Author Topic: Does anyone remember this thing? (Read 5500 times)

Robert McHam · « **on:** June 10, 2009, 04:20:42 PM »

I hope someone remembers this thing! All I know is in this rough picture.

Robert

Frank Sheridan · « **Reply #1 on:** June 10, 2009, 05:36:03 PM »

It looks like the predecessor to the Cox helicopter - you know, the one that's never seen again after the first flight! The thrill of the chase, off into the unknown regions of time and space.

George · « **Reply #2 on:** June 11, 2009, 04:27:09 PM »

Robert, I don't remember it but it looks like some of Roy Clough's work...more info?

Anyone remember the Cox .049 powered Frisbee? Still have one out in the shop somewhere...'course the engine is in my collection.

BTW, it used a product engine with screening tack-welded over the exhaust to keep grass clippings out. Lower right.

George

Larry Renger · « **Reply #3 on:** June 11, 2009, 04:43:22 PM »

I am pretty sure that was a Wen-Mac product. Do a search on e-Bay and I bet you find one (look in closed auctions in addition to current). To my best knowledge, Cox made 3 different flying saucer designs, but that isn't one of them.

dennis lipsett · « **Reply #4 on:** June 12, 2009, 11:35:13 AM »

That really does look like the Wen Mac offering. Only ever saw one of them and it flew in typical Wen Mac style. Oh if only they made decent propellers and not those noodle, limp things they just might have gotten a little more thrust out of the engine.
Oh and as kids we called then " Wen's it going to start, Mac?'
Dennis

Robert McHam · « **Reply #5 on:** June 12, 2009, 12:18:49 PM »

I'll settle that it is probably a Wen Mac.
" Wen's it going to start, Mac?" Heh! That's a good one! They were a little hard to start and not terribly powerful but 'Wen' you got used to it, it was a pretty good runner. This picture was in one of those mechanics or science magazines and was about new stuff coming up but did not mention who or where. Pretty cool I think.

Robert

James Lee · « **Reply #6 on:** June 12, 2009, 03:17:13 PM »

got one NIB.... Friskies dog food promo thing... And it is Wen-Mac one of the blades is broken however.....
Jim

Robert McHam · « **Reply #7 on:** June 12, 2009, 04:24:27 PM »

Really!?! Can you post some pictures of this thing? I would like to see some details!

Robert

John Castle · « **Reply #8 on:** June 12, 2009, 09:48:14 PM »

Quote from: James Lee on June 12, 2009, 03:17:13 PM

Friskies dog food promo thing...

Wow, I would not have guessed that in a hundred years

Robert McHam · « **Reply #9 on:** June 12, 2009, 09:55:16 PM »

Heh! Friskies Has a plant not more than a mile or two from where I live.

Robert

nobler · « **Reply #10 on:** June 12, 2009, 11:34:01 PM »

I have some experience with Wen Macs, in all of their incarnations, up to Mark XIIIs, Testor's versions, McCoy versions, etc. The only reason is that, for a few years, you got bonus points in the NVCL Musciano Meet if you used them.

The only decent ones were the ones with the glow heads. They were roughly the same, power wise, as a single port Cox Babe Bee. They would start reasonably well. The ones with plugs were pretty miserable, and needed a ton of nitro to run at all.

With the glow head ones, I recall something like 16.5K with a 5-3 on the bench, with 20% nitro. Not too bad. That angled needle valve design was kind of interesting, too.

Currell

Frank Sheridan · « **Reply #11 on:** June 13, 2009, 02:03:06 PM »

I remember the testor's P-38 and the Cosmic Wind planes as well as the Sprite Indy car (which you had to collect a million sprite bottle caps to get), but I don't remember EVER seeing one run after the initial prime ran out. That P-38 had a dummy engine on one side if I remember correctly. We used to stand around while the poor guy tried to start it and tease him by saying that the other engine (the dummy) ran better. I bought some odd parts off eBay some time back and this partial engine was in the box.

George · « **Reply #12 on:** June 13, 2009, 06:59:12 PM »

Here'a one of those McCoys, and believe it or not, it came out of one of those Single Engine P38's. It does run a bit better than the dummy.

George

dennis lipsett · « **Reply #13 on:** June 14, 2009, 06:00:31 PM »

Quote from: George Bain on June 13, 2009, 06:59:12 PM

Here'a one of those McCoys, and believe it or not, it came out of one of those Single Engine P38's. It does run a bit better than the dummy.

George

There is certainly a descrepancy here.
I worked on a few of those P-38 offerings and they all had 2 engines in them and they both ran.
This was about 62/63 and I used to laugh at the people that brought them back to the hobby store saying that they couldn't get them running. They would both run, the trick was to get both running in a reasonable time so your help didn't get tired filling the one that was running. Occassionally it was magic when they were both going,however, sorry to say I never got to fly one, and probably wouldn't want to have been caught dead trying to.
dennis

Robert McHam · « **Reply #14 on:** June 14, 2009, 09:41:31 PM »

I'll have to be honest, I don't know for sure about who's P-38 had a dummy engine but someone did produce one. I remember seeing one on the bay one time and was fascinated by it. Pictures showed a dummy engine alright. Trouble is, I don't remember who made the thing now. The thing I remember most clearly is that it would have been so very cool to have a C/L P-38 for a birthday or whatever but that it would have been such a bummer to find it had only one real engine.
Could have been a later Testor's Flyem?

Ah! The Wen-Mac of 1960 had two engines.
Others? We will have to see.

Robert

George · « **Reply #15 on:** June 15, 2009, 11:34:21 AM »

My son was born in 1972 so it must have been ~1980. And yes, I was a bit disappointed when I found that only the inboard engine was real.

I think I still have that dummy engine somewhere.

George

Frank Sheridan · « **Reply #16 on:** June 15, 2009, 04:13:46 PM »

I can't remember for sure which side of the P-38 the real engine was on, but I think it was inboard. The P-38 never likes a dead inboard engine, but then how would I know that?

George · « **Reply #17 on:** June 16, 2009, 08:48:41 AM »

Quote from: Frank Sheridan on June 15, 2009, 04:13:46 PM

I can't remember for sure which side of the P-38 the real engine was on, but I think it was inboard. The P-38 never likes a dead inboard engine, but then how would I know that?

How fortunate, you still have the whole inboard side to make patterns from.

It's a neat looking P-38...worth rebuilding. What engines were in it?

George

Frank Sheridan · « **Reply #18 on:** June 18, 2009, 03:18:55 PM »

This was a Sterling P-38 that a friend built and fitted with a pair of Gilbert 11 engines with the rear facing exhast pipes. The original design called for a pair of Fox 15s. Grossly underpowered, its fate was further sealed by the application of about a pound of automotive paint. Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack the thread. Getting back to the original thread, does anybody know why the WenMac 049 was such a tough engine to start?

john e. holliday · « **Reply #19 on:** June 19, 2009, 07:15:59 AM »

I think back then we were still learning how to start glo engines. DOC Holliday

George · « **Reply #20 on:** June 19, 2009, 08:08:30 AM »

Speaking of Wen-Mac, I have a Mk-II that had the two piece piston come apart as I was getting it unstuck. How does one reconnect them?

George

Frank Sheridan · « **Reply #21 on:** June 19, 2009, 08:10:58 PM »

You might put them together in the bottom of a suitable refuse container, where they can join the mutitudes of other discarded WenMac egines which were responsible for many frustrated Christmas days.

George · « **Reply #22 on:** June 20, 2009, 06:52:28 AM »

Quote from: Frank Sheridan on June 19, 2009, 08:10:58 PM

You might put them together in the bottom of a suitable refuse container, where they can join the mutitudes of other discarded WenMac egines which were responsible for many frustrated Christmas days.

In over 50 years I have discarded two engines. One was an O&R 23 that was WAY past its prime and would not run, the other was a Thor that had already been run (

)... and was missing the needle assembly and ignition parts. Both were given to me.

It has been my experience that if I can't get an engine running that others have, there is something that I'm doing wrong...wrong fuel, weak battery, wrong procedure, etc. Throw it away? No way! If I can get it back together, it WILL run.

George

Frank Sheridan · « **Reply #23 on:** June 20, 2009, 03:01:33 PM »

I'm curious - just what does a two piece piston look like?

George · « **Reply #24 on:** June 20, 2009, 08:33:09 PM »

You have the outer part that fits the cylinder and the inner part that holds the connecting rod to the piston. Somewhat like the early Cox engines.

George

Robert McHam · « **Reply #25 on:** June 20, 2009, 08:56:45 PM »

I don't know anything about Cox or Wen Mac two piece pistons.
I can hardly wait to find out more.

Robert

Bill Adair · « **Reply #26 on:** June 20, 2009, 11:10:50 PM »

George,

I have two MECJ issues that cover all 27 models of the Wen-Mac, but I don't remember anything mentioned about the two piece pistons. May have to take one apart, to see how it's made.

Just pulled the backplate off the Testors McCoy car engine I have, and it looks like the sub piston is just snapped in place. Couldn't get the cylinder off to give it a closer look, but I don't see any evidence of a snap ring, or keeper in there.

This thing has massive bypass ports and should be a runner, but the crank bore and intake port are rather small in comparison.

Bill

George · « **Reply #27 on:** June 21, 2009, 10:00:24 AM »

Perhaps two piece piston is incorrect terminology. The piece you refer to as sub piston is the part I'm talking about...the part that holds the conrod to the piston. I had assumed since it has a second part that the piston is two-piece.

I also do not have a wrench to remove the cylinder so I took pictures as best I could. The first three pics are as it came out of the Aeromite. The others are trying to show inside the crankcase, but I could not get enough light in there.

BTW, the piston parts may have snapped back into place because I could not easily separate them. I believe I stuck wood or soft plastic in the exhaust port to attempt repair. This "repair" was several years ago. The pics are from today.

George

George · « **Reply #28 on:** June 21, 2009, 10:57:39 AM »

I was a little more successful with the Cox .049 piston pics. First two show the socket retainer ring on a piston I split by stupidly using the wrong size reset tool (.09). Others show the more modern one piece piston with the socket formed (stamped?) around the ball.

George

Jim Thomerson · « **Reply #29 on:** June 21, 2009, 05:51:07 PM »

My wife picked up a half dozen Wen-Macs cheap at an auction. I sold all but two for $5 each, and made money. I kept the two oldest ones. After I got them broke in, which took a while, they start easy and run nicely. Not powerhouses. I have an idea to put them on sport freeflights someday.

George Waters · « **Reply #30 on:** July 24, 2009, 10:17:28 AM »

I have one of the wenmac corsairs we got years ago at a flea market. It runs quite well but we never tried to fly it, yet. It sounds good when running although I think the little three bladed prop doesnot move a lot of air. George

Mark Misegadis · « **Reply #31 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:03:49 PM »

Last Summer I bought a "lot" of .049 motors at the flea market. Someone "noted" many of them and have them in little snap boxes all seperated. There are lots of spare parts including original props spring starter rebuild kits etc. The list is as follows:

1) Wen Macs
2) McCoys (Baby Macs)
3) Tester McCoys
4) Testers (Same as above)
5) Then just Testers that came in the U-Flyem models.

I have thought that I would go ahead and use the Wen Macs on Vintage Control line designs as something different. Biplanes etc.

Appears this stuff was all from a Free Flight guy and that he was a rebuilder as well and traded these motors. The one odd motor was partial OK Cub.

At Some point I was going to check to see how interchangable parts are back and forth etc. These are neat looking little motors and something very different to look at. I would think all of this stuff could be made to run. As far as hard starting..I changed a easy starting Cox motor to a Stainless reed and Wow. All I can say is it was good we had the electric starter or it would never have ran.

Mark