It sure will be interesting to see.

IN a bit of an addendum to this thread, I finally got past the snow, radio problems, and a bad ignition and got both of my 40% Composite-Arf Extras back out to the field for some further flight testing. Michael Hill, current AMA Nats Advanced Pattern champion and I flew the planes for about 3 hours, getting them "Dialed in" Here's a few excerpts from that.

First off the 33 lbs plane was dead on, concerning CG. NO bad manners, swinging out of the tail, and it tracked almost perfectly though it still needs about another 1/2 degree of right thrust in the engine. Every maneuver is crisp, clean, with no overrotations in any direction, great roll rate, and yanking back on the stick on high goes past "wing drop" very nicely, making it a cinch to Wall, Elevator or Parachute the plane. Power is more than adequate, with TR's at a steady 5/8 throttle, and very stable. In fact it's about the easiest plane to TR I've ever flown, as it almost hovers hands off. 3/4 throttle will pull out of a hover, and full power comes out with decent authority. Comparing the power-weight characteristics to the 3W150/canisters/3-blade I had on the plane before, I'd call it very close. Since the 3W setup was down on thrust using the 30-12 AM 3-blade, and the BME is using a very efficient Mejzlik 28-10 2-blade at the moment, there is almost no disparity in vertical acceleration performace between the two powerplant combinations. However, being 7 lbs lighter than before makes the plane fly a LOT better, much smoother, and every maneuver is crisper and more precise. This looks like a VERY good combination, and it's dead-nuts on with everything you do. Yes, you are on the gas a bit more, since it IS a 40% plane, but most of this years Advanced pattern could be done at less than 3/4 throttle, with full throttle only necessary for the upline snaps and other vertical maneuvers. A 32 ounce tank of gas lasts an easy 20 minutes, with 1/4 tank reserve.

The 28 lbs plane is, again, another ball game altogether. I've described it's characteristics before, and it's just AWESOME. Michael and I checked the CG of both planes, and it took 8 OUNCES of lead on the tail of the 28 lbs plane to get the CG's to match!!! It flies more crisply than the 33 lbs plane, and we were having a problem doing a nice s l o w rolling circle because the wings reacted so quickly to any inputs that the roll axis looked notchy. Adding expo and turning down the rate helped, but it just shows how ultra-reactive the plane is. I tried experimenting with Snaps, too, using only Elevator and Rudder, like the BIG planes do. . . uh .. . . .NO, not gonna happen. No matter what I tried the plane would just do a BIG Barrel Roll instead of stalling a wing and auto-rotating the snap. What to do? Okay, we threw out the elevator and went to only aileron and rudder. Sure enough, the plane snapped properly, with the nose pitching first, tail hanging out properly as it "auto-rotated", displacement about 1/2 span to the side, and decently clean exit from the snap. Using elevator at all made the snap barrel roll more, making the exit a really ugly thing. (SHHHHHHH. . don't tell the judges how I'm doing this. . . ) As for the CG shift necessary, it gives me an excuse to put two more servos in the tail, so that I can increase the High Rate throws on the elevator to 50 degrees, instead of the current 35 degrees max. I can also shift the batteries aft now (They are on CG), and add that 2-ounce pilot figure I need for competition, without fear of it becoming too tail heavy.

Michael, being a Pattern Jock, liked the heavier planes characteristics better, because it was less reactive and slightly smoother. He said it flew a lot like his Prophecy with a YS 1.20 on it, and had about the same power-weight characteristics. But, with a bit of experimenting I'm sure I can get the lighter plane to fly just as "precisely". All it will take is dialiing down the rates a bit and playing with the Expo. Right now, "Pattern" rates are 40% elevator, 50% Rudder, and 75% Aileron, with about 40% Expo on each surface.

That is a great Video which comforts me in my choice.
We are at the point to compare the BME 110X, which is a 100cc class engine with the DA 150.
I am looking forward to receive mine from the States, ordered already in Dec. 2003.
I will place it on a Composite-ARf Extra 2.6, weight will be around 11Kg, even a bit less. That is 24 lbs.
Vertical performance will just be gorgeous.
JBrannon keep us informed

Michel

No, it is not competition for the 150, any 150.

Uh . .John. . you MIGHT want to tell that "its not competition for a 150, any 150" stuff to the guys who did vertical drag races against my Composite-Arf with a BME110 on the nose. They had a Piped 3W150 AND a Da150 on their planes. . . All three planes ran Mejzlik props, 28-10 for the BME, 32-10's for the 150's. Starting side-by-side on the runway, and GO!!!!

Score: BME110 -2 .. DA/3W150s'- ZERO!! By 5-10 plane lengths at the top.

You guys REALLY need to re-think how these models work .. turns out the BME110 on a 40% is a BETTER option than a 150, not only because of the VERY good power-weight ratio, but also because of the MUCH better flight performace due to the plane being substantially (at least 5-7 lbs usually) lighter. Even my "heavy" plane, at 34 lbs, can stay right with a 3-bladed 150 on pipes. . I know. . I've done the research and have the planes on hand. The "light" plane, full of gas, is just unbeatable.

In the enclosed pic. . .on the left, the "heavy" plane, which used to have a piped 3W TOC150/3-blade on it. . was 41 lbs, is now 33.5 with the much lighter BME110/canisters on board. . on the right, the "28 lbs WONDER". .weighing a mere 28.5 with canister exhaust and its NOSE heavy. Both are outstanding performers!!!

Sorry, not buying it. The vid I seen of a 110 on a 40% was not great, and wouldnt outdo any 150, your super lightened plane, dont see how that can compare after all the BS to get it to that weight. But whatever. Nobody I know or have talked to on here will replace a 150 with a 110. Youve done the research, and were all sure are making well off commision on bme's, but its still your opinion.

This is mine.

JohnVH, please examine, closely, the complaint I have with the RCU Moderators concerning both your post, and your attitude concerning myself.

Your post deserves no other response, it is out of place, and unworthy of serious consideration.

I will check into, have you ever thought about contacting the person you have a problem with first?

The response I posted has been deleted by myself.

Well, this will be my last post on the subject, but, I too have an opinion, and I CAN offer it.

Thanks

I think a BME 110 is over rated, and it still only turns a MAX 28-10 prop, I think a Composite-Arf 40% with this engine is a LAME Combo! The 110 is only rated at .7 HP more than my DA100, and in no way BETTER than a 150cc on that airframe! Hell a 50cc would fly the 40% but thats it, to sit there and say that its the Ultimate Combo or what ever the case is Wrong! And your drag race senerio is Funny, you can promote your BME 110 all you want, but theres no way that it will fly better than a 150cc unless the 150cc is a weak engine, and thats MY opinion! Besides why would any one in there right mind want a LESSER of power plant in there 40% Composite-Arf, man even the thought is Wrong!

Boy i seen that coming

The Magic Extra 40% at 28lbs, was undoubtedly the model in the vertical drag race.

Many 35% models weigh in at 30lbs or more.

The drag curve on the 40% model is not likely linear, therefore even though the model is larger it does not represent a huge drag coefficient increase as compared to the 35% model.

Why is it so hard to imagine the 40% model with a weight savings of around 21% comparatively producing a claimed 30% less hp may not do the job?

Or how about the power to weight ratio; lets see 28lbs/10hp=2.8 or 40/16.5=2.42 seems the lil guy has a slight disadvantage to me, ever so slight.

And lastly how much did those 40% racers weigh in at? I'm betting they were porkers. New/old version engines, tired engines, properly tuned? Oh yeah, lets put some wood on those 150's too! Mejlik props don't get it my book. I suspect the 150's with the right prop (Menz S) with reasonable weighted models would provide a good race, if not win typically especially on the long lines...


Got to thinking and ran some prop thrust disc area comparisons. Yeah, I know those darn programs are not all that, BUT. The numbers suggest something equivalent to the power to weight ratio numbers. Static thrust to weight of the 40% is 2.65 verses 2.5 for the 35% model. Of course the rpm numbers I used may have been off; I used 6000rpm on either combo.

Nothing to say! I retract my uneeded statements.

HUH?????!!!!

Normally I'd agree with your point, Michael. but a few things to consider. First off the weights of the two 150-powered Composite-Arf planes was 38.5 and 39.5 lbs, respectively for the DA and 3W/piped aircraft. Both spun Mejzlik 32-10's, the DA at about 5900 rpm, the 3W at a little more. My BME was turning a 28-10 at OVER 7000 rpm, which represents a tremendous difference in actual air velocity coming off the propellers in a static situation. Once the props unloaded, you can add aobut 400-600 rpm to those figures, depending on the engine, but let's just use the static figures, 6000 rpm versus 7000 rpm, and the comparative LOADED weights (with fuel) of the planes, 30 lbs for the bme, over 42, fully loaded, for the 150's.

Now we have a plane that is .70% the weight, and has air moving 17% faster coming off the prop. Take whatever figures you are getting from the ThrusthP program and reduce them by 30% for an accurate static thrust reading, and you will see that the disparity in actual thrust between the two combinations is reduced to about zero. Then add in the additional velocity of the air coming off the BME's prop, against the rather slow vertical speeds involved (rather than horizontal speed), and you can see where this is going. . .

I have 4 pics attached, that were taken of one of the "races". . 40 people watched this go on . .40 people agree that the BME powered plane clearly outperformed a piped 3W150 using the same brand/pitch of prop. And NO, no one had any idea what would happen or which plane would have superior climbing ability before we too off.

mu2Driver, both of my 110's are turning a Mejzlik 29-10 at over 6400 rpm, and the Menz or Biela 29-10 at over 6000. That's stronger than the 3W106 (former power king in the 100cc market) when the 3W is using a designed for/optimized for tuned canister setup that 3W and Pefa collaborated on. Those figures are stronger than anything the olde style 3W 120 ever put out, and are equivalent to the current 3W120 TOC, an engine that weighs TWICE as much. That's not exactly "overrated". As for "weak" 150's . .do you actually believe the "advertised horsepower" figures for the DA and 3W 150's? They've been proven to be about 30-35% OVER what the engines actually produce. The engine that came off my "Heavy" plane was one of the strongest 3W150 TOC's I've seen, easily turning an AM 30-12 3-blade at 5950-6000 rpm, and a Menz-s 32-10 at 6300+, yet that planes vertical performance and acceleration rate were noticeably slower than the other plane with a BME110.

Looks like I'm gonna have to get a video of this thing. . no one believes it unless it's on TV these days. .

Let all these DA wizards have their say, but I honestly believe Kris knows his facts and figures. There are just some people that are so biased towards certain brands, usually DA. They won't buy anything else no matter what so I guess that is ok. I am so sick of hearing all the DA crap that I don't think I will ever own one. I am sure they are good engines, but they can NOT be so much better than everything else like these people let on. Can you say pi$$ing contest? I can. I will take my zdz 80 and BME 100 and have a blast! Keep up the good informative work Kris!

This is all real simple,get the total weight down and you can give back some CCs.Some of the replies in this thread remind me of
the TV commercial ,I think its Fedex, maintain the norm or we'll all be ..........Doomed.I have about 20 flights on my 33lb. and the more
I fly it, the happier I am with it. This plane is in no way wanting for power. It dose every thing it's told to do with agility and certainly
exceeds my present ability.
Bill