? can you see the difference between the BME 50 and the 44

DEFINITELY



and if you wait for the new BME 55 EXTREME, you will have even more power than the 50 and CONSIDERABLY less weight than the 44



Jeff

I have not heard anything about the BME 55. Damn I was talking with keith last night I should of asked. I called to confirm switching oil after two gallons. Keith said yes switch to Amsoil at 50:1 after two gallons. He is going to change the manual. I know someone posted that on this board. Do you have any specs on the BME 55? Keith is leaving for TOC today. Maybe it will be displayed there.

Chris

I hear it is going to weigh less than 2 lbs!!

Keith will have the bme110 extreme for display at TOC which will be available for sale before the end of this year(or so I heard). The 55 extreme will come next year. I hope earlier rather than later

I spoke to Keith about the BME55 EXTREME just the other day.

Same cylinder as the 110 same exhaust as the current 50 weight with ignition and plug is a tad over 2 lbs. It will have a radial mount that COMES WITH IT and bolts directly to your firewall. Carbueration is through a set of reed valves that is mounted in front of the cylinder directly over the crank. He is talkin about spinning 24" props with this engine. It will have the same size prop hub as the current 55.

You better call and get your name on the list now because........

THEY ARE GOING FOR $499 just like the current 50

Wow!
I thought my AW 29% Edge was going to get a face lift this winter with a 50 (I have a 44 in it now) maybe I'll wait for the 55.

2 pounds is UNREAL!

The 55 sounds nice. When did he say it will be available?

wgeffon,

How does the AW 29% fly? I have been looking at the plane real hard. I also have a BME 44. My problem is I really don't like to build, and I don't have a lot of time for it. Have you heard anything about the 31% ARF coming out? I am also a professional pilot. I fly for Netjets.

Chris

Must be made from titanium....

Nah, titanium is too heavy.
Must be made from ferro unobtanium.

Seriously...no way on 2 pounds.
That's what a Supertigre 2300 glow engine weighs without exhaust. And the BME will have over twice the displacement.
The ST doesn't have a steel con rod. I don't find any excess metal on the ST, so this BME weight sounds like a pipe dream.

"ferro unobtanium" I like that diablo

2 pounds is seriously UNREAL! I am sure its gonna be a smooth running motor!

Are they planning on making a new airplane that balances with a 2 lbs gasser in the front? Or are we supposed to add 2 lbs of lead weight to the front? Can't put the batt packs up there on a gasser. Maybe we can run a 2 lb 12v gel cell for ignition!

Or maybe you can have a DP ultimate biplane with 42 lbs of thrust, 16" non scale landing gear to clear the prop and 1/4 scale servos in the wing to keep the flutter down!

How do you like my HP edge with the new BME 55.....yes that is a $300 custom made 18x22 prop......wont hover but blows by my buddies turbine.

I think the BME 55 sounds cool too, but...........

How in the world are we suppose to balance a plane designed for an engine that big when it weighs less than most engines half its size?

Should we add dead weight or use bigger batteries? Maybe we should pop for some expensive light weight Li Polymer cells and just add dead weight.

Seems like we're getting into situation where we're chasing our tails. (Pun intended)

Wiz

I am sure the 2 LBS is without battery, ignition, switch, and muffler. That will put it close to 3 LBS. I do agree that you better make sure how much weight you need up front before buying it.

Chris

GUYS don't get your undies bunched!!.......Be creative, move radio equipment forward (like the elev servos and run pull pull) or maybe cut some lightening holes in the rear of the frame. MOST of the R-planes that are out there are designed heavy anyway. I know that it makes you feel better if the plane is structurally heavy and stiff!!????

Let me put it to you this way.......
the H9 1/4 scale cap 232 wasn't meant to have a gasser on it, but lots of people went that route anyway. I did. Most of them ended up WAY too heavy. I took out that which wasn't needed on this plane and ended up at 13.5 pounds. That is about what this plane weighed with the YS 1.40 on it. Now IMAGINE the same plane with the new BME 55 on it weighing in at 12.5 pounds............................HOLY ***** !!!!! Now you are truelly getting the thrust to weight ratio up there like the BIG BOYS. GUESSING but 32 lbs thrust to 12.5 lbs of plane.......

THIS ENGINE IS GOING TO BE GREAT, just quit using your tunnel vision.

Jeff

We are presently flying a 11Lb 1280 sq in model with a 40RE and pipe - this power/ weight combo is very fun!
When you get into this 20 oz ft realm -and swinging BIG props - it is competely different
I am using trimmed 22x12 props and 20 10 stuff -
We also took it to the TOC and some of the guys flew it on Monday --
Tunnel vision is sticking with HEAVY arfs---get out the sticks and glue -then your new engine will really be a blast.

A BME 55 that only weighs 2 lbs? This one I will have to see before I believe. There is hardly any wasted metal on the current engines, so how are the savings achieved? Ceramics? You cannot pull any significant weight off of the crankshaft or the rod if you want decent life and robustness, and the crankcases are already aluminum. There is some wishful thinking going on here I suspect.

And with an engine that weighs half as much but still has the same rpms and power output, the pressure pulses will be the same and vibration will a problem. Engine non-reciprocating weight helps dampen and absorb vibration. As the reciprocating mass becomes proportionally larger than the still and rotating masses, you are gonna have the shakes.

Since my planes already balance right on with the "heavier" conventional gasoline engines, what am I gonna do? Trying to pull the equivalent weight difference out of the rear is not a simple matter. I don't want flimsy airplanes. I don't think that today's engines are much if any overweight as they are.

MR Hanson,
I agree tunnel vision is sticking to ARFs. That is why I have only done the one. I build eveything I fly other than the H9 CAP.


Tommy,
I understand that which you are saying, but look at what BME did with the 110, it weighs just a little more than 3.5 pounds. The only reason the 55 isn't UNDER 2 pounds is because even though it is only half the size of the 110, It still has the majority of the 110 crankcase. So physically, it is more than half of a 110.

If done correctly, any engine can run smoothly regardless of it's weight.

You last comment states that you are happy with the "HEAVY WEIGHTS". Just imagine shaving another 2 pounds off of a 1/3 scale plane. Imagine the light wing loading. You could use canisters without becoming over weight. You could add 10 more oz of fuel AND smoke oil. You could mount a digi CAM corder permanantly................

Jeff

Everyone is interested in "newer/lighter " engines - There may be a bit of "wistfulness" afoot ----
From what I have seen in single cyl designs -- 2.5 lbs would seem to be a pretty light target - small plug - thin wall cyl, slipper piston etc..
The extra bits tho - still weigh the same - a decent, quiet exhaust setup - close to 10 ounces -a blatty stack, - a lot less.- an ignition -2 ozs min - we had some of these done once - using a coil mounted to the engine - fed by a small electronics package - the batt- another 2-4 ozs
The prop? well these vary by a 3-1weight factor! -spinner etc..
Bottom line - the % difference in the entire"powerunit" will be quite small.
Getting a very light , very smooth power package is still quite a trick.
The big rub is that the torque reaction really is tough to control.
Overbalanced cranks and trick ignitions really help here but a poorly adjusted carb and a light , flexible prop , can ruin the best efforts for smooth operation--regardless of the mfgr.

I agree with most of what you said Dick, but in the case of my H9 CAP, don't you think shaving nearly a full pound off of an 1100 sq" ship would make a SUBSTANTIAL difference. Taking it from 13.5 lbs. to 12.5 lbs. This is the weight of the plane with a GLOW engine.

Secondly, I really doubt that Keith is going to put JUNK on the market. By that I mean the way you described the engine. This IS the 110 basically cut in half. So what you said would have to mean that his 110 is going to be junk also. I just do not think so.


You see alot of these same types of comments were made when Keith made the 102. IT IS TOO LIGHT. CYL IS TOO THIN....BLA BLA BLA BLA.....

Turned out to be a very successful engine didn't it!!!!

EXPECT NOTHING BUT THE BEST FROM THE 110 and 55 EXTREME

Jeff

What are you saying?
I don't recall saying anything negative -I commented that saving weight is a tough job--for anybody.

What I am saying is this engine doe not make sense for the currenty crop of airplanes that we have out there



So what you are saying is:


The New most powerfull engine is designed for 1.20 planes?


Put it in a 73" wing that has the ground clearance for an 18" prop and find a 18x20 prop? what good would that prop be for hovering?

or build an 80" plane light in the tail? How about an 80" cap with a flat stab? or elveator sevos in the front of the fuse??????? with rods to control the surfaces???

There are plenty of engines out there that give us overkill performance as it is.

This is not making sense.....and some of us do not have the time to build.

You are bashing ARF's, but take a look at the GP EXTRA 300s and let me know how long it would take you to finish that plane in that exact color sceme including the painting of the cowl in checkers with gold trim...........................your budget is $399 and the quality of the finishing must be the same, and throw in a 3 1/2 aluminum spinner and 4-40 hardware!!!!!

I have the time to fix little things on ARF's, i do not have the time to build and finish a plane that would cost me twice as much. And for what? Rediculous speed and power that can't be used? We are reaching the speed envelope already in 78" 80" planes?


42lbs of thrust on a 13 lbs plane..........have fun on the downline braking, landing, and with aileron flutter.


FYI .....a search on the web brings up nothing about a BME 55 extreme.

Dick,
My first comment was in reference to your comment

"Bottom line - the % difference in the entire"powerunit" will be quite small."

The rest of what I said must have been a brain fart. I don't know where it came from.

lgodin, If this engine turns out to be what Keith says, it could EASILY replace most of the 60cc engines and have less weight. Less weight is ALWAYS good, you just have to look at different ways to get the plane balanced. It is not impossible. Move elev servos as far forward as possible, same with the rudder servo(s).
I have had GREAT success with radio equipment within 6 inches of engine ignition, so I would NOT be the least bit afraid to shove everything that close to the ignition module. Get the ignition module up on the firewall and there you have it. If any lead has to be added, it would be kept to a minimum. I personally think this engine would be EXCELLENT on ANY 90" and below aerobatic aircraft. The new AEROWORKS 31% ARF would fly very well with this engine. If this engine turns a 24" prop like Keith told me, it should have the thrust of most of the current 70cc engines.

Jeff

If you look at the weight of a gas engine - say 40-50 cc- you must include all accessories which make it a viable quiet setup-
So if the basic engine weighs 2.5 lb -or 3 lbs - -that weight is only part of the "power unit".
The total is more like 3.5-4 lbs .
On a percentage scale - a bare engine weight savings of 8 ounces (optomistic savings) figures out on a 3.5 lb package as 8/56-or a 14% savings on weight of the "power unit".

A 32 oz 40-50 cc gasoline engine may be a possibility -
In any case - lets see what actually transpires first---
As an example -
When I tried making 11 lb 1280 sq in model - with a 40 and a pipe - I was wondering how to do it- and ended up under that weight!
One never knows how light stuff can be until it is really given an effort.