CLBetten

My Feedback: (16)

I just received my new ASP .61 four stroke. I've had no experience with ASP and had poor results finding people to quiz about this one. I bought it because it's power to weight claims are excellent and the price was amazing. I have no preconception about it and hope/ expect everything I'd expect from any other engine. I wonder if the low price may drive away experienced fliers and attract newbies? It looks and feels well made. My concern is the instructions. They claim the engine requires no break in whatsoever and therefore offer no break in suggestions. I think they are shooting themselves in the foot. While it may not be necessary I can't imagine that a ringed four stroke doesn't benefit from a mild break in that enables cooler running and more lubrication, especially in the long run. Also I think it's the perfect opportunity to familiarize yourself with your new engine, especially for the newbies if my previous theory is correct. Opinions...?

HunkaJunk

I haven't "broke in" an engine for years, I break them in on an air frame while flying them. In my opinion, most all of the manufacturers these days have much better machine tolerances than in the past.

1QwkSport2.5r

Unless they test run them, the piston ring, Rod ends, bearings, etc. all need to bed in. Especially the piston ring. Engines rarely run like they're supposed to until that ring is seated. I am one of those that will always break an engine in on a test bench before putting it into service. I'd not be one to "fly it in" on the initial runs either. Too much left for chance.

the pope

Hi there , if its anything like my asp 91 4stroke you wont have any issues . Mine could have flown straight out of the box . Still hasnt had so much as a hiccup ! Very good value for your $ . Cheers the pope

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

EATURES:
Full-Featured 4-Stroke Engine
One-Piece Crankcase
Rear-Mounted Updraft Carb w/Choke Valve
Right Side Exhaust
Dual Ball Bearing-Supported Crankshaft and Camshaft
CNC Machined Components
Iron Ringed Aluminum Alloy Piston
RFS (Ringed Four-Stroke) Engine
Overhead "Poppet" Valves with Cover

Cliff, my suggestion as Tim's would be, give it a 30 to 45 minute rich run, (not so rich as to run cold) starting at low rpm and working your way up. It has an iron ring running in a steel cylinder so it needs at least that.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

For the past 30 years I have run 1/2 tank through an engine and as long as it transitioned well and had a reliable idle low enough to safely land then I started flying the engine right away. IMO bench running a modern engine is a waste of time and you run a higher risk of damaging the engine due to reduced cooling while on a bench. It also gives one a false sense of security as the mixture setting will be different. One should always tune their engines to what the engine does in the air as opposed to what it does on the ground.

CLBetten

My Feedback: (16)

I'm sure if it did require a specific break in they would include instructions to do so. I'm not a person that has my own ritual to follow necessarily either. I'm just really surprised that they don't even mention running it a little rich at first or any consideration that it's new whatsoever. Just a first for me I guess.

jeffie8696

I will always run an engine on the test stand for a tank or two to verify. And it gives me the opportunity to start the break in under ideal conditions. Although I do not truly believe you can completely break in an engine on the test stand , I think they MUST be flown to break in properly. for example my Magnum 52 four stroke took about a gallon of flying ,not test stand running, to break in and start running decent. And it was sudden not a gradual event, it "transformed" at a gallon.

1QwkSport2.5r

Just because the instructions say one thing doesn't mean it's right. No skin off my nose if you bolt the engine to your plane and put it in the air for the first tank. It might run like a Swiss watch and prove us all wrong.... It might deadstick 1 minute after take-off. I wouldn't chance it if it were me, but I'm paranoid and live under a rock.

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

Nah, you don't live under a rock, you just exercise a little common sense. They are just too hard to tune on the plane, things shake too much, it's hotter than on a test stand and the adjusters, (needles) are hard to reach.

earlwb

I always bench test the engines before I use them. It isn't as much for breaking in the engine as to familiarize myself with the engine and how it runs and works. The ASP .61 engine doesn't need much of a break in. What they really meant was that you could mount it on a airplane, run and tune the engine and go off flying it. But actually the piston ring needs to be seated and the other parts worn a little before it is fully good to go.

wcmorrison

My Feedback: (2)

I would also use blended lubrication, the iron ring needs a bit of Castor to really seat itself. And a tad of Castor, especially in a new engine, is sort of insurance against a lean run. Of course all the engine manufacturers set their needles a bit rich at first for that very reason. I mount mine and fly them and I like the Maggies/ASPS. Good value for the money. I do take the choke assembly off and leave it in the box, it is not needed with electric starters.

CLBetten

My Feedback: (16)

The original idea I had concerning the lack of break in suggestions in the instructions was the possibility that due to the fact more people and especially less experienced people would likely struggle with dead sticks, shorter engine life etc. Therefore diminishing the reputation of the engine over a very simple, easy to solve lack of instruction.

earlwb

ASP or the main company that makes all those brands that it does, doe not really care about reputation. When they were first out, the engines tended to be horrible. But over the years they steadily improved. The buyers were all after the cheap engine and hoped that they would get a good one that ran OK. So they were at first strictly going for the low cost engine. They can make really good high quality engines, but most importers buy batches of engines and they want the engines cheap. But lately I have been quite impressed with the ASP engines I did run as the engines all ran pretty good and didn't have any problems. A few years ago I did have some issues with a couple of ASP .61 four stroke engines where the needle valves needed some tubing to stabilize them. But otherwise the engines have worked much better than I expected. I think the risk today is not so much the engines themselves but the carburetors might have issues. They still sometimes seem to get carbs that don't work right.

dogshome

I took the bait.

Every engine needs some sort of running in. The ASP four strokes are very good engines though and putting one straight into a plane running a little rich with a high idle wouldn't bother me. You'll find you can lean it out and lower the idle when it has been run some.

Oil? Don't put castor anywhere near a four stroke unless you want to de-gum it occasionally (probably swallowed the hook and sinker with this)

1QwkSport2.5r

It's all preference. Some like the old school practices because it's known to work where others prefer the new methods of taking it out of the box and putting it in the air after first flip. I could care less what anyone else does. This along with the ever waging war on what oil to use will never end and will forever be debated. This horse is so dead, the bones turned to dust. We need a new horse to beat to death! Haha!

CLBetten

My Feedback: (16)

I think you missed my point and the point of this post 1Q. My point was to raise the question of how much a company's image may or may not be effected by the clarity and quality of their instructions or manuals.

1QwkSport2.5r

No, I do get it. If a company cared about their image and thought their manuals would reflect poorly on them, they'd have their designers and engineers write their manuals and put the correct information in them.

dogshome

OK, got it. I'm happy with their approach. Mine ran well from the box and were fuss free.

The ones that really needed a break in (for me) were a 40 size ABC diesel MVVS conversion and the CRRC 40cc. The Diesel was very nippy and needed heat straight from the off. The 40cc bit like a snake for the first few starts. Broke an 18*8 wooden prop end to end. It's a little beauty now.

DL50 was easy. Saito, OS and ASP four strokes easy. Supertigre 90 took ages to settle in and behave! YS63 to be treated with caution - especially when brand new and on only 20% nitro. Runs nice now and the more nitro, the easier she is.

RCV60 I would not fly without several minutes running and stopping. A lot of stiction to overcome when new. Runs very well from the box, but needs careful watching until broken in. I got mine pinging away on the bench (methanol growl) and quickly tweaked it. Not possible in the air.


Fit an ASP four stroke into an airframe and fly? No worries. As for "no break-in", well it will do and will run better after a while but I don't have a particular problem with their instructions. It'll run well enough on the first go.

706jim

I would go with the in-air breakin. I've ruined an engine running it on the ground in dusty conditions and also figure that the dynamic loads while flying are probably better for break-in.