BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
12-10-2003, 09:22 PM
#26
My Feedback: (4)
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
I am done reading anything about BME in this forum until the BME Extremes are reality. It is a joke to quote specifications and then determine what is the best engine out there. Several engines in the hands of several 'special' people does not make it a REAL engine. The 110 Extreme I ordered last year November didn't pull my Edge around for squat - the DA-100 I bought five months later at Toledo sure did the trick. I haven't cancelled my order - I just want to see how many months it actually takes to get it. I am betting something like 19 months.
Dan
Dan
12-10-2003, 09:50 PM
#27
Banned
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: concord, NC
Posts: 1,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
Send me a check for $1199.00 + $25.00 for shipping and I'll send you my "spare". It's NIB and it'll rip the wings off your Edge.
12-11-2003, 12:26 AM
#28
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
By golly Kris - I havta give you an A for dogged enthusiasm!
And an A+ for unbridled optomism.
Tho for the life of me - why would you want to send someone an engine which you are afraid will shake the wings of
f his plane
That's really not cricket.
And an A+ for unbridled optomism.
Tho for the life of me - why would you want to send someone an engine which you are afraid will shake the wings of
f his plane That's really not cricket.
12-11-2003, 09:03 AM
#31
Banned
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: concord, NC
Posts: 1,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
It's 1.99 POUNDS Bearsh, for the 55, no mufflers or ignition, but including plug, prop washer, nut and stud.
Dick. . its "Optimism", not "OptOmism". . sorry.
As for "shaking" I used the term "ripping" as in overpowering. . not "shaking" as in the airframe is so weak it can't handle the power pulses of a REAL motor. (Seems that NONE of my planes "shake" with a BME. . I must be getting those "special engines" no one else gets. )
And "Cricket" is one of those "British commonwealth" terms. . .EGADS!!!! (that's British for OH MY GOD!!!). . please don't tell me that you have decided to become a Subject of Her Majesty the Queen ! ! ! ! I could just see it now. . a pattern plane sporting the Union Jack on it's wings. .YIKES!!!!! (That was American for OH S***)
Dick. . its "Optimism", not "OptOmism". . sorry.
As for "shaking" I used the term "ripping" as in overpowering. . not "shaking" as in the airframe is so weak it can't handle the power pulses of a REAL motor. (Seems that NONE of my planes "shake" with a BME. . I must be getting those "special engines" no one else gets.
)And "Cricket" is one of those "British commonwealth" terms. . .EGADS!!!! (that's British for OH MY GOD!!!). . please don't tell me that you have decided to become a Subject of Her Majesty the Queen ! ! ! ! I could just see it now. . a pattern plane sporting the Union Jack on it's wings. .YIKES!!!!! (That was American for OH S***)
12-11-2003, 09:58 AM
#32
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NWest,
IN
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
ORIGINAL: RCPilot100
I am done reading anything about BME in this forum until the BME Extremes are reality. It is a joke to quote specifications and then determine what is the best engine out there. Several engines in the hands of several 'special' people does not make it a REAL engine. The 110 Extreme I ordered last year November didn't pull my Edge around for squat - the DA-100 I bought five months later at Toledo sure did the trick. I haven't cancelled my order - I just want to see how many months it actually takes to get it. I am betting something like 19 months.
Dan
I am done reading anything about BME in this forum until the BME Extremes are reality. It is a joke to quote specifications and then determine what is the best engine out there. Several engines in the hands of several 'special' people does not make it a REAL engine. The 110 Extreme I ordered last year November didn't pull my Edge around for squat - the DA-100 I bought five months later at Toledo sure did the trick. I haven't cancelled my order - I just want to see how many months it actually takes to get it. I am betting something like 19 months.
Dan
]
12-11-2003, 12:16 PM
#33
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
I looked at the "rendering" of the 55- --sure looks like a natural for rear intake --
If I understand the artwork --the engine is a cantilever crank design.
If I understand the artwork --the engine is a cantilever crank design.
12-11-2003, 01:36 PM
#34
Banned
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: concord, NC
Posts: 1,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
yah, Dick, I was looking at that. . "Modify" the back plate and put a reed valve in there and a block-off plate on the side of the motor. A cinch to make into a rear induction and I seriously doubt there would be any power loss.
Hmm.. Perhaps ZDZ would care to market an "upgrade" for the 55? heheheheh
Hmm.. Perhaps ZDZ would care to market an "upgrade" for the 55? heheheheh
12-11-2003, 03:52 PM
#35
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
Slowly but surely - the designs evolve -----
Power loss? Interesting --
the reason rear induction is steadily gaining favor --is because the mfgrs want to hold back on power?
Ok- you get three more guesses --
Power loss? Interesting --
the reason rear induction is steadily gaining favor --is because the mfgrs want to hold back on power?
Ok- you get three more guesses --
12-11-2003, 05:47 PM
#36
Banned
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: concord, NC
Posts: 1,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
Dick, at the risk of stating the OBVIOUS. . SOME designs of rear-inducted engines actually shadow the intake port with the rear crank arm or counterweight during the intake-flow event. That is NOT a good thing, which is why the rear-inducted 3W twins are notoriously down on power compared to their bottom inducted brethren. The "engineers" at 3W put the silly hole right behind where the crank counterweight would be during the upward movement of the pistons, which shadows it when it NEEDS to flow.
As for why ZDZ does rear induction, it's the only efficient way to do a rotary valve or disk valve intake setup, so ZDZ is basically "stuck' with rear induction. I seriously doubt that ZDZ wishes for all it's engines to exhibit the power loss that their reed-inducted engines do when compared to comparable disk/rotary valve engines, so I doubt you will see a lot of reed-valved engines from ZDZ. BME and DA, however, both use reeds, and the flow characteristics of reed induction differ dramatically from disk/rotary valve setups. So. . the concern of flow shadowing due to crankshaft interference is a legitimate one.
Perhaps, instead of cajoling and haranguing in response to a legitimate statement, you could jump the other way and do a bit of a dissertation about how these things work (to benefit the uninformed and novice readers) and be a bit more POSITIVE when commenting on these things. You've shown a gret willingness to "comment" on things, perhaps it's time you did so in a positive manner. Who knows you might even teach some of us "old hands" a thing or two.
As for why ZDZ does rear induction, it's the only efficient way to do a rotary valve or disk valve intake setup, so ZDZ is basically "stuck' with rear induction. I seriously doubt that ZDZ wishes for all it's engines to exhibit the power loss that their reed-inducted engines do when compared to comparable disk/rotary valve engines, so I doubt you will see a lot of reed-valved engines from ZDZ. BME and DA, however, both use reeds, and the flow characteristics of reed induction differ dramatically from disk/rotary valve setups. So. . the concern of flow shadowing due to crankshaft interference is a legitimate one.
Perhaps, instead of cajoling and haranguing in response to a legitimate statement, you could jump the other way and do a bit of a dissertation about how these things work (to benefit the uninformed and novice readers) and be a bit more POSITIVE when commenting on these things. You've shown a gret willingness to "comment" on things, perhaps it's time you did so in a positive manner. Who knows you might even teach some of us "old hands" a thing or two.
12-11-2003, 06:43 PM
#38
Banned
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: concord, NC
Posts: 1,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
Uh, Ralph, THAT engine was not limited by space considerations, WEIGHT, or having to spin a propellor at one end of the crankshaft. Now, please. . let's compare apples to apples, not watermelons. I'd LOVE to see you stuff that 350cc engine into one of our planes (okay, a BIG one) then make it turn the prop at a proper RPM directly off one end of the crankshaft with no gear reduction unit.
We're not talking about cars and motorcycles, we are talking about model aircraft engines. Perhaps you could concentrate your efforts on that?
We're not talking about cars and motorcycles, we are talking about model aircraft engines. Perhaps you could concentrate your efforts on that?
12-11-2003, 06:49 PM
#39
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
gee whiz- Kris you are starting to sound like a few of the old Aerodynamic Forum writers -
They also accuse me of being negative.
"If there ain't a formula for it - it must not exist"
I thot I was always positive and upbeat - although
I do love to poke at sacred cows -
That is obvious - and if one sets onself on a pedestal- I will occasionally take a gentle shot --
some guys get offended -
I hope you don't.
I never comment on an engine I have not personally run. Hearsay is not any better than the Calc Charts --
I do ask questions about other engines tho-
There is quite a bit of opinion on engines -in this forum -and sometimes Kris - it is a bit demeaning.
I run reed engines - and rotary engines .
Frankly the ZDZ reed engine is not a favorite of mine. It is an economy setup single steel reed -
The rotary stuf tho -both from ZDZ and Roto is very good .
Reeds ( good reed banks) do seal better when cold and dry and if I was in a one flip start contest - I would pick a reed .
but two flips is ok for me and all in all -I still think the rotary valve is a better power maker -
I have had reed setups which leak like a sieve and are simply a pain - others - nary a problem.
I do prefer rear inlet stuff - just plain ol handier and also gets the carb away from being squished between two hot headers - but that's just another choice .
Over the past few years - I have watched the overall trend in new engine designs --so have you .
So far, I have not been the least bit surprised .
Best yet - I have not had any feedback from others that my readings on power are out of line with what they obtain.
Fair enough?
They also accuse me of being negative.
"If there ain't a formula for it - it must not exist"
I thot I was always positive and upbeat - although
I do love to poke at sacred cows -
That is obvious - and if one sets onself on a pedestal- I will occasionally take a gentle shot --
some guys get offended -
I hope you don't.
I never comment on an engine I have not personally run. Hearsay is not any better than the Calc Charts --
I do ask questions about other engines tho-
There is quite a bit of opinion on engines -in this forum -and sometimes Kris - it is a bit demeaning.
I run reed engines - and rotary engines .
Frankly the ZDZ reed engine is not a favorite of mine. It is an economy setup single steel reed -
The rotary stuf tho -both from ZDZ and Roto is very good .
Reeds ( good reed banks) do seal better when cold and dry and if I was in a one flip start contest - I would pick a reed .
but two flips is ok for me and all in all -I still think the rotary valve is a better power maker -
I have had reed setups which leak like a sieve and are simply a pain - others - nary a problem.
I do prefer rear inlet stuff - just plain ol handier and also gets the carb away from being squished between two hot headers - but that's just another choice .
Over the past few years - I have watched the overall trend in new engine designs --so have you .
So far, I have not been the least bit surprised .
Best yet - I have not had any feedback from others that my readings on power are out of line with what they obtain.
Fair enough?
12-11-2003, 07:06 PM
#41
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
Ralph - that sounds like a smoker -
how are you feeding that thing
Mikunis?
Alky?
I love performance engines -
I wish I would get a Suzuki Hayabusa for Christmas -
how are you feeding that thing
Mikunis?
Alky?
I love performance engines -
I wish I would get a Suzuki Hayabusa for Christmas -
12-11-2003, 07:25 PM
#42
Banned
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: concord, NC
Posts: 1,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
Okay, its a flat twin, Ralph. . .not a 350cc motorcycle engine.
At least we have you back into the Apple orchard, but the piston port thing is still not a rotary induction setup.
lets see now. . it's 289 cc's. If it was going to be comparable to the BME110 it would be a mere 11 lbs and put out that hP figure at only 6500-7000 rpm. Looks like you missed it by about 9-10 lbs and 2000+ rpm. Oh well.
Maybe next time.
At least we have you back into the Apple orchard, but the piston port thing is still not a rotary induction setup.
lets see now. . it's 289 cc's. If it was going to be comparable to the BME110 it would be a mere 11 lbs and put out that hP figure at only 6500-7000 rpm. Looks like you missed it by about 9-10 lbs and 2000+ rpm. Oh well.
Maybe next time.
12-11-2003, 07:50 PM
#45
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
Awe Come on -this is good stuff - BTW- the 210 is getting a TWEAK and if all goes well , should make a good Ultra Lite engine ( that ought to scare the bejezus out of the mfgr!)
The 80 is a natural for a barn burnin racer -
It can stand more timing tho -ifyou race it - it has extremely mild porting
The carb can also be larger .
It is still one of the best 100's on the market --
Ask the man who owns one --or two
((Was that Packard?)
The 80 is a natural for a barn burnin racer -
It can stand more timing tho -ifyou race it - it has extremely mild porting
The carb can also be larger .
It is still one of the best 100's on the market --
Ask the man who owns one --or two
((Was that Packard?)
12-11-2003, 09:40 PM
#48
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere,
DC
Posts: 9,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
Need a length, the spacer will bolt to the hub with 6 5mm screws and have 6 new holes for the prop bolts.I have some 2" 2024, stronger than 6061, anything larger will be 6061...The bolt pattern is 1.330....$20.00 + shipping...
12-11-2003, 09:49 PM
#49
Banned
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: concord, NC
Posts: 1,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
No length, I want the adapter relieved with a 1/4" lip to fit over the existing hub, with just enough thickness to get good engagement of the 6-bolts, the center is 7/16" and the OD of the hub is 1 1/2". Figure on a 1/2" - 5/8" deep hole for the bolts.
12-11-2003, 10:14 PM
#50
RE: BME 55Xtreme VS MVVS 2.15 Gasser
boy -I had to go take a nitro bit!
I thot I heard the earthshake --
did Kris actually opt for a proper six bolt setup ?
Welcome into the fold, Kris!
I thot I heard the earthshake --
did Kris actually opt for a proper six bolt setup ?
Welcome into the fold, Kris!