zwflyboy

Was about to buy a DA-100 for my extra when I took a look at the BME 110 and noticed that it is lighter, not as widen and seems to produce more power. Sounds like DA service is great, but if BME provides just as good of service ans a stronger product that might be the way. Wanted to see if anybody has exp. with the BME 110 and how it compares (reliability, service, ease of use). Any help would be great.

RickP

My Feedback: (2)

I think the issue is with actually getting one? I think the wait is longer then for a DA-100. I have also heard that it is not as smooth - but that's only what I have heard!!! I've yet to see one. So take it FWIW. IMO I'd get another DA without thinking twice. I've had some other pilots possibly weaken my DA stance on the DA-150 - but even some die hard 3W enthusiasts I know also admit the 100 is a kick butt motor.
RickP

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

I have a DA100 and 150, best motors I have ever ownes.. SO far it sounds like the BME110 is a good motor, except the single bolt holding the prop on or something like that.. read of a few having props spin.

Time will tell.

JB Rekit

My Feedback: (3)

Not having owned a BME 110, I will just comment on the statistical differences b.c it is all a matter of what you want or need. The reason why the bme is narrower than a DA 100 is that the BME has a larger bore and shorter stroke, which on any comparable engine (other factors aside, compression, tuning, timing, etc) will produce more high end power with a loss of tq/ linear tq curve in the midrange.

So on the flip side, the DA will not make as much top end power, but it will have a more linear tq curve.

I fly DA but have heard good things about the BME as well and have seen the 110 fly in 3 different planes, since each has its high points over the other, figure out what will most suit your needs and good luck. Things to think about would be if you will need tail weight, go with BME, nose weight - DA. Also decide if you need the extra top end the BME will make (if you are pretty sure your plane will be over 30 #'s you might like a little extra top end. If it is probably going to be in the mid to high 20# range, both engines will have more than enough power).

John

3D ONdaEDGE

John is absolutely right. I have seen both engines fly. 1 on a H9 CAP and 1 on the H9 Sukhoi. Both had more than enough OOOMPH. The BME was alot louder and sounded better and had a little more power. The DA was a little smoother, but they were both very smooth. If I were to buy an engine today, it would all depend on whether my plane need nose weight or tail weight. That would be the only factor in my opinion.

BBW Walt

My Feedback: (11)

Is Kris^ still with us?? walt

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

FWIW, I have seen a 110 go... just wanted to add that part.

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

I have had the 110 for a short period of time. Right off the bat it ran well. Starting was easy, idle is good and transitions is smooooth.
I explicitly bought this for weight reasons and was hoping for a decent running engine. The 110 runs as well if not better than any other engine I have ever owned (although not too many) or seen. I am really impressed with all aspects of it.
Now as for service I could not tell you. I hope to never need to know. I have heard Keith has hired more staff and that should help in that area. The service at the sale was great.
This has been one of the best tempered engines I have owned.
It would be nice to see some RPM # from some different people. There has to be a couple of hundred out there by now.

JOHN-I am the numbskull that had a prop spin problem. If you do not take out the pins you will not have a problem.
I did this because I have done it on all my single bolt engines without a problem. At one time I heard these anti-rotaions pins would split the props.

DKjens

My Feedback: (50)

I have about 4 gallons through a BME110X with stock mufflers on a 2.6m CompositeARF Extra. I am running a ZingerPro28x10 prop for break in and getting 6100 rpm still running rich on the top end. I drilled relief holes in my spinner back plate for the hub bolts and I have not had a prop spin on the hub. My engine has been easy starting (likes to be quite wet) and only died once in the air because my tank came loose.
As has been mentioned before, decide on engine based on the weight needed in the nose and on how long you can be without the airplane if engine needs service, because nothing beats DA service.
DKjens

JB Rekit

My Feedback: (3)

Just wanted to say that I am very pleased with this thread

I think this is the longest any thread has gone that I have seen with people giving positive/ constructive advice about 2 different engines w/o bashing the other in some way.
Wish they could all be like this

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

JB-- it is nice isn't it.

Like I said, my decision was really only based on weight, size matters too. After recieving the 110 and running it alittle bit I was really impressed. Killing 2 birds with one stone. I know there are alot of GREAT engine manufactures today, with great service. I believe with proper feeding and care, they all will perform well. Now, I really like the idea of light wt. and great power. I am turning into a "make it light" freak. Well not really, just like it better. So now I have the best of both worlds. (In my experience so far)

Hey now I might have a chance of beating DK's weight, depending on which scale I choose to use.

DKjens

My Feedback: (50)

Fat chance Ralph ha ha. If you use LiPos or LiIons, or any light batteries, you will beat my weight, which is really 23.8-24 lbs dry. You can not run fewer (lighter) servos than I am, you can run a lighter spinner, my spinner is a TrueTurn knock off, heck it was only $30 or $40 for a 4.5", but it weighs almost as much as the engine ha ha, no, but it is heavy, but I couldn't imagine this plane flying any lighter than it does.

I am going 40%, getting the 3.0m Extra this or next week, and will use a DA150 on stock mufflers there.

DKjens

GoeKeli

My Feedback: (18)

I saw DKjens fly his plane and I was impressed with his 110. It ran good and looked like way enough power for the 2.6. I'd love to have that plane and engine combination. YOur 3.0 is gonna kick!!

Joe

RickP

My Feedback: (2)

Did BME get the delivery down on the 110? Last I heard they were difficut to get still.
RickP

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

Rick I think it's getting much easier to find one now. I didn't wait all that long, but at the rate I am able to work on my comp-arf and fly I don't know what my hurry was. Those 12 hour work days are killing me!

Kris^

My Feedback: (1)

Yes, Klotz. I'm here.

When considering an engine there are SO many factors to think about. Weight is certainly one of them, and this is where the BME110 really hits the mark. People will say that the BME110 is too light, yet I've balanced two 40% Composite-Arf Extras using no lead, and all the servos behind or at the wing tube, and the same with the 33% plane. Achieving CG is usually a matter of where you place things, and how silly you get with structure behind the CG.

I was at an IMAC meet this weekend, and a guy with a BME102 asked me to check out his low-end idle since it seemed a bit rough. When he started up it ran fine, though the plane shook a bit. This is a characteristic of the BME engines that has always been there, but it's not due to imbalance or "vibration" problems, it's due to the fact that the engine pulses very hard yet has little weight to dampen the power pulse, so the airframe has to absorb the twisting force instead. If you have a flexible airframe the power pulses are going to shake it with any engine, but the BME's hit a bit harder due to their lack of mass, so it is more apparent. At the same Meet I saw DA's, 3W's and ZDZ's all shaking the airframes of planes at idle, even the big Radio Wave Extras did it.

Having seen the DA100's and 150's run, yes, they are very smooth, almost too smooth IMO. I guess I'm used to a bit more fire-breathing from an engine. A lot of this smoothness has to do with the DA's port timing and ignition advance and 5.9 lbs bare weight for the 100. My BME's snarl and smack you in the head with a sledgehammer compared to a DA's massaging your shoulders and breathing on your neck. I guess it comes down to personal preference. Once in the air, though, the way either engine runs is not noticeably different, with both having very good throttle transition and smoothness, and linear throttle curves. I don't even run a throttle curve on my BME's because they are so linear.

The BME 110 uses 170 degrees of exhaust port timing, the DA100 uses about 152. The BME has 6-port schneurle with piston ports and a short duration/wide port design, the DA uses a 5-channel schneurle with piston ports and taller/narrower intake ports. These differences show the focus of the BME, being intended for canister style exhaust systems and having the potential for a lot more power with a properly tuned exhaust, when compared to the DA100. I've weighed my 110's with a LONG canister Pefa setup, using the LL Pefa canisters available from Aircraft International. Overall weight, including the ignition, was only 6 lbs 4 ounces, which is actually LESS than the DA100 with stock mufflers and ignition at about 6 lbs 8 ounces. But the weights are close enough to show the balancing capability of the BME w/canisters, which is what the engine was designed around.

The last factor is, of course, overall power. My personal engines, running just slightly rich and unmodified, are hitting an easy 6700-6900 HOT with the Mejzlik 28-12 right after landing. Mejzlik 29-10 and Biela or Menz 28-10 Props turn right at 6350-6450, and the 29-10 Biela is in the 6100 range. I've seen other 110X's using the same exact props as mine, and they are in the 6600-6800+ range with the Mejzlik 28-10, but were not broken in and were using stock exhaust diverters. Forget any 27" or smaller prop on the 110. . it's just not enough prop. Comparatively speaking, the DA100 usually turns the 28-10 Mejzlik in the 6300-6500 range, and would drop a couple hundred rpm using the same 28-12 Mejzlik I use. I've not seen any rpm numbers for the DA100 using the Menz 28-10 or Mejzlik 29-10, though a lot of people use the Menz 27-10 and are happy with it on that engine.

Some other little things to consider. . No BME has ever broken a crankshaft, though failed bearings have occured. It's the only 100cc+ engine I have seen that this is true about, though to be fair crankshaft failures are a rarity these days and if a crankshaft fails it's usually due to the owner abusing the engine. Customer service is DA's forte, and they have always had very good repair service and engine availibity. BME has a turn around time on repairs of less than 2 weeks usually, and they are building about 20-25 new 110's per week, which is very good with such a small operation. As for engine reliability, I have #3 and #24 BME110 off the assembly line. Not a problem, not a flameout (except for that lost gas tank clunk. . . ) and basically flip and fly for over a year now with these two engines. I have not been kind to them, and my 3rd 110, which was upgraded by BME from a 102, runs just as well and reliably.

In the end it comes down to what you need the engine to do for you. I'm partial to the BME's (and it shows). If BME did not exist, however, I'd probably be buying the DA's over the 3W's, though both engine lines have comparable weights and prices. For raw upper end power, the BME and 3W are a close match, with the DA suffering and placing 3rd. For overall flyability the DA comes in first, then the BME, then 3W. For weight, the BME wins, and DA and 3W are tied in a far-distant 4th . For customer service and availibility, in reality, all 3 companies try very hard to keep their customers happy. I've heard both good, and bad, stories about each company. It's not worth relating the bad ones.

In the end, I tell people. . PICK ONE. . fly it. . be happy with it. . don't worry so much about the other guys engines cause it's not worth getting in a tizzy about some rpm numbers (that are probably a bit stretched anyway). The engine is not going to make you a better flyer, or the plane a better performer, in most cases. I've always felt that if you have to equate your models rpm figures to your personal testosterone levels, you didn't need to be in this hobby in the first place. Just get a good engine from your vendor of choice, take care of it, and fly. . it's that simple.

RickP

My Feedback: (2)

Kris,
Allot of objective good info - thanks for the post...
RickP

DMehalko

My Feedback: (42)

Regarding BME quality and performance i have owned one and it was the 50. Never had any problems or flameouts, but it did shake a little more than say a DA50

Figure this deals with BME right?

tims733

My Feedback: (1)

Hi I agree the bme 110 ext is one of the toughest most powe full in its class I hit the ground last year straight at full tilt straigh in at prpblley 100 mph it sheered the carb bolts bent a pipe stack and that was it . It did not hurt the crank or the bearings that was in 2011 I have been fling it in my new 35% pilot yak now over a 150 flights 2012 what an engine . I had to call Tom at bme and tell him how toyght the engine is.Fly fast and hard take care Tim aka magoo  

kmtranmd

My Feedback: (71)

I have an older BME 102 that was updated to DA 6 bolt pattern instead of that goofy single bolt prop mount. Tom also polished the pistons and adjusted the timing for me.
Tom at BME was great and repair price was reasonble. Turn around time was about a week. My 102 swings similar to my DA 100.
I've owned DA 100 and get mid 6000 with wood 27x10 props so not sure how guys get those same numbers with 28 and 29 in with stock set up.
I think the new BME Extreme should be compared to the newer DA 120 to see who wins, instead of comparing to the old DA 100.
At the end of the day, there's no replacement for displacement.