Cool look, Shug. Keep at it.

Eric is a great guy. I wish him well.

Your Fox looks like a pre 1957 model.No bosses are showing between the fins on the case.

The old DOC has him added to the prayer list.

  Virtually all of them do it to one degree or another. Whether the owners recognizes or is willing to admit there is a problem is entirely another matter. Even when it quits outright and causes an inverted crash.

   The one that do it least seem to have (due to the Brownian-motion quality control) the shallowest bypasses and the worst have the deepest. But it wasn't by design, it was piece-to-piece variation.

  If you put it in a Nobler, you are probably fine because the issue shows up only when the acceleration is perpendicular to the cylinder axis. But does the fix takes a few minutes and either doesn't hurt, or slightly increases, the power, so no reason not to do it.

   Brett

This topic has been moved to Engine set up tips.

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=38436.0

I am backup on Aero Tigers  waiting on chromed parts, I have many on order and will post when I do get parts in

Regards
Randall

Thanks, the 52's brought back memories! Was a Hound Dog missile mech. at Altus, OK. in the mid 60's.

Roger

   There are those with more intimate knowledge of the engine, but as far as I know, while the exterior of the engine has changed over the years, the internal "numbers" haven't changed. The bore, stroke, timing and port sizes have remained the same. It is the size of the port from the crank case up the side of the engine that is supposed to be responsible for the burp when mounted sideways. If one burps, they all should burp. Bob Arata had one that was mounted upright in what was basically a Flite Streak with flaps and full fuselage, and it would sound like it completely shut off on outside squares! I don't think I have ever experienced it, but I was schooled to run higher pitched props than what was considered normal. Tank placement on a profile should put the pick up even with the center of the bypass port area as a starting place, and that has always worked for me.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

My number is 7544, but will not fit on the rudder of many larger stunters. This is true of my own "Top Hat" But this is not the purposes of making a proposal.
 
My point is that in many cases the required 1” lettering on the side of the fuselage is impossible.   By following the smaller sizing that is allowed on full size aircraft, these cases will be covered, and certainly will be more realistic.  This will also benefit semi-scale airplanes.
 
The option of placing  1” minimum numbers on the wing or ¼” minimum numbers in locations similar to full size aircraft  will make it easier for those who don’t want the numbers on the wing.

I will be working on wording to support a future proposal.  I will be looking for comments on this. If anyone is interested I can send a preliminary draft to you.