JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

Getting a new power plant for my H9 Sukhoi, and am wondering which would be the best engine for it, everyone knows a DA is a great engine, but will the da100 be a better choice than a BME 102 or 105 even? I would be able to have the 105 for about the price of the DA100.

I dont want to shake my plane apart. The zdz80 doesnt shake much and I seen one BME102 that shook more than my 80 single did..... But just wondering about that 105! I want LOTS of power!

THanks

flyinrazrback

My Feedback: (69)

Have you considered a 3W 106? awesome power and transition, very good match for the sukhoi which puts it into orbit.

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

Well, kinda yes and no, I am not really a fan of 3W's personally. and the 105 would be a bit less than a new DA that is why I have the two compared... besides, looking at the numbers the DA100 has more power than the 3w 106.

Thanks

flyinrazrback

My Feedback: (69)

not starting a war, but my 106 pulls a lot harder with 4 gallons through it than my friends da with 50 gallons through it. Another friend has a 106 SS as well and has the same results compared to the DA. You cant go wrong with a DA though, one fine motor, and I hear customer service at DA is awesome, I wouldnt know, every single time I try to call, the phone is busy and no one ever there. I am 100% satisfied with Bobby at Cactus, so dont see the need to switch.

Tim_Indy

John, my 105 is a lot smoother than my 102 was and has more power to boot. Having said that, the DA 100 is definitely stronger than the BME 105. The coming BME Extreme is supposed to be both lighter and be the strongest 100cc class engine one can buy, but alas, it's not available yet (soon I hope, I'm in line to get one!).

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

So the bme105 is still weaker than a DA100? Wow!

Flyin', do you have a special model of the 3w? I am looking at the specs for the 3w106b2

mglavin

My Feedback: (31)

John

Not that it makes any difference at all, we recently had a vertical drag race from hover. I am not sure were your numbers for comparisons came from but I believe it's well known that the 3W 100's have more grunt than any thing else currently available and then came the 106's. I have a new 106 but have yet to run it and can't offer any comparisons. But as for the rest I have owned them all.

My son Josh's H9 Sukhoi, 28/10 Mejzlik at 25-3/4lbs., 3W100 SS lightweight with stock exhaust, around six gallons of break-in fuel.

Fiber Classics 2.6mm Extra, 28/10 Mejzlik at 25-3/4lbs., DA-100 with cannisters about 14 gallons of fuel old.

It was interesting race as we precluded the contest with in-depth carb adjustments on the DA-100 and ran the 3W as it was. A precurser to all, the 3W was a little more cantankerous initially when we first started playing with her, but after around three gallons of fuel she started showing her true heritage.

Oh yeah about the drag race, it wasn't even a contest. It was so obvious that it was painfully disheartening for the many DA die-hards watching. The Sukhoi was like a rocket-ship out of the hover... The FC Extra never caught up!

I like DA-100's as much as the next guy and I owned a few, I have since sold the FC Extra and the Sukhoi moved to Las Vegas a couple of weeks ago too. Any of these 100cc class twins will work just fine for you, there will be a night and day difference... Being your model is setup for the ZDZ-80 I'd lean toward a BME similar overall weight and plenty of power with minimal vibration. I have owned several BME's. If you want all out power and that's all there is to it get the 3W....

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

Straight from Cheif aircraft

3W-106B2 Classic 106cc Twin
Part No. 3W 106B2
Horsepower 9.3 HP
Bore 1.73 in
Stroke 1.26 in
Speed Range 1200-8500 rpm
Oil Mix 1:50-1:80 Mix
Ignition 4.8V
Weight 5.9 lbs

Crankshaft 3 Ball Bearings
Length 7.5 in

Width 11.4 in

Muffler No
CART ADD
Price $1095.00



DA 100 Engine 100cc ADD $1150.00

DA-100 Specifications: Displacement: 6.1 ci. (100cc)
Output: 9.8 hp
Recommended Props:
2-blade: 26x12, 27x10, 28x10.
3-blade: 24x12, 25x12, 26x12.
Weight: 5.8 lbs (2.63 kilos)
Length: 6.5" (162.5mm)
Width: 11.45" (290.8mm) (w/ plug caps)
Bore: 1.6771" (42.6mm)
Stroke: 1.3779" (35mm)
Typical RPM: 1,000 to 6,700
8,500 max RPM
Fuel Draw: 2.5 oz/min at 6,000 RPM.
Three crank bearings
Four petal reed valve, bottom induction.
Desert Aircraft auto advance electronic ignition.
Walbro Carb.
Exclusive Desert Aircraft designed cylinders, pistons and crankshaft.
Three-piece CNC milled, 2024 T3 aluminum alloy crankcase.
Low vibration.
Most torque in its class .
Long rod to stroke ratio.
Aerobatic power curve.
Two-year warranty.

flyinrazrback

My Feedback: (69)

Horsepower figures are not reliable one bit on motors. There are too many variables for it to be accurate from one engine to another, ie, what prop, temp, pa, humidity, how much time on the engine, what exhaust, etc. You have to see them run side by side to understand. RPMs do not tell the whole story in the air. Many O times a motor does not turn up high on the ground, but comes alive like night and day in the air.

mine is the 106 that bobby sells, I dont work for 3W in any fashion, but I can tell you its impressive. Stats dont mean anything to me, once you see one run side by side with the other motors, you can easily tell the difference. I am impressed with the low range torque and transition. Its awesome! I love mine and its as reliable as a singer sewing machine. Mine only has 4 gallons through it, and has no trouble swinging that big fat butter knife looking 3W 28x10 prop. I havent tached it yet with the 28x10 3W prop, but right before I switched to amsoil, I was running lawnboy 40:1, menz 27x10S and was getting 6700rpm on the ground. I like DA, like I said, a very nice motor, I would run one if it was given to me. I have had old 3W100s, a 100 SS TOC, and the 106, and it IS night and day between the old 100s and the 106. The 106 is revamped, lighter (same as DA), no carb block issues. The 106 takes the H9 Sukhoi to the moon like an ICBM. But IMO, you cant go wrong with any of the 3, all will be ample power, and then some, and then some.

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

Hmm, maybe I need the 106? I want the most power in this class. I dont want to have to buy another motor again, so I want the best one.

I see its a bit cheaper.... is this the correct engine I listed?

flyinrazrback

My Feedback: (69)

The 106 you have listed is correct. I am sure some die hard da fans will jump on this thread, but in my experience, and my friends, the edge goes to the 106. The bme is a dog compared to the da or 3w, but still ample power for the sukhoi, but not space shuttle power like the 3w or DA

JPrc

My Feedback: (22)

John,

I have the 106 and it is a BAD ****. After seeing mine run several friends have gone with the 106 and they are extremely happy. If you do go with the 106 I recommend you get the Carbon Fiber intake with the engine. It makes setting the needles much easier. If you get one make sure the glue joints are good on the sukhoi, this engine SMOKES!

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

Is it a shaker? I dont want to have to go through the plane for a shakey engine.

Flyfalcons

Come to the next IMAC to see both engines in action!

JB Rekit

My Feedback: (3)

You probably won't be able to tell much of a difference between any of those engines you mentioned b/c they all will give your plane plenty of power. I know HP numbers don't mean anything unless you want a race plane and you won't find torque listed anywhere but DA usually has a little more tq than the compitition and no one else has a smoother transition (didn't say no one elses is the same, just not better). The main thing I like about the DA is the reliability/ durability. You won't have to get a new ignition later on down the road since a lot of other people (3W) end up putting a DA ignition on their planes. And their customer service is by far the best. Thats something you won't find out until you have either had all of those engines or had a close buddy that has delt with them.

but oh well,
get what you want and good luck

John

flyinrazrback

My Feedback: (69)

The 106 is very smooth, does not shake very much, transition is fast, just get a fast servo ie 5925

shill

My Feedback: (22)

Here we go again I do not see any comparissons in comparing a 100 to a 102 to 105 or a 106 the later should have more power with more cc's to them but they all do not or do run with a DA 100 but it takes a few extra cc's for them to get up to the DA. This is just for thought for you JohnVH I have BME ZDZ and DA I would not own a 3W Either DA or the BME will be a good engine. I would also add the BME I have is the old first version 100 and it has a very smooth transition I think it is the smoothest of any engine I have at this time as for the shake it does not shake any more than the ZDZ 80 I have.

Steve Hill

mglavin

My Feedback: (31)

I directly compared my son's 3W-100 to my DA-100, same for same cc displacement or at least advertised as such. As I mentioned it was a fair comparison done on the same day with like equipment and weighted models. The rest is just here-say, IMO.

You know not all of us are stuck on the ONE righteous brand with it's perceived value or status, this attitude is sorely recognized across our hobby with radios, servos, engines, airframes, props and much, much more. It is really unfortunate that so many are so narrow minded... Some modeler's abound with the attitude that what they have is it and that's all there is to it! I don't prescribe to such narrow minded renderings that focus on such arbitrary thoughts or delusions of grandeur.

Instead I put my wallet were my mouth is and try different combinations, engine and airframes. Any and all manufacturer's have had specific problems with their engines, believe me DA has been there too. There is a vast disparaging difference in units sold from one manufacture to another which contributes to the fairy-tales and then there is all those know it alls that just pass mis-information and wives tales on with absolutely no personal experience and or specific knowledge of said problems. Lets also not forget the number one factor associated with engine problems is the user themselves, again not the engine the USER and his lack of understanding of whats is or is not happening, improper setup, mal-adjusted carb's, fuel, heat and more.

I honestly believe that all of the engines mentioned thus far are exceptional products each with there own peculiar offerings, advantages and or dis-advantages.

Kris^

My Feedback: (1)

John VH. . a few things to think about:

First of all, Hp numbers mean NOTHING. . I can make a Cox .049 make 10 hp if I can get it to spin fast enough (something like 1,000,000 rpm or so, I guess) The manufacturers/supliers throw these numbers at us as a marketing tool/comparison. They even admit ( no names being dropped here) that they either have to turn a ton more RPM than we will ever see, to get those figures, OR, they just picked a number because they wanted their brand-new motor to appear "stronger".

Second. . Anything from a G-62 to a ZDZ120 will fly that plane, it just depends on what motor YOU want to use. Every motor will have their strong points and weaknesses (G-62 is the cheapest, weakest and heavy as hell, ZDZ is heaviest, probably most powerful, the others fall in between) It's yup to YOU, the buyer, to decide what you want the plane to do, and which brand of engine you want to be "loyal" to.

In generalities, the 4 best motors for that airframe are as follows:

ZDZ80. . good dependable powerful single, shakes more than the others, least power of the group (80-110 cc's)

BME102/105, lightest twin, will balance the easiest on that plane, extremely smooth midrange with minimal imbalance/vibration issues. . really the best option for that airframe if you want to do AEROBATICS ONLY because you will be able to keep the plane lighter than with other twins, and the engiens performance characteristics are aimed at this sort of flying.

DA-100, more power than the BME, very smooth mid-range and transition (the BME and DA are equal in this area), 300-400 rpm stronger than the BME, also 1.5 lbs heavier so you need to shift weight towards the tail to balance the plane, which will make it more prone to overrotation or end-heaviness issues if you want the most precise flying possible.

3W 106. . .admittedly the Horsepower king, but the midrange and transition are very much like a light-switch. the engine is ported for top-end power numbers, NOT for transition and mid-range smoothness. (FORGET the stupid claims of "More Torque". . .it's a marketing ruse, nothing more) 3W's, due tot he porting designs, tend to have fuel puddling and "burbling" in the mid-range rpm area, and it's almost impossible to get rid of. . for Aerobatics and smooth flying at mid-throttle settings, the 3W suffers because of these design deficencies. Now if you want a top end motor with gobs of power that hauls boogie in a straight line and has better vertical, get the 3W. .

For adequate Aerobatics and decent 3D. . ZDZ80

Best Aerobatics and good 3D. . BME 102/105

Great Aerobatics and very good 3D. . DA100

Decent aerobatics and Great 3D, 3W106.

It all depends on what you want to do with the plane. Forget "piped" claims and setup claims, everything changes with those, especially the powerband characteristics, and the weight goes up as well.

mglavin

My Feedback: (31)

Kris

I don't think the 106 or the later version 100 lightweights for that matter suffer from the issues you describe especially mid-range and or transition. At least my late version lightweight SS did not and the 106's I have seen run seemed fine. I am aware that some of the earlier engines had issues as you describe.

You are aware that 3W made several changes on the new generation of engines including reversing the cylinder configuration, carb fuel circuiting, intake adapter/spacers and such.

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

Thanks Kris, one not, the zdz80 single, at least mine, shakes less than one BME I have seen here.

But I am still leaning towards the DA personally.

Thanks

Kris^

My Feedback: (1)

I'm aware of the changes, Mike, but the motor is still ported toward the top end of the RPM power curve. I've seen several run, and they always had that little bit of "burble" in the mid-range, even though the carb idle mixure was extremely leaned out. It's all a compromise with these engines, and the porting in the cylinders, and over-sized reed assembly are the last barriers to a smooth mid-range. Since the DA100 uses the same reed, and runs a LOT better in the midrange area (IMHO . .but I'm pretty anal about this) it all falls on the ports .. and the 3W is ported with longer duration and higher mixture flow as the primary consideration. Just look at the ports on each engine, the difference is blatantly evident.

This is why BME has gone to shorter duration porting (than either DA OR 3W) in the new Xtreme cylinders, though BME uses a high-flow, short duration design of the ports to promote the best possible mid-range and smoothness of operation, while still allowing great top-end power. Add in that the enigne is designed to make great gains with tuned exhaust (pointing to the more conservative porting that helps prevent pulse reversion and promote flow) and the design qualifications are plainly evident.

3W has their focus, DA has theirs, and BME has theirs. Pull back the port timing on a 3W by about 10-15 degrees and see the power drop, but the mid-range will become a lot better. One other consideration. . DA has cylinders the "old way", yet runs melted-butter smooth. that thing from 3W about "reversing" the cylinders for more smoothness is pretty much another marketing claim. They did it, but the flow differences between rear-induction and bottom induction motors are so pronounced there is NO credence that 3W did it because the rear-induction motors were smoother. This is yet another bogus 3W claim. When it comes to smoothness of operation, internal crankcase shape, not front-rear location of the cylinders, is a much bigger consideration. The newer crankcase designs, rather than cylinder location, are what has balanced the flow.

Imagine THIS. . they MIGHT have changed the location of the cylinders to provide more room on the right side for engine thrust angle???? And if this "theory" about which cylinder should be farther forward was true, my old style TOC140 and DA150 (both with the cylinders in the WRONG places)would not both be smoother than my New Generation TOC150.

It's the porting, Mike, nothing more.

Diablo-RCU

My Feedback: (1)

Say Kris:
Which ports in the 3W do you think have too much duration?
Exhaust, transfers, all?

Low rpm throttling of these engines also produces low flow rate through the ports. This will give low velocity and could be the cause of some of the problems. Perhaps the transfer ports are too big and could be fixed by partial filling with epoxy?

fryfly

My Feedback: (8)

One vote for the 3W 106 !! Lots of torque,turning a 3W 28x10 prop straight out of the box at almost 6100. Hands on with both the BME extreme 102 and 3W 106 with same props NX 27x10 and johnson mufflers the Bme shakes considerably/visibly more than the 3W. Both motors run good but the 3W is breaking in with a NX 27x10 (actually not quite enough prop,should be running a 3W 27x10) while the BME 102 fully broken in!! runs best with a Mejzlik 26x10. The 3W has noticably/visually more power and is able to turn and unwind the larger prop with authority and at a little faster pace than the BME 102 with the same size prop.
using same prop same cans the BME doesn't stack up next to the 106 power wise, by repropping and using tuned cans(EXPENSIVE) the BME might be able to spin a larger prop but with stock setups like 90% of us guys use the motors are like night and day.
The ignition problems/weight problems 3W experienced in the past have been eliminated, I have personally had 7 3W's and every one has run like a champ, No ignition problems or air leaks to speak of, I will admit the 3W is a little harder to initially set up but once they are set they are good to go. I have a 3W 70 that I haven't touched the needles on in over 2 years going on 3 and the motor is getting stronger every year it runs.
The best way to get info on these 3 differen't engines is to go through this very site--RC Universe -- write down pros and cons of each because they ALL have them, look at 3W's old and new! there are a few that have had problems, very few compared to the guys who have had good luck with them especially the new light weights (3W 106)
There is enough info here to choke a cow so take your time and remember " in the long run your the only one you have to convince"

Randy-RCU

Since the bme is lighter I quess..I thought I mention this

I have a DA 100 in my Sukhoi .. This past weekend I was at a friends place because he helped me move my servos from the tail to under the canopy because it was realy to boarder line on the to tail heavy side.

Was glad I didnt use a cf spinner this time also

Randy