New BME 110
 

Does anyone have any opinions or preferrably experience with the BME 110 extreme ? I was leaning towards a DA but the BME has a weight advantage. Thanks in advance for any responses.

RE: New BME 110
 

I love my 110. It has performed flawlessly all last season (5 gallons). If you can take advantage of the weight savings then I would say go for it.

RE: New BME 110
 

Check with the desinger of the kit you are planing on putting the engine in. It does no goood to buy the BME and then add 2lb of lead to the nose to make it balance.

RE: New BME 110
 

I was nothing but pleased with my 110, would buy another one in a hearbeat.

RE: New BME 110
 

I know of two people who have them and both just love it.
One is flying a 35% Extra and the other person is flying a 40% plane with his.

RE: New BME 110
 

Actually, the BME 110 puts out slightly more power than the 100cc engines so even if you did have to add 2lbs of lead you are still better off. In all reality, with a little thought, most planes can utilize the low weight of the BME. It's just that some planes will need more work. On my H9 Sukhoi, I moved my elev servos up to the middle of the fuse and ran a pull pull system. Not alot of work and I ended up balancing perfectly.

What plane is it going in?

RE: New BME 110
 

I am also pleased with mine. I have it in a comp-arf 2.6 extra. Balancing was no problem, I moved the batteries to the front and everything is perfect.
My reason for buying the 110 was weight only. But now my decision makes me feel even better, besides the weight saving you also have a good hard running engine. As with any engine baffle it well and you will have many years of life, thats if you do not keep planting them in the ground as I do.
Keiths' service is first cabin also.

RE: New BME 110
 

I'm thinking of putting it in my 31% CA Model Extra which weighs 21lbs with a 4.2 brision. The BME might be a little overkill on power but it still weighs about a 1lb less and I sure would like to get away from the vibes of a single cyl. I don't think balancing will be a problem as I could move batteries and or rudd servos with pull pull. By the way, how is the vibration?

RE: New BME 110
 

No such thing as too much power..There is a little stick on the left that controls that, IF you have the will power to use it in moderation..
I myself don't, hence the nickname "Redline"
Also Pedal to the metal, Hammer down, Balls out, WFO, WOT etc.........:D
Speed is addictive...

RE: New BME 110
 

One of the many purposes BME wanted to save weight with the engine is so people could use cans without the weight penalty. Also, with the weight savings of the engine, you can afford to do things properly without worrying about weight so much.... things like baffling. So many people have gave the BS line about how the weight saved is worthless if you have to add dead weight for balance..... There are so many things you can do to get the balance proper without adding "DEAD WEIGHT".... I have *NEVER* added dead weight to get the CG where it belongs. Move servos, batteries, receivers or other equipment around. Use light weight components like carbon fiber tailwheels. Put taller wheels on the main gear of your tail dragger... Taller usuaully equals a little heavier and added ground clearance with better grass runway performance. Use an alluminum spinner instead of carbon fiber( saves you a few bucks as well)........ All of these suggestions are for moving the CG forward, but similar ideas can be used to move it aft.... Another HUGE factor is giving consideration to CG while BUILDING the airframe.



*NEVER*
When I said never, that is meant to be read as since the time I opened my eyes to alternatives and quit building EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. I actually do not even use the instructions any longer.

RE: New BME 110
 

What CAPtain232 said.

RE: New BME 110
 

For the CA 31% plane, you could also use a ZDZ-80 twin. It weighs a little more than the BME-110 (4.1 lbs bare), with less power and cost. On a plane weighing 21 lbs and with low drag, even the 80 twin would be power overkill. The only downside to the 80 twin is it is wider plug to plug than the BME.

RE: New BME 110
 

I would still be concerned about how well a light airplane such as 31% (or a light built 35%) will handle the vibration factor with a twin engine such as BME110 which presumably runs smoother than the single piston engine.

Otherwise how smooth a BME 110 runs compare to other choices?

RE: New BME 110
 

My 110 was very smooth, I was surprised. It was in a 21lb H9 Edge it it had the power of a space shuttle, way too much. I think its better suited for the heavier 35% planes.

RE: New BME 110
 

FRB, was-was and had? Did you get rid of your 110? Did you ever look under the carb and see that plastic piece? That is supposed to make it smoother by keeping fuel from puddling.

Joe

RE: New BME 110
 

Goekeli, I had my carb off and must have missed something. I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary. Fill me in.

RE: New BME 110
 

I sold the bme 110 and the edge. Decided to give airplanes a break for a while, and flying helis now. I am about to move and really didnt want the hassle of moving big airplanes.

RE: New BME 110
 

RTK - I sent you an email on your set up. I have a C arf 2.6, but no engine yet. Where is your balance point in relation to the recomendation? Do you know what your (real) weight is? I have been told by others that this combo will not balance. I have light batteries (3 2350 2 cell li-po) so I only have 10.5 oz of battery to move around. I have a single 5735 for the rudder that can be anywhere.
Thanks
JD

RE: New BME 110
 

JD- This combo will balance. My CG is right on Comp-arfs recommendations. I am using 2-2700 nimh mounted on the motor dome. Also I tried to include a pic, don't know if it will come thru though. I usually go for the KISS principle. No match boxes, power boxes, etc.

RE: New BME 110
 

Ralph,

Nice Work!!:D

RE: New BME 110
 

Thanx Pat- It's just very basic and simple.