This plane is owned and was built and flown by my friend Bill Edgar. It weighs 33lbs and is powered by the BME Extreme. It has less than 20 minutes of run time and is being run at 32:1 oil for break in. It has a Menz 26-10 break in prop and canister mufllers. You can see it has unlimited verticle.

The plane is the standard version, not a lightened one. It is a little tail heavy. 1 JR 8611 servo was used per elevator half instead of the recommended 2 to lighten the tail.

The only flaw in the BME engine is the prop mount. It is held on by 1 5-16 bolt and supposedly prevented from rotating by 2 4-40 screws. It only takes 1 backfire to shear the screws and ruin your prop and spinner. Kris has developed a 6 bolt hub that Kieth should seriuosly look at.

[link=http://members.cox.net/jpbrannon/]http://members.cox.net/jpbrannon/[/link]

Joe

The 40% fibre classics or comp arf's whatever you want to call them weighed around 34lbs with da150's..............I dont see the point?

You couldn't put together the CA-330 with cannisters and a DA-150 and get the weight near 34 lbs. Also, the BME is $300 less. If that's not important to you, just send me the $300..

Wow,
thank for sharing. Did Kris get his down in the 20s? That is a bumnner about the bolting system.

Joe !~)

Looks like a viable combination. Would you elaborate on the equipment installed?

It will be interesting to see if the vertical improves as the engine breaks-in. Unlimited vertical??? Rollers? It pulled away from the hover with very little authority, IMO. I would suggest that it is somewhat anemic compared to a 150 powered model. Will a 28" prop be used in the future?

Michael, one thing I noticed is that he was using a Menz 26x10 prop, which is way too little prop. Regarding the "very little authority" pulling from a hover, if you listen to the video, you'll hear that it was a part throttle pull out. He was into it for several seconds before you can hear a pronounced change in rpm that indicated to me the point where he finally applied full throttle. I'm sure that a better prop and immediate full throttle would have shown you more in the vertical department. But then again, his is new, right?

I've got a few gallons through my 110X, and am using a Mejlik 28x10, but really like the Air Wild NX28x10 better for all around performance. Mine is in a 30 pound Wild Hare Extra.

Tim

I noted the engine song on blast-off and subsequent throttle advance, even then I wasn't overwhelmed... Yeah the bigger prop and some fuel consumption may do it, time will tell.

What rpm are you getting with your 28" props. The Mejlik's work but certainly don't load like others. The NX being better all around is no surprise. Are you using cans too?

Joe, if I remember correctly, Kris had the lightened version, and his weighed in the 28 pound range. Performance at this weight would be stellar.

To be honest, I've not had the problems with my prop bolt system that Joe had, regarding shearing bolts and ruining spinner backplates. I used sandpaper between my prop and spinner to provide additional friction for my 102 and 105 BMEs and props didn't move as long as I kept the prop nut tight. Wood props, as you know, required more frequent checking since they do compress. This system worked fine with wood props for my 110X, but the composite props like my Mejlik 28x10 did move. I drilled a pair of 1/8" holes (on opposite sides of the prop bolt hole) through the propeller and the spinner backplate and the glued 1/8" piano wire apprximately 1 1/4" long into the two prop holes. The piano wire goes all the way through the prop hub and sticks out maybe 1/4" so when the prop is mounted, it also goes all the way through the holes drilled into the spinner backplate. Using the pins, the sandpaper, and properly tightened prop nut has resulted in props that do not move at all, including the Mejliks. When I mount a new prop, I use a 7/16" drill bit to align the prop and spinner and then use the 1/8" holes in the spinner backplate as a jig to drill the holes in the prop so that when I glue in the pins, they will align properly.

Right on the time will tell. At the same time, there's little question that 33 pounds is pushing it for any 100 class engine, if overwhelming vertical performance is the criteria. I've got no problem with multiple upline snaps etc. with my 30 pound plane. This is my first experience using cannisters and I'm still learning there is more to tuning it than just playing with the needles. I've gotta also play more with header length to get the proper compromise. When mine is rich enough so it REALLY pulls, the part throttle response blubbers more than I'd like. If my part throttle was as clean and blubber free like Joe's, then it would be too lean on top end. No large deal, probably the same issue anyone with cans goes through while getting things right.

I'm getting 6,600 to 6,700 rpm with the Mejlik 28x10 and about 6,300 with the Air Wild NX 28x10.

I'm still learning..........

Diablo,

if you look at any of the site that have the results from the last TOC technical inspection........you will see that I think there were at least 3 40% FC extras with da150 around the 34lb mark. I tend to believe these results..........go check on the troy built model site!!
Admittedly these were mostly without cans.......but hey.....go fit a 3 blader

Actualy the climb from hover was NOT at full power and it IS under proped. To me unlimted verticle means it will keep going straight up untill you tell it otherwise. Maybe to some unlimited verticle means it will accelerate exponentialy in a verticle climb.

Joe

Nice vid, I agree with Michael, seems a bit underpowered, like to see it all broke in and propped right, just doesnt 'jump' like I like them too. For $300 more Ill take the 150 over it, I see it still wingrocks.. .002

The combo should work -- the WH330 we did at over 29 lbs with a smaller 100 (tho not a BME) worked very well.
As for bigger prop improving performance -- don't be surprised if that does not work out as expected . ( and we fly at 4500 ft elev.)
The optimum prop for power may be smaller . Ya gotta try a few .
Oh yeh we were not using canisters -- just JMB mufflers .
Put the combo into competitition against 150 powered models - then you can see how it really compares.
Once you get into looking for serious power in the Unknowns-you get a really fast wake up call --
BTW , a threaded prop center bolt and 6 bolt drive hub suggested for the new engine is in my book a good idea .

Hi Joe,

Your airplane and engine combination looks great. From everything I have read about the 110, I am sure you need more propeller. Looking forward to seeing another video, once the motor is broken in with a bigger propeller. My 110 should be here anytime. I have the 2.6 Composite Arf with the Fantasy paint job. I would really like to know which canisters you used, which headers and how long they are? Thank you.

Big Bob

I like, but not much pull out power IMO...I want to see a biger prop to just see some diff...

NICEE

Dan

Still amazing IMO if its a 110

TOC pilot and the 2003 FAI Nats Champ is a member of our club. He also flies a DA 150 Powered 40% Fiber Classics Extra. He flew the BME powered version yesterday. He feels it has less power than his 150 version but flies noticably "lighter". The BME IS 4lbs lighter than the DA 150, so in THIS plane if we removed the BME and installed the DA it would weigh 4lbs more.

There is a saying in most racing circuits that ther is "no substitute for cubic inches". However the objective to this plane was to have a "light" flying plane that has enough powere to pull out of a hover. I think that has been achieved. It would have been nice if the plane had been 3 lbs lighter. But because the engine is so light heavy nicads were used and are mounted on the firewall. Also canisters and stainless headeres were used, all adding weight. The owner/flyer is happy overall but there is still the prop slipping issue to work out. Iam suprise that we havent had any ZDZ or 3W people say the would have used those engines instead.

I suppose engine choice has as much to do with brand loyalty as does buying pickup trucks.

Joe

No one is picking on the setup - ( BTW, who was the 2003 FAI Champ you mentioned?)
Your note of using other brands , a 106 3w and a 100 ZDZ and a 110 BME are all different size engines, tho people lump them together (?)
A plane the size of a 40% Extra , will be behind the power curve with any of these engines - no matter how light the plane is.
A parachute weighs very little but the drag is brutal--
But match up any of them with weight and drag - sized right for a given thrust setup and you have the makings of a competitive model.
I would guess that the setup Bill Edgar has , is a really pleasant model to fly .

JBrannon, THANKS for the info and video.

I'm in the process of stripping my "Normal" CA330 and putting a BME110 on it as well as having one on my lightened version. Target weight is 33 lbs, the same as Bills, with NiMH packs and full length canisters. CF wing tubes are available from DA if you want to shave another 12 ounces off the plane.

One techinique to try, concerning spinner backplates, is to drill them for the 3W pattern, then countersink the back of the plate, then use screws and basically bolt the prop to the backpalte. After that the anti-rotation pins in the stock hub will engage the backplate and keep everything from spinning. This is especially useful on spinners like Pete's Spinners, that use 6 blts on the periphery of the spinner to attach to the backplate, but I also use it for my other spinners now. ZERO slippage with this method. . .I use #10 fine-thread decking or drywall screws through the backplates, 4 of them, and use the other 2 holes to engage the anti-rotation pins.

The Mejzlik 28-10 is a great prop for this combination with standard mufflers, but if you go to a canister setup, the 29-10 is a better bet by far (where noise is a factor). I'm using one right now on my 28.5 lbs plane. Vertical suffers just slightly because the engine is loaded down about 500 rpm from the 28-10's, but the plane is much quieter and the prop does not sing as badly. Other good props are the BME28-10, Menz-s 28-10 and Biela 28-10, all of which I've tried. The BME prop is a little bit noisier, but pulls slightly better than the Menz-s, and is a FULL 28" in diameter compared to the 27 5/8" menz.

Best of luck to Bill with his plane. . . and CONGRATULATIONS ! ! !

Ian, one thing about those "TOC" planes weights. . they were the "Lightened Versions" like I have, so the airframe started out about 5 lbs lighter than the normal layups. My own properly equipped "Normal" plane, with canisters, 3 servos/wing and 2/stab, and NiMH batteries is right at 40-40.5 pounds. Taking the same exact plane, and putting a BME/canister setup on the nose will LOSE 6-6.5 lbs of weight, since the 3W150 w/canisters is about 13 lbs with prop/spinner and the BME setup with prop/spinner can be as light as 6.5-7 lbs depending on prop/spinner.

Most of these"normally equipped " CA330's come out weighing about 38 lbs without canisters, or 39.5-40 with cansters, and possibly more if more equipment is added. The TOC birds have to last about 150 flights or so. . you better believe they are pertty "marginalized' to get the weight down. My own plane ssllllliiiiddddeeeesssss on pullups or pushovers ifyou try to make a sharply defined corner. You can actually see the plane pitch up and keep going in a straight line for about one plane length before it starts to change course. It takes away options for harder pitch changes if you desire them. Also, it tends to drop a wing quicker, and then be less recoverable, in low-speed flight or while at the edge of the stalled flight envelope. For the guys who are used to "Pattern" style aerobatics this is okay, because they keep the speed on. I want it a little slower, though, and the planes fly slower a LOT better when the weight comes off.

just want to keep an eye on this thread

Bob, I'm using the PEFA "70cc" canisters from AI, and a 3.5" header on my engine in my 33% Compsite-Arf Extra. The headers are basically the KS pieces, availabe from DA, and are merely a 90 degree elbow, 1" pipe on the end of that, and if you use the KS flanges available direct from KS the "drop" is just about right for that airframe, though you might want to add another inch of length directly off the flange before you hit the 90 degree bend.

Power with this header/canister setup is right at 6850-6900 with a Mejzlik 28-10 (on my engines), and to put it mildly the plane becomes a rocket. Setting CG with this setup is very easy, since the canisters are slid very far forward, helping with the CG. Be sure to put a cuple of 1.5" holes in the belly right behind the LG plate to help remove hot air from inside the fuselage.

BTW, a guy at my field has a ZDZ80 on a plane, and gets 1/2 the "gas mileage" that I get with my 110/canisters. He sets the timer for 8 minutes on a 32 ounce tank of gas, and lands with basically only fumes in the tank. I set my timer for 15 minutes with a 32 ounce tank, fly 2-3 minutes past that, and land with 5-10 ounces of gas in the tank, depending on how hard I was flying. Depending on your flying style, a 28, or even 24 ounce, tank might be sufficient for this combination.

In reply to Kris,
Thanks for the good info Kris.
Wow very interesting point you make about the lightened version of the FC or COMP ARF. I did not know there were two versions of that plane.

To pull 5lbs of weight out of that bare airframe I would guess the only way they can do it is by using less layers of cloth.............man that is a lot tho. A 5lbs pile of fiberglass IS a big old pile!!
What are your thoughts on how they are getting the "lightened version so light Kris and how much more does it cost............(Im only guessing it costs more)

I did see Tim Mills fly a 30lbs Wildhare extra with the bme and pefa cans like yours and it was impressive.

Very interesting fuel consumption figures............something very good going on in that setup.

Energy in equals energy out right?
6850 ish on Mej 28-10 and 17~18 mins on 32oz's.....................very impressive.

How did the gas tank thing get in here?
Just to "keep things straight" as you oft times say --
the 80 on 32 ozs is a very common setup -seen and flown a lot of em .
With timer set at 11 min (for Unlimited class patterns - very typically the tank has between 12 ozs left .
The other 80's are typically the same - we see plenty of em .
My new 3D setup with the 80 has a 24 oz tank -again very common setup .

Dick,you really need to take things in perspective. . geesh. .mountain out of a mole hill here. .

Even 11 minutes is a very SHORT flight on a 32 ounce tank of gas. The BME will easily do 20 minutes without breking stride, just a pointer for those who want to shave a few more ounces off the plane. You CAN go to a smaller/lighter gas tank, and reduced fuel load, IF you want to. The guy who owns the plane (A Noll Christen Eagle) actually brought it to my attention, rather than the other way around, him being amazed that on 32 ounces on a 110 in a 40% plane I could go 20 minutes, ripping it up pretty well, and still have 5-6 ounces in the tank after landing.

So, for the truly rabid weight watchers out there. . you CAN go to a 28, or even 24, ounce tank with the BME, and not flame-out after 15 minutes. I guess you could say that the twins make power from CC's, not fuel consumption.

Ian, I've looked the airframe over. . it is absolutely BARE necessities on these lightened versions, and they take a LOT of extra time to NOT put in extra resin and materials. The extra price for all this extra attentino is $500.

For instance, the CF capping on the spars, between the skin and spars, is NOT there, as is the usual extra reinforcements in the wing and wing root area, which nets a wing that is 8-10 ounces lighter per side. You can definitely feel it if you grab the wing by the skin, though. .and it's super easy to damage it if you get careless. I have a field repair on the right wing of my plane at the moment, I grabbed the area between two ribs, in the leading edge area, a bit too tightly and heard it go CRACK!!... .YIKES. . no evident damage, but it had a craase on the outside which I overlaid with a piece of glass sliced out of the wing root cover-over piece of glass, which is non-structural. Thick CA over the crease and laid on the piece of glass and it's stronger than before, with no weight or real airflow penalty. My wings are 3 lbs 3 ounces EACH, with servoes, linkages, and wiring and paint. Compare that to a 3-14 or 3-15 the wings for my other plane

As for the fuselage, much of the CF overlay on the seams, reinforcements in some area, and foam/glass laid up areas have been discarded. It's a full 2.5-3 lbs lighter than a normal layup, and the advertised 1.5-1.7 kilos on the comopsite-Arf site is a reality with this fuselage. It comes out less than 3.75 lbs bare, compared to about 6-6.25 for the normal layup (I weighed both of my planes while building them). Tail surfaces, stabs and rudder are also given the lightened touch, and come out 8-12 ounces lighter overall than the standard pieces. Toss in a CF wing tube that is 12 ounces lighter and its a solid FIVE lbs of weight saved over the standard layup model, with a starting weight in the 16-16.5 lbs range with LG, Cowl and Canopy.

One note. . this lightened structure is NOT designed to take the power output of a 150, and Andreas at CA specifically says so, because the long-term durability is not longer built into it and the power and pulsing of a 150 will literally fatigue the airframe tot he point of failure over time. I'd say that the BME110 is about the biggest thing you'd want on the plane if you wanted to get over 500 flights from it.