it's still at least a pound less than most of the other light weight 50cc gassers.
ORIGINAL: STG
The 1.6FX is 2.7 pounds with light pitts muffler and motor mount RTF
The BME is 2.1 + 3oz ignition + 4oz pitts muffler + 3oz ignition battery + 3oz mount = 3 pounds RTF
I think you would run a 16oz fuel/gas tank with both motors.
You may be tempted to run a heavier prop on the BME and a larger spinner, but this is not necessarily so. If you compared the 1.6FX with 18x6w(4.75oz) & 3oz spinner against a BME with 22x10 or similar wood prop and no spinner BME would have the advantage.[8D]
Someone correct me here if I missed on my numbers.
ORIGINAL: Hajduk
Let me get this straight. This engine is only ONE ounce heavier then OS 1.60 FX? Is that possible?
Let me get this straight. This engine is only ONE ounce heavier then OS 1.60 FX? Is that possible?
The BME is 2.1 + 3oz ignition + 4oz pitts muffler + 3oz ignition battery + 3oz mount = 3 pounds RTF
I think you would run a 16oz fuel/gas tank with both motors.
You may be tempted to run a heavier prop on the BME and a larger spinner, but this is not necessarily so. If you compared the 1.6FX with 18x6w(4.75oz) & 3oz spinner against a BME with 22x10 or similar wood prop and no spinner BME would have the advantage.[8D]
Someone correct me here if I missed on my numbers.
01-25-2006, 01:42 PM
#43
Senior Member
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Richmond,
WI
Posts: 3,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
ORIGINAL: JoeAirPort
I think your numbers are a little low on all the accessories for the BME weight you posted. Here's what I'd change:
3 oz ignition to 4 oz.
4 oz pitts to 6 oz.
3 oz battery to 4 oz.
0 oz switch to .6 oz.
3 oz mount to 6 oz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Almost 8 oz difference. So it's more like 3.5 pounds.
Edit: but it's still at least a pound less than most of the other light weight 50cc gassers.
I think your numbers are a little low on all the accessories for the BME weight you posted. Here's what I'd change:
3 oz ignition to 4 oz.
4 oz pitts to 6 oz.
3 oz battery to 4 oz.
0 oz switch to .6 oz.
3 oz mount to 6 oz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Almost 8 oz difference. So it's more like 3.5 pounds.
Edit: but it's still at least a pound less than most of the other light weight 50cc gassers.
ORIGINAL: STG
The 1.6FX is 2.7 pounds with light pitts muffler and motor mount RTF
The BME is 2.1 + 3oz ignition + 4oz pitts muffler + 3oz ignition battery + 3oz mount = 3 pounds RTF
I think you would run a 16oz fuel/gas tank with both motors.
You may be tempted to run a heavier prop on the BME and a larger spinner, but this is not necessarily so. If you compared the 1.6FX with 18x6w(4.75oz) & 3oz spinner against a BME with 22x10 or similar wood prop and no spinner BME would have the advantage.[8D]
Someone correct me here if I missed on my numbers.
ORIGINAL: Hajduk
Let me get this straight. This engine is only ONE ounce heavier then OS 1.60 FX? Is that possible?
Let me get this straight. This engine is only ONE ounce heavier then OS 1.60 FX? Is that possible?
The BME is 2.1 + 3oz ignition + 4oz pitts muffler + 3oz ignition battery + 3oz mount = 3 pounds RTF
I think you would run a 16oz fuel/gas tank with both motors.
You may be tempted to run a heavier prop on the BME and a larger spinner, but this is not necessarily so. If you compared the 1.6FX with 18x6w(4.75oz) & 3oz spinner against a BME with 22x10 or similar wood prop and no spinner BME would have the advantage.[8D]
Someone correct me here if I missed on my numbers.
The only weight I can argue with you on is the ignition battery. There I was figuring in a 2/3AA 1200mah 4 cell pack. Is the mount really 6oz?
Thanks for the info.
01-25-2006, 02:46 PM
#44
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hawthorne, CA
Posts: 5,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
It's such an apples and oranges discussion anyway. Does anyone decide going gas or nitro based on weight once you are into the 80"+ wingspan aerobats? You could put the BME on a 78" plane but why would you? The extra cost for the larger planes that are really what this engine is for is minimal.
01-25-2006, 02:57 PM
#45
Senior Member
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Richmond,
WI
Posts: 3,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
ORIGINAL: BasinBum
It's such an apples and oranges discussion anyway. Does anyone decide going gas or nitro based on weight once you are into the 80"+ wingspan aerobats? You could put the BME on a 78" plane but why would you? The extra cost for the larger planes that are really what this engine is for is minimal.
It's such an apples and oranges discussion anyway. Does anyone decide going gas or nitro based on weight once you are into the 80"+ wingspan aerobats? You could put the BME on a 78" plane but why would you? The extra cost for the larger planes that are really what this engine is for is minimal.
Why go with a 50cc plane when for just a little bit more you can put together a 80cc plane?
01-25-2006, 10:31 PM
#49
Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Longview,
TX
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
Thanks for expanding on my overly simplified weight comparison. I am new to gas engines and often forget important things. This engine will actually be my first gas engine.
Regards,
Regards,
ORIGINAL: STG
The 1.6FX is 2.7 pounds with light pitts muffler and motor mount RTF
The BME is 2.1 + 3oz ignition + 4oz pitts muffler + 3oz ignition battery + 3oz mount = 3 pounds RTF
I think you would run a 16oz fuel/gas tank with both motors.
You may be tempted to run a heavier prop on the BME and a larger spinner, but this is not necessarily so. If you compared the 1.6FX with 18x6w(4.75oz) & 3oz spinner against a BME with 22x10 or similar wood prop and no spinner BME would have the advantage.[8D]
Someone correct me here if I missed on my numbers.
ORIGINAL: Hajduk
Let me get this straight. This engine is only ONE ounce heavier then OS 1.60 FX? Is that possible?
Let me get this straight. This engine is only ONE ounce heavier then OS 1.60 FX? Is that possible?
The BME is 2.1 + 3oz ignition + 4oz pitts muffler + 3oz ignition battery + 3oz mount = 3 pounds RTF
I think you would run a 16oz fuel/gas tank with both motors.
You may be tempted to run a heavier prop on the BME and a larger spinner, but this is not necessarily so. If you compared the 1.6FX with 18x6w(4.75oz) & 3oz spinner against a BME with 22x10 or similar wood prop and no spinner BME would have the advantage.[8D]
Someone correct me here if I missed on my numbers.
01-25-2006, 11:02 PM
#50
RE: BME 55 REANNOUNCED!
ORIGINAL: STG
The only weight I can argue with you on is the ignition battery. There I was figuring in a 2/3AA 1200mah 4 cell pack. Is the mount really 6oz?
Thanks for the info.
The only weight I can argue with you on is the ignition battery. There I was figuring in a 2/3AA 1200mah 4 cell pack. Is the mount really 6oz?
Thanks for the info.