No, I don't.

If this goes on a plane that is used a good bit the fuel savings will be very noticeable. The long flight times and reliability and lack of starting equipment will also be very nice. I love a plane that is paid for and costs very little each time I fly it from then on. Paying for glow fuel over and over gets so old. This motor should last a long time and this increases savings over the years.

I'm really thinking that this is the motor for me to use. The telemaster will probably be the plane I carry to field a lot and let everyone fly. So, the low cost of gas will be great. I plan to get this one going pretty fast to help me get going back in the while. It's been a while since I've flown a large plane. Servos will be mounted in the rear of the plane. I plan to recover when I build.

I just got a G90 ST for Christmas and can say for sure it turns a 13X6 APC at 12,500+ even with less than 1/2 gallon of fuel through it. I am just wondering if anyone has been able to back up the factory specs of 12,500 to 12,800 on a BME conversion. I would really like to replace my G26 with this if it runs as advertised. My G26 is on a GP Spacewalker with an 89 inch wing. I really like the gassers because of the low fuel consumption and little to no cleanup but the G26 is a bit heavy for the Spacewalker. Please post numbers if you have them.

Having run a Saito 91 on the Great Planes Spacewalker with great success I can see no reason why the converted ST 90 wouldn't provide enough power. The GP Spacewalker is a realitively light plane.

Anyone run the BME 90 conversion yet?

Yes, I have been running one for about nine months now. It started out in a powerline edge540 - wing loading was a little high @ 7.5 lbs and never seemed to run quite right with the falkon ignition. I was running a pro zinger 14-4 around 9600 rpm with a bisson muffler. The ignition boot never fit really well wich resulted in some rfi and skipping @ certain rpms. Last month I sent it C+H and had them replace the ignition - what a difference. It now turns a 15-4 apc @ 9700 and runs smooth as glass with excellent transition and very little mid range burble. I have it in a f90 that weighs in @ 9.5 lbs. Plane will hover, but not much left for pull out. I was looking for more of a small gas sport flyer and I am very pleased so far although I only have about 5-6 flight on it. I would guess I have about 2 gallons thru it and seems to be getting stronger all the time.

Glad to hear someone is finally reporting some results.

I'm confused. Did it come with a CH or Falken ignition originally and what ignition are you running now? Who did you sent it to to replace the ignition?

Thanks,
Brian

Sorry, it came stock with the falkon ignition. The falkon boot had a loose fit which caused rfi and skipping. Also that ignition drew quite a bit of current, I think it was about 1.6A at WOT. I sent the engine to C+H out west and had the falkon replaced with a C+H ignition module.The C+H unit draws considerably less around 500mah +/-. I am very happy with the engine overall, but did not like the Falkon ignition. The engine and muffler weigh in @ 27 oz, the ignition module about 4 oz, and a 1450 mah 4.8V around 4oz = 35 oz.

Good info here but just scanning I cannot tell if this 90 conversion will be suited for what I want. I was thinking of a U-Can-Do .60 size so definitely going to be for 3D. Will the BME 90 do the job and do it well or will I be lacking on the pull out end?

-------------


Forget gassers for "small" 3D planes. You need the best power-to-weight ratio available today. That doesn't come anywhere near a gasoline fueled engine until you get up to 40cc or better. A little 15cc engine is not in the offing. Yes, I'm aware that Dick Hanson can do it with 26cc, but you aren't Dick Hanson. No offense intended.


Ed Cregger

The BME 90 should easily provide all the power you could ever need for a 60 size model. Remember gas engines develop much more torque than their glow counterparts.

Karol

Mine came with the C&H ignition.

Put it on the .40 size UCD. Guys are running .90's on them anyway. Lighten up everything possible and you'll still have decent wingloading. If you have doubts, send me the engine and I'll put it on my NIB Extra 260 profile. I'll post a video of the flight performance. Then maybe send your engine back. Or you could just try it on the .90 size plane and let us all have some real 3D type feedback on the engine.

--------------


HP = Torque X RPM. You can't develop more torque without developing more horsepower. Glow fueled engines produce more horsepower than gas fueled engines, if both identical engines are optimized for their fuel type. What's wrong with this picture?

I agree that a .90 gas engine should be roughly equal to a .60 glow engine in power. But the extra weight of the ignition unit, spark lead and battery are only partially offset by the extra weight of the glow fuel needed for an equal duration length run.

I'm not trying to start an argument of any kind or to insult anyone, especially you, Karol. I just get tired of folks thinking that they can replace a glow engine with an equal or greater sized small gasser and have the same performance. Maybe some day, but not yet.


Ed Cregger

Ed,

Don't you have one of these engines?

I hear you Ed and certaintly appreciate and respect your point of view.

Karol

The formula, if memory serves me correctly, is TorqueXRPM divided by 5250=HP. Also, from my days working with Dyno's, it is possible to increase torque and have less HP by moving the max torque down in the RPM band. The opposite is also true, as in less torque - more HP as long as the torque is moved up the RPM scale enough. One such application most people are familiar with is the diesel. Some of the new pickup trucks with diesels are making upward of 650 ft/lbs of torque and their HP is less than a comparible gasoline engine. An example - 400 ft/lbs of torque X 2500 rpm's divided by 5250 = 190 HP. Second example - 300 ft/lbs of torque X 4000 rpm's divided by 5250 = 228 HP. Second example less torque more HP. [8D]

Yep

So........does anyone have one that they can SERIOUSLY give a report on it??

I am wanting one for the TOP FLITE Cessna 182. Still have a couple months to decide, but I am really leaning towards this gasser.

Nick

Got a new ST .90- gas installed on a great Planes Tiger Moth. Today I tried to run it. Can,t even get a pop out of it . Seems to suck fuel when choked but has never fired. Have 32 to 1 gas mix 8 oz tank open vent line on tank. 4.8 volt ignition battery 12oo mah. I tried getting a spark by grounding plug on head and cranking. Tried both by hand and with starter got no spark but while plug is grounded and I shut off ignition switch, I get one spark each time it is shut off. Needles are: high 2/1/2 and low 1/1/2 just like when I got it. Can anybody give me a hand? Any ideas or suggestions will be appreciated

What type of ignition? Sound like the sensor is shot.
Send Keith an e-mail, [email protected]

I was just wondering, are the ignitions on these the same as other gassers in the respect to how they will fire once when you turn on the power to clear any unburned fuel on the plug and in the cylinder? If so, when you (cherry.hill) turn off the ignition it fires once, could it be a wire crossed somewhere? Just a thought..


Shane

Tomas, saw you were putting 2 of these in one of your P-38's. That's the plane I've been leaning towards, was wondering if you have gotten them installed and how they performed? Sounds like an awesome combo...


Shane

They come with a Falkon ignition.