B M E 50 weight + cost +smoothness
02-22-2002, 10:49 PM
#26
My Feedback: (45)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wilsonville,
OR
Posts: 1,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thrust DB
Hi magnum,
>>Wouldn't it be good if there could be a basic test the average person could do like you are describing, and then have that info in a website databasefor all the different engines. Now that would be helpful.
You bet. In fact it would be nice to have Cliff at rcfaq.com add a field to his prop/rpm database for thrust.....but the only number accepted would be one measured in a standardized way. Even with the method being the simple one I suggested above, it would be really useful info to have....
...though if you have the prop/RPM number for any engine, the thrust should equate. It would be interesting to see if two people who measured the same RPM on the same prop also came up with the same thrust measurement.
Bill
>>Wouldn't it be good if there could be a basic test the average person could do like you are describing, and then have that info in a website databasefor all the different engines. Now that would be helpful.
You bet. In fact it would be nice to have Cliff at rcfaq.com add a field to his prop/rpm database for thrust.....but the only number accepted would be one measured in a standardized way. Even with the method being the simple one I suggested above, it would be really useful info to have....
...though if you have the prop/RPM number for any engine, the thrust should equate. It would be interesting to see if two people who measured the same RPM on the same prop also came up with the same thrust measurement.
Bill
02-23-2002, 05:37 AM
#27
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Eagle,
WI
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B M E 50 weight + cost +smoothness
BME 50 with regular muffler and H9 alum. beam mounts is 3lbs. 13 oz. For a 50 that is awesome. This was taken from my fish scale at my buddys place tonight. What a great little piece of work.
02-23-2002, 05:43 AM
#28
My Feedback: (45)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wilsonville,
OR
Posts: 1,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Total weight
finnz,
Did you weigh the individual components by any chance?
What is a regular muffler? Is it a downtube, or pitts-style?
Did you include the CH ignition?
Bill
Did you weigh the individual components by any chance?
What is a regular muffler? Is it a downtube, or pitts-style?
Did you include the CH ignition?
Bill
02-23-2002, 02:00 PM
#29
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Eagle,
WI
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B M E 50 weight + cost +smoothness
This with the downtube. Not pitts style. I haven't weighed everything individually. I left my scale there. Can anyone out there weigh a H9 alum. engine mount? Let us know what it is.
Finnz
Finnz
02-23-2002, 02:51 PM
#30
Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mukwonago, WI,
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B M E 50 weight + cost +smoothness
This is the numbers from my B.M.E 50 with a digital fish scale
enginebare-2#14oz.
engine with standard muffler and spark plug
3#4oz.
engine with above items and hangar 9 alum.beam mount
3# 13oz
engine with above items and C+H ignition and 1100ma bat.
4#1oz
Sorry,no r.p.m data yet
enginebare-2#14oz.
engine with standard muffler and spark plug
3#4oz.
engine with above items and hangar 9 alum.beam mount
3# 13oz
engine with above items and C+H ignition and 1100ma bat.
4#1oz
Sorry,no r.p.m data yet
02-23-2002, 04:12 PM
#32
My Feedback: (45)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wilsonville,
OR
Posts: 1,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
weights
Thanks for the itemized weights guys.
Knife-edge:
Something doesn't add up with your numbers.
The bare weight with downtube exhaust make sense, but the engine with the mount would mean the mount weighs 9oz, which I think is about 3.5 oz too much, then your weight with the CH ignition and battery don't add up to enough weight. CH ignition 3.5oz + bat(4oz?) = 7.5 oz, but your difference only adds up to 4 oz for the two. (Stomper's weight for the H9 mount sounds about right)
The total sounds in the ball-park, so maybe you just transposed some numbers.
When doing total engine weights usually the battery isn't included because there is so much variability depending on which battery is used. If you haven't already(and anyone else would be helpful), you might want to submit your numbers to the weight database on RCFAQ.com. It's currently being built by Cliff and should be up pretty soon. There's a link on the home page to enter your numbers.
If you take the base weight of 2lb 15oz (with plug), add 5.7 oz for the mount, 3.5oz for the CH Ignition, + 9.5 oz for a J&A Pitts-style muffler you get 4lbs 1.7 oz.
For comparative purposes and equivilently equipped Taurus 2.6 is 4lbs 1oz and a Taurus 3.2 is 4lbs 2oz. A ZDZ 40 weighs 3lbs 15.5oz similarly equipped, and the Brison 3.2 is at 4lbs 2oz. Other brand engines in this size range, 3W, Zenoah's, Fuji's are all about a 1lb heavier than this.
This is why actual weights, complete with variable weight accessories, are so important. The BME 50 is very light as a bare engine, but when you add the 5.7 oz for the mount it pushes the total weight to about the same weight as other motors with built in, or lighter mounts.
All this means is that weight is not a decision point with these engines, you'll have to make your decision based on other factors.
Bill
Knife-edge:
Something doesn't add up with your numbers.
The bare weight with downtube exhaust make sense, but the engine with the mount would mean the mount weighs 9oz, which I think is about 3.5 oz too much, then your weight with the CH ignition and battery don't add up to enough weight. CH ignition 3.5oz + bat(4oz?) = 7.5 oz, but your difference only adds up to 4 oz for the two. (Stomper's weight for the H9 mount sounds about right)
The total sounds in the ball-park, so maybe you just transposed some numbers.
When doing total engine weights usually the battery isn't included because there is so much variability depending on which battery is used. If you haven't already(and anyone else would be helpful), you might want to submit your numbers to the weight database on RCFAQ.com. It's currently being built by Cliff and should be up pretty soon. There's a link on the home page to enter your numbers.
If you take the base weight of 2lb 15oz (with plug), add 5.7 oz for the mount, 3.5oz for the CH Ignition, + 9.5 oz for a J&A Pitts-style muffler you get 4lbs 1.7 oz.
For comparative purposes and equivilently equipped Taurus 2.6 is 4lbs 1oz and a Taurus 3.2 is 4lbs 2oz. A ZDZ 40 weighs 3lbs 15.5oz similarly equipped, and the Brison 3.2 is at 4lbs 2oz. Other brand engines in this size range, 3W, Zenoah's, Fuji's are all about a 1lb heavier than this.
This is why actual weights, complete with variable weight accessories, are so important. The BME 50 is very light as a bare engine, but when you add the 5.7 oz for the mount it pushes the total weight to about the same weight as other motors with built in, or lighter mounts.
All this means is that weight is not a decision point with these engines, you'll have to make your decision based on other factors.
Bill
02-23-2002, 05:40 PM
#35
My Feedback: (45)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wilsonville,
OR
Posts: 1,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That adds up.
Well finnz, that looks right.
3lbs 11oz with downtube exhaust - add 3.5 oz for ignition + 3 oz for the extra weight of a pitts-style muffler and you're at 4lbs 1.5 oz.
I still don't get the "BME ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!" thing. Must be a generation gap.
BTW, since you seem to be into cosmetics, and you've probably never seen a Taurus before, here's a picture. I happen to think it is prettier than the BME - not that it matters in itself, though quality of finish can point to overall construction quality, which I strongly believe it does in this case(no pun intended).
3lbs 11oz with downtube exhaust - add 3.5 oz for ignition + 3 oz for the extra weight of a pitts-style muffler and you're at 4lbs 1.5 oz.
I still don't get the "BME ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!" thing. Must be a generation gap.
BTW, since you seem to be into cosmetics, and you've probably never seen a Taurus before, here's a picture. I happen to think it is prettier than the BME - not that it matters in itself, though quality of finish can point to overall construction quality, which I strongly believe it does in this case(no pun intended).
02-23-2002, 10:02 PM
#36
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Eagle,
WI
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B M E 50 weight + cost +smoothness
Hay Stomper,
What do you plan on putting your BME in? Nice engine hay. If you want more pictures let me know. I am really impressed with this engine.
Finnz
What do you plan on putting your BME in? Nice engine hay. If you want more pictures let me know. I am really impressed with this engine.
Finnz
02-23-2002, 10:29 PM
#37
Banned
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: BILL
Originally posted by finnz
BME ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!
BME ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!
02-24-2002, 02:35 AM
#39
My Feedback: (45)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wilsonville,
OR
Posts: 1,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JB's DA ROCKS HARD
Yes, JB, you're right, I love all these posts filled with factual data. 
At least your "DA ROCKS HARD" is based on using the motor. Though I haven't had a DA-100, I would be tempted to say the same about my DA-150....but I just can't get there. I guess it's that generation thing creeping in again.
captinjohn wrote:
>>So how smooth is this BME 5occ engine? Can you give some data on that?
You must not have read the previous posts, he said it ROCKS!!. I took that to mean it shakes a lot.
At least your "DA ROCKS HARD" is based on using the motor. Though I haven't had a DA-100, I would be tempted to say the same about my DA-150....but I just can't get there. I guess it's that generation thing creeping in again.captinjohn wrote:
>>So how smooth is this BME 5occ engine? Can you give some data on that?
You must not have read the previous posts, he said it ROCKS!!. I took that to mean it shakes a lot.
02-24-2002, 02:42 AM
#40
Banned
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B M E 50 weight + cost +smoothness
Hey... I'm an old guy, too, Bill... but I still know how to ROCK!!!
I have a DA-150 coming next week for the RC which hopefully will show up not too many weeks later. The 33% planes just look kinda small to me anymore. :rainfro:
I have a DA-150 coming next week for the RC which hopefully will show up not too many weeks later. The 33% planes just look kinda small to me anymore. :rainfro:
02-24-2002, 03:01 AM
#41
Banned
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: JB's DA ROCKS HARD
Originally posted by bpryor
Yes, JB, you're right, I love all these posts filled with factual data.
Yes, JB, you're right, I love all these posts filled with factual data.
I do like thrust off of a fishing scale. But, that doesn't tell you about transition, low rpm pull, and dependability. I guess if you did it at all rpm ranges it would help. But, no one has that kind of "data" right now. And, you'd have to have one person do it with all the motors the same way... and he'd have to have no favorites.
I've been forced to try out all the options and decide for myself based on the real world and extreme flying... which I'm doing as fast I can. The two gas motors that have been stand outs so far are the DA-100 and ZDZ-60 . I didn't get much time on my ZDZ-40 but plan to get alot more on Filip's with his new H9 Edge.
02-24-2002, 03:09 AM
#42
Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mukwonago, WI,
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B M E 50 weight + cost +smoothness
Hey Bill,I just wish for one time we could go fly together,and
see what we both bring to the table,and let all this talking
stop.Thrust,R.P.M,and weight are great talk,but it is how you
"twist the sticks" that matters the most....................
respectfully yours,M.R T.O.C
see what we both bring to the table,and let all this talking
stop.Thrust,R.P.M,and weight are great talk,but it is how you
"twist the sticks" that matters the most....................
respectfully yours,M.R T.O.C
02-24-2002, 03:31 AM
#43
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Eagle,
WI
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B M E 50 weight + cost +smoothness
BME COST AND WEIGHT?? That is what the Thread is about. This is what Stomper asked about.. The BME 50 is a lot smoother than the Taurus 2.6 I saw today. And it ROCKS!!!!!!!
"Thrust,R.P.M,and weight are great talk,but it is how you
"twist the sticks" that matters the most...................."
I agree with you on that one Mr. T.O.C.
Maybe we will see Bill in the booth at Toledo, selling Taurus Engines.
"Thrust,R.P.M,and weight are great talk,but it is how you
"twist the sticks" that matters the most...................."
I agree with you on that one Mr. T.O.C.
Maybe we will see Bill in the booth at Toledo, selling Taurus Engines.
02-24-2002, 05:17 AM
#45
My Feedback: (45)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wilsonville,
OR
Posts: 1,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rock on
JBH wrote:
>>What's data? I haven't found much to be factual thoughout my life... you can make anything look good or bad with data.
There are a lot of engineers and scientists that might not agree with you on that.
I certainly do seem to have offended a couple of guys here with the data I've posted. I was certainly was not trying to offend anyone by posting these facts, and yes JB, they are facts, real data. If I made an error, please let me know.
>>I guess if you did it at all rpm ranges it would help. But, no one has that kind of "data" right now.
You're right, and what you're ideally describing is a dyno, which also isn't happening at this time.
Knife-edge wrote:
>>Thanks Chris540,and yes I do have alot to offer,Bill,as you will
see in the future.................
...and the future is.....
>>Hey Bill,I just wish for one time we could go fly together,and
see what we both bring to the table,and let all this talking
stop.
And yet another helpful post by Knife-edge. Funny, I thought these forums were about talking. Chris 540, do you still want to back this guy up. I think I was right the first time.
>>Thrust,R.P.M,and weight are great talk,but it is how you
"twist the sticks" that matters the most....................
Your logic escapes me. I fail to see the connection between the two.
I can just hear Michael Schumacher saying, "Power, handling and weight are great to talk about, but my great driving ability is all that matters." (The one big difference in this analogy is that Michael Schumacher is justified in bragging about his ability....though you won't finding him doing that(bragging) because he doesn't have to.)
finnz wrote:
>>BME COST AND WEIGHT?? That is what the Thread is about.
Could have fooled me. I thought it was about how the BME ROCKS.
If you didn't notice, the questions brought up with the topic of this thread were answered within the first couple of posts and everything after that was pure discussion. Why would you want to limit it so narrowly? Why are you so offended by someone offering an opposing view?
Also, I challenge you guys to find any thread of significant length that doesn't stray. I just can't understand why you guys are so defensive, it's not like I didn't offer directly pertinent info too. Personally, I welcome people that offer alternate viewpoints, it often proves to provide info that I wasn't aware of.
>>The BME 50 is a lot smoother than the Taurus 2.6 I saw today. And it ROCKS!!!!!!!
Yeah, right finnz, whatever.
>>What's data? I haven't found much to be factual thoughout my life... you can make anything look good or bad with data.
There are a lot of engineers and scientists that might not agree with you on that.
I certainly do seem to have offended a couple of guys here with the data I've posted. I was certainly was not trying to offend anyone by posting these facts, and yes JB, they are facts, real data. If I made an error, please let me know.
>>I guess if you did it at all rpm ranges it would help. But, no one has that kind of "data" right now.
You're right, and what you're ideally describing is a dyno, which also isn't happening at this time.
Knife-edge wrote:
>>Thanks Chris540,and yes I do have alot to offer,Bill,as you will
see in the future.................
...and the future is.....
>>Hey Bill,I just wish for one time we could go fly together,and
see what we both bring to the table,and let all this talking
stop.
And yet another helpful post by Knife-edge. Funny, I thought these forums were about talking. Chris 540, do you still want to back this guy up. I think I was right the first time.
>>Thrust,R.P.M,and weight are great talk,but it is how you
"twist the sticks" that matters the most....................
Your logic escapes me. I fail to see the connection between the two.
I can just hear Michael Schumacher saying, "Power, handling and weight are great to talk about, but my great driving ability is all that matters." (The one big difference in this analogy is that Michael Schumacher is justified in bragging about his ability....though you won't finding him doing that(bragging) because he doesn't have to.)
finnz wrote:
>>BME COST AND WEIGHT?? That is what the Thread is about.
Could have fooled me. I thought it was about how the BME ROCKS.
If you didn't notice, the questions brought up with the topic of this thread were answered within the first couple of posts and everything after that was pure discussion. Why would you want to limit it so narrowly? Why are you so offended by someone offering an opposing view?
Also, I challenge you guys to find any thread of significant length that doesn't stray. I just can't understand why you guys are so defensive, it's not like I didn't offer directly pertinent info too. Personally, I welcome people that offer alternate viewpoints, it often proves to provide info that I wasn't aware of.
>>The BME 50 is a lot smoother than the Taurus 2.6 I saw today. And it ROCKS!!!!!!!
Yeah, right finnz, whatever.
02-24-2002, 05:45 AM
#46
Banned
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Rock on
Originally posted by bpryor
Also, I challenge you guys to find any thread of significant length that doesn't stray.
Also, I challenge you guys to find any thread of significant length that doesn't stray.
As for data... I'm more influenced by guys like the one in Chris-540's TBMs thread. The guy has all the cool planes and likes the TBM 260 the best. That speaks volumes to me.
02-24-2002, 06:08 AM
#47
My Feedback: (45)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wilsonville,
OR
Posts: 1,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Type of data
JB wrote:
>>The AW .60 size ARF thread. :-) Maybe the longest thread in RC history and not one message off topic! Sure, it's not the norm... but consider your challenge met.
Well, I'm certainly not going to read through the 500 posts to try and prove you wrong.
>>I'm more influenced by guys like the one in Chris-540's TBMs thread. The guy has all the cool planes and likes the TBM 260 the best. That speaks volumes to me.
Ok, I accept your challenge:
I've owned the following gas motors(and zillions of glow): 2 BME 44's, FPE 2.4, Quadra 52, Quadra 100, Zenoah G45, Zenoah G62, 3W-150, DA-150, and a Taurus 2.6. Out of the smaller engines, IMHO, the Taurus wins hands down in smoothness, power/cc, and quality of construction, and of the big engines, the DA wins my vote. In fact, the Taurus is very much like a mini-DA in method and quality of manufacture.
It will be interesting to see how the DA50 fits in this mix. There is no doubt it will be good, but just how good.
>>The AW .60 size ARF thread. :-) Maybe the longest thread in RC history and not one message off topic! Sure, it's not the norm... but consider your challenge met.
Well, I'm certainly not going to read through the 500 posts to try and prove you wrong.
>>I'm more influenced by guys like the one in Chris-540's TBMs thread. The guy has all the cool planes and likes the TBM 260 the best. That speaks volumes to me.
Ok, I accept your challenge:
I've owned the following gas motors(and zillions of glow): 2 BME 44's, FPE 2.4, Quadra 52, Quadra 100, Zenoah G45, Zenoah G62, 3W-150, DA-150, and a Taurus 2.6. Out of the smaller engines, IMHO, the Taurus wins hands down in smoothness, power/cc, and quality of construction, and of the big engines, the DA wins my vote. In fact, the Taurus is very much like a mini-DA in method and quality of manufacture.
It will be interesting to see how the DA50 fits in this mix. There is no doubt it will be good, but just how good.
02-24-2002, 06:44 AM
#48
Banned
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B M E 50 weight + cost +smoothness
That does mean alot to me. :-)
Now if I could get you to purchase a BME-50, ZDZ-40, ZDZ-60, and ZDZ-80, and soon DA-50 and BME Xtreme 100/102 for a comparison to the other motors...
One of us needs to win the Lotto. :-)
Now if I could get you to purchase a BME-50, ZDZ-40, ZDZ-60, and ZDZ-80, and soon DA-50 and BME Xtreme 100/102 for a comparison to the other motors...
One of us needs to win the Lotto. :-)
02-24-2002, 04:09 PM
#50
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (20)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Clayton,
NC
Posts: 2,249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you
Hey finnz
The plane is a H-9 1/4 Cap. I have one set up with a glow MVVS 150. This second Cap, I want to try a gas engine in for unlimited vertical and to learn how to hover. (oh lord I want to learn how to t/r) Finnz you sound pumped on the BME 50, and that in It's self is very cool ! Thats one of the many great aspects of this hobby, EXCITEMENT, especially when everything works at the field!!! I will definately like to hear what your 50 is going in, as well as how it works out for you.
I'm going to try a Taurus simply because I believe that a crank supported at both ends has to be a smoother running engine then a cantilevered crank. (yes I may be all wet on this one, but will pay the price to find out) We'll see.
Hey JBH
you have a great web page!! (Dude it rocks) Two beautiful kids,girlfriend and hanger !!!! Does it get any better than that ? Joe I must apologize for drooling all over your 1/3 Cap !Love the video's, keep them coming. Thanks
Bill
Made my mind up on the Taurus engine for my Cap. I see the 3.2 is only two more ounces then the 2.6 . Is the 3.2 WAY over powering for the 1/4 Cap? I don't want to go home at the end of the day with anything more then the one piece of wing that I started with If you know what I mean. What do you think ?
Thanks everyone for your help !
The plane is a H-9 1/4 Cap. I have one set up with a glow MVVS 150. This second Cap, I want to try a gas engine in for unlimited vertical and to learn how to hover. (oh lord I want to learn how to t/r) Finnz you sound pumped on the BME 50, and that in It's self is very cool ! Thats one of the many great aspects of this hobby, EXCITEMENT, especially when everything works at the field!!! I will definately like to hear what your 50 is going in, as well as how it works out for you.
I'm going to try a Taurus simply because I believe that a crank supported at both ends has to be a smoother running engine then a cantilevered crank. (yes I may be all wet on this one, but will pay the price to find out) We'll see.
Hey JBH
you have a great web page!! (Dude it rocks) Two beautiful kids,girlfriend and hanger !!!! Does it get any better than that ? Joe I must apologize for drooling all over your 1/3 Cap !Love the video's, keep them coming. Thanks
Bill
Made my mind up on the Taurus engine for my Cap. I see the 3.2 is only two more ounces then the 2.6 . Is the 3.2 WAY over powering for the 1/4 Cap? I don't want to go home at the end of the day with anything more then the one piece of wing that I started with If you know what I mean. What do you think ?
Thanks everyone for your help !