News:



  • June 17, 2024, 11:44:25 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Longevity of Norvel AME Engines?  (Read 2032 times)

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12833
Longevity of Norvel AME Engines?
« on: January 08, 2011, 11:34:41 PM »
I heard from a guy who used to use Norvel AME 049s in combat that they'd take an hour to break in, then last for an hour of flight.  He sounded very disenchanted.

Is that your general experience?  Is there anything to do to mitigate the problem?  (I want this more for a sport/stunt style 1/2-A plane, not a screaming demon kinda thing).  Before I go build a plane, I want to know if the engine's going to make it worthwhile.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12671
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Longevity of Norvel AME Engines?
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2011, 11:54:15 PM »
I heard from a guy who used to use Norvel AME 049s in combat that they'd take an hour to break in, then last for an hour of flight.  He sounded very disenchanted.

Is that your general experience?  Is there anything to do to mitigate the problem?  (I want this more for a sport/stunt style 1/2-A plane, not a screaming demon kinda thing).  Before I go build a plane, I want to know if the engine's going to make it worthwhile.

Tim,

I , personally, have not heard, nor experienced, the same with the Big Mig engines being used for stunt and sport.  No idea about combat, except it is a whole different universe using the engines for a completely different purpose.  Also, no real experience with the "AME".  What little I know of combat is from my friends who have flown it forever,  most of the time they were looking for performance at the expense of longevity.  Fuels and such would often be much different from what we would use for stunt/sport.  All of which can shorten the life span of the engine, you know that ;D
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12833
Re: Longevity of Norvel AME Engines?
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2011, 11:38:56 AM »
All of which can shorten the life span of the engine, you know that ;D
That's why I'm asking about it here...
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline ray copeland

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 871
Re: Longevity of Norvel AME Engines?
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2011, 04:18:36 PM »
Tim, i have 2 .049 ame engines and 3 .061 ame norvels on combat planes. I can honestly say i was surprised at how quickly the pinch at the top dropped off on the .049's versus the .061's. They still run fine and all but just lost that new pep quickly. Our 1/2a combat contests allow the .061 bushed motors to compete as 1/2a.  I am sure you know the ame's like to run on muffler pressure or bladder pressure for best resutlts as compared to the Big Mig style Norvels that run fine on suction and are better suited for stunt.
Ray from Greensboro, North Carolina , six laps inverted so far with my hand held vertically!!! (forgot to mention, none level!) AMA# 902150

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12833
Re: Longevity of Norvel AME Engines?
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2011, 04:34:03 PM »
Tim, i have 2 .049 ame engines and 3 .061 ame norvels on combat planes. I can honestly say i was surprised at how quickly the pinch at the top dropped off on the .049's versus the .061's. They still run fine and all but just lost that new pep quickly. Our 1/2a combat contests allow the .061 bushed motors to compete as 1/2a.  I am sure you know the ame's like to run on muffler pressure or bladder pressure for best resutlts as compared to the Big Mig style Norvels that run fine on suction and are better suited for stunt.
I've heard, but only recently.  I figured that was a problem that's easily overcome, with a bladder or a shim stuffed in the venturi.

Actually, the fellow who told me about early wear didn't mention pressure (or it blew right past me).  Some of the current problems I'm having may be from lack of a decent (for that engine) fuel system rather than excessive pinch.

I wish I had a Big Mig -- I just bought what the hobby shop had...
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Steve Thomas

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 373
Re: Longevity of Norvel AME Engines?
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2011, 05:19:32 AM »
Hi Tim, a friend and I have been running a few 061 BigMigs for the last 3 years or so.  In that time, they've had an absolute flogging, but seem to be just as strong as when they were new.  There's also an 049 AME which is awesome on the bench, but proved pretty much useless in the air without pressure.  If yours isn't working well, that's the first thing I'd look at.

Steve

Offline kenneth cook

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1473
Re: Longevity of Norvel AME Engines?
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2011, 07:45:05 AM »
     When I was first introduced to these engines about 9 years ago, I couldn't even get them to start. I was trying to apply the knowledge I gathered using Cox engines. These are entirely different engines. The instructions for starters were pretty vague about the initial break-in of these engines. A friend of mine pointed me towards the now defunct Norvel website. The site gave a terrific description in detail on how to run these engines. The engines that I'm describing are the Revlite engines. The older Norvel engines were just of the ABC style and didn't seem to have the same amount of pinch as the Revlite engines. The instructions are pretty clear that higher usage of nitro may possibly shorten the life of these engines. I haven't experienced this myself and I use a lot of nitro as much as 40% in some of them. I also run them on fuel as low as 10%. I typically use fuel of at least 20-22% oil content usually a 50-50 mix. The initial break in is very critical to these engines. The engines should be cleaned thoroughly to start with. Norvel recommended washing the engines with gasoline first. Later instructions included the use of kerosene or denatured alcohol. I believe this was to flush out the oil that was used to assemble the engine. It was then  critical to place the piston at the bottom of the cylinder closing off any intake ports and filling the cylinder to the top with castor oil. This would penetrate the porous cylinder walls and help with initial start up. I myself skipped this process and I feel that my engine is suffering from it. The instructions would then state that with the glow plug removed you were to manually turn the engine in its opposing direction that it runs a minimum of 200 times. I found this to be almost impossible at times as the piston would just lock. Well you do the next best thing and force it over. I'm sure I'm not the only one guilty of this procedure. Well, its literally robbing the life of the piston cylinder fit and placing a lot of stress on the rod and wrist pin. Thats when my father told me to use a hair dryer or heat gun to expand the cylinder. It works and works well. I even found that holding it in your hand would sometimes expand the fits enough. I found the need to turn the engines over an hour manually while keeping the cylinder well oiled. I would always use castor as 3 in 1 is too thin and is not recommended even in the Norvel instructions. After that, I would chuck the crank in my drill press and hold the cylinder steady and let it turn for almost 5-10 minutes. I would keep the heat gun in one hand while holding the case with the other. These procedures were all done prior to putting the plug on and fueling the engine. I found this almost to be a necessity with these engines. All of the above was Norvel's recommendations and not mine. The engine was then run in a wet 2 stroke for short periods of time letting cool down in between runs. I would imagine that in the event that some of these instructions weren't followed, the life would be considerably shortened. I know there is a lot of people that would rather not take the time to follow the instructions to the letter. As for Ray's comment of the pinch diminishing, I found that as well. I also discovered that the engines that feel like they have the least amount of compression currently are also my fastest runners. I have a few with pretty worn crankcase that I use for combat stuff that really turn up the rpm's. I'm well aware that the tighter fits are better, but at least until they self destruct I'm enjoying them. I have a few that have been shaft run, crash damaged, seized up and I've been able to get them all back and working without replacing parts. I'm a big fan of these engines. Ken


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here