Author Topic: Break in =wear out??? (Read 3366 times)

frank mccune · « **on:** March 08, 2015, 09:38:24 AM »

Hello All:

In the past, I have always broken in my steel/cast iron engines in the traditional manner of the short rich runs progressing to longer cool 2 cycle runs. When I think that the the engine has been broken in, I begin to fly it. This is done in a 4 cycle mode that may break into a 2 cycle during a maneuver.

It has been my experience is that the engines run well this way for about 10 flights and then they are so worn that the starting is very difficult. Yes, I have enough castor oil clean conditions etc.

Now the bombshell. This has only happened with engines made by Fox. For example, The fox .15 PB, the Fox .19 and .25 three bolt backplates My other engines O.S.,Enya, ST. etc. all broken in in this manner and last for a very long time! The Fox .35 Stunt engines that I used in Foxberg did not"wear out" after being run hard in racing. I had one that broke a crankshaft but that engine was very fast! The rest turned speeds that were equal to all of the other Fox engines. Many Foxberg races were won by the pit crews!

Perhaps these engines require break in periods measured in hours. I have a couple of the old Fox .40 Stunt engines are new that I wish to get a fair amount of use from them but I am hesitant to use them. I can use O.S. engines that seem to last forever so why bother with the Fox engines?

Any suggestions about this phenomena?

Tia,

Frank McCune

Brett Buck · « **Reply #1 on:** March 08, 2015, 10:02:03 AM »

Quote from: frank mccune on March 08, 2015, 09:38:24 AM

Any suggestions about this phenomena?

The short answer is that there's a reason they are out of the engine business, and it's not because of Chinese labor rates.

A slightly more complex answer is that with the backwards or 40's -style approach to engine design, one bad run at any point can irreparably damage the engine. I don't have any specific information but it also wouldn't surprise me if they changed the grade of the materials to reduce the break-in time to compete with OS, etc, and made the iron softer and the fits looser. So it is safe to run out of the box, but wears out more quickly.

It's not like they have ever seemed to respond to the competition. OS and others have been cleaning their clocks for decades now with more and more sophisticated approach, manufacturing, and materials engineering, while Fox just cranked out the same old stuff, claiming it was already correct, so there's no reason to change it. They have legions of followers that aggressively defend them

Fox's primary response to all of this was not to invest in better machines, better technology, research what modelers really want, etc. Their response to getting beaten in the marketplace was *to slap more American Flags on the box*, hoping that an appeal to patriotism would make everybody fail to notice that the engines were the same old thing. Unfortunately, letting the market decide is even MORE fundamentally American than the flag, and that's exactly what happened.

I don't want to see anyone fail, and I certainly hold no ill will with the people who are out of work as a result of their exit from the engine market, but they just got beaten in almost every area, for many decades now. They haven't attempted to compete in any meaningful way for as long as I have been doing this. ST was WAY ahead of them even in the 60's, 50-ish years ago, and they didn't respond. Sorry, but it's a miracle they lasted as long as they have.

Brett

Phil Bare · « **Reply #2 on:** March 08, 2015, 10:54:01 AM »

Frank, since all 'iron and steel' Fox engines use the same 10L18 steel for the sleeves and mehanite bar stock for the pistons, they shouldn't differ much at all from size to size. Break them in with a good heat cycle routine and correct fuel and prop and they seem to run for ever, just as any other iron/steel engine will.
One thing is for certain, you never have to worry about plating peeling of a sleeve and trashing the piston as some Jap engines are known for..
Since Duke and Betty Fox are no longer with us and the son now owns/runs the business, the interest lies elsewhere, besides the fact that there are probably enough Fox engines floating around to last for the next 65 years...........:-)

Regards, Phil Bare

rustler · « **Reply #3 on:** March 08, 2015, 02:34:38 PM »

It may help if you just smooth off the sharp edges of the exhaust/transfer (intake) ports, and the top edge of the piston. When its new, before it's run.

David Ruff · « **Reply #4 on:** March 08, 2015, 02:41:25 PM »

I love the Fox 35 discussions. It reminds me of the discussion about the Harley Big Twin air cooled engines. They were designed in 1903. Harley still makes them. People either love them or hate them.
Same with a Glock and the 1911 pistols.
Interesting.
I like Fox 35s, Harleys and Glocks and 1911 pistols. I guess I am just a dinosaur.

Chris Wilson · « **Reply #5 on:** March 08, 2015, 03:00:31 PM »

Quote from: frank mccune on March 08, 2015, 09:38:24 AM

Any suggestions about this phenomena?

Tia,

Frank McCune

Yep, what load did you use for break in?

As in what prop size did you choose?

Many choose a prop based on fly wheel effect but if you want that then use a real one. True flywheel effect evens out load pulses whereas a larger load exaggerates them.

I think that its best to use a break in load less than the intended flight use to reduce hot spots and if you are going up in diameter in an effort to gain fly wheel then drastically reduce the pitch.

So did you use the prop size based on flight conditions or what ever Fox recommends?

I am curious.

Andrew Hathaway · « **Reply #6 on:** March 08, 2015, 03:03:49 PM »

Quote from: frank mccune on March 08, 2015, 09:38:24 AM

Hello All:

I can use O.S. engines that seem to last forever so why bother with the Fox engines?

Any suggestions about this phenomena?

Tia,

Frank McCune

I'm just going to knock this down a bit, hope you don't mind. The short answer is that OS engines have no soul. There's no nostalgia, no unique temperament, no personality, no charm, no challenge. There's a bit more to it than that, like run characteristics, weight, period correctness, etc but really the only reason to run a sorta modern Fox (by Fox standards) in a modernish airplane is because you really want to run that specific engine because you appreciate it.

A couple thoughts on the worn out Fox question... Personally I don't believe in long bench break-in for a new Fox. It may give you the chance to adjust the needle or shut down the engine if something goes terribly wrong, but Foxes take forever and a day to break-in, and you're just wasting fuel doing it on the test stand. The Fox instructions suggest putting the engine on a plane and just running the engine easy in flight until it's had a chance to wear in a bit, and that does work to an extent. If you put a new Fox 35 fresh out of the box onto a Ringmaster or Flite Streak, whatever sport profile you choose, and fly it for a season or two, eventually the engine will either start being friendly, or it'll have some kind of failure. Either way, it still takes forever to break in the Fox, and you're spending valuable time at the field flying an engine that is less than ideal and that could fail in some way at any point.

So whatever is a person supposed to do when they want to run a Fox 35 just for the fun and challenge of it? Personally, I go on Ebay, or to other pre-owned sources, and pick up Fox 35s that clearly have been run, while avoiding those that have clearly been abused (crash damage, rust, mismatched parts, etc), and usually I get a bargain price (well below $50, often closer to $20), and an engine that's already been run enough that it can actually be used. Being a used engine, I take the time to go through the engine and inspect for damage, mildly clean up any minor problems, reassemble carefully with new gaskets, etc and the engine is about two seasons or 4 hours of test stand running ahead, and it's ready to toss on a sport plane and go fly.

That said, I'm not building a Nobler, or some other 500 sq in stunter around a Fox 35. That's just asking for trouble. But on a Ringmaster, Flite Streak, whatever that I'm willing to accept a less than ideal solution, or I want the nostalgia, character, and enjoyment that only a Fox can provide, there's nothing better. There's a sense of accomplishment that comes from making garbage work.

On a related note, the other option is to throw all kinds of aftermarket parts at the Fox, spend hours reworking the internals, and all that nonsense, but at the end of the day it's still just a Fox and it's going to run the same, unless the aftermarket parts steal the soul, the character, the personality, and leave you with an engine that's just a weaker sister of an OS with a third less displacement. The fun in the aftermarket parts is that the engine is a toy, something you can play with and get different results. Kind of like Legos for the model engine enthusiast. If you just want to fly and never mess with the engine, run an OS.

Phil Bare · « **Reply #7 on:** March 08, 2015, 04:01:47 PM »

: and leave you with an engine that's just a weaker sister of an OS with a third less displacement. :

Andrew, I am curious as to what OS you are comparing to what Fox?

Regards, Phil Bare

Andrew Hathaway · « **Reply #8 on:** March 08, 2015, 04:15:41 PM »

I'm referring to the virtual interchangeability with the OS 20/25FP, 25LA, 25FSR, etc. None of the popular aftermarket parts increase the Fox 35s power, they just make it more expensive, run smoother, slightly more consistent, etc. Nothing is really gained if you want to use the Fox for the traits that make it a Fox. All of the OS engines I just listed are stronger in one way or another (price, fuel efficiency/compatibility, user friendliness, raw quality, etc) than a Fox 35. The only place the Fox really excels is in being the best for it's time period.

Phil Bare · « **Reply #9 on:** March 08, 2015, 05:03:03 PM »

Andrew, Back in the 40s, 50s,and 60s, It wasn't uncommon to see stunters that weighed in in the neighborhood of 50 oz and better powered wit Fox .35 S engines. Matter of fact, I would be willing to bet that the majority of major contests were won with just that set up.
I have two virtually identical S1 Ringmasters, both done in silk and dope.
One has a old Fox .35 S on it, the other has an OS LA .25 on it.
The Fox is stronger.
But it would be interesting to bolt an OS LA .25 into a 50 oz Stunter, put a 10X6 prop on it and launch it at say, 9200 RPM. Wonder how it would perform..........:-)

Regards, Phil Bare

Brett Buck · « **Reply #10 on:** March 08, 2015, 05:46:08 PM »

Quote from: Phil Bare on March 08, 2015, 05:03:03 PM

But it would be interesting to bolt an OS LA .25 into a 50 oz Stunter, put a 10X6 prop on it and launch it at say, 9200 RPM. Wonder how it would perform..........:-)

Poorly, but that's the most ridiculous way to run a 25LA that there is. It's the same sort of mistake people have been making since the mid-70's, having learned *absolutely nothing* from the last ~30+ years of competition experience.

Brett

Andrew Hathaway · « **Reply #11 on:** March 08, 2015, 06:01:26 PM »

But times have changed. My first ARF Nobler got a nice running Fox 35 at first. After some frustration, it got changed for a 25FP, which worked better. Later I went back to a Fox 35 and subsequently planted the plane. My second ARF Nobler was built up around an OS 35S with an aftermarket ABC setup, which proved to be the best yet, and it's still going strong. Personally I choose not to push the Fox to it's limits. I see no reason to do so with so many better, viable choices available. Had those choices been available 50+ years ago, the Fox probably would not have been the most popular choice.

As I tried to call attention to in my last reply, I wasn't really talking about just raw power when I referred to the Fox as "weak". I was speaking more to all of the engine's merits in comparison to the merits of a smaller, more modern, OS engine. While a Fox 35 may pull a larger, heavier plane with more authority, where most people are likely to use the Fox in the modern era, the OS options offer much more value, and will likely be a better choice for those who aren't as concerned with nostalgia.

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #12 on:** March 08, 2015, 07:04:57 PM »

I think I am in that camp that just loves old iron. Andrew will attest to the fact that the most modern engines I run are Fox stunts, and McCoy Red Heads. What is fun for me is flying them with all of there little idiosyncrasies. I also fly Fox 59's for the same reason. But I ride a 15 year old Harley too. It ain't the fastest or quickest horse on the block, but fun like flying a Stearman. It is what happens to us old codgers in our 70's. My first "big" engine back in the 60's was a Fox 35. I still fly it after a jillion gallons of fuel have been run thru it.

Of course my other favorite engines to fly are Anderson Spitfires, Super Cyclones, Atwood Champions, and Orwicks. What can I say. New stuff does nothing for me. They just run like a sewing machine and there is no challenge.

Now, if you want to win the indy five hundred you don't use a model A Ford.

Phil Bare · « **Reply #13 on:** March 09, 2015, 11:39:01 AM »

The fact is, I like all engines. They all will do the job that they were intended to do. Will an OS .25 LA fly an S1 Ringmaster? Of course it will, but then, so will every other .19/.25 ever made as well. To say that any one is much better or much worse is in my honest opinion, just noise.
Fun and relaxation is what building and flying model airplanes and collecting engines is all about for me.
Sorting out and learning an engines temperament and making it run is a source of satisfaction, be it my old Super Cyke, OK 60 or a new Evo .36..

Regards, Phil Bare

Phil Bare · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2015, 11:52:42 AM »

Quote from: Brett Buck on March 08, 2015, 05:46:08 PM

Poorly, but that's the most ridiculous way to run a 25LA that there is. It's the same sort of mistake people have been making since the mid-70's, having learned *absolutely nothing* from the last ~30+ years of competition experience.

Brett

But Brett, A fox .35 S will do it all day and if an OS .25 LA is as strong as the Fox, shouldn't it do it also??

..........:-)

Regards, Phil Bare

rustler · « **Reply #15 on:** March 09, 2015, 03:41:49 PM »

Quote from: Phil Bare on March 09, 2015, 11:52:42 AM

But Brett, A fox .35 S will do it all day and if an OS .25 LA is as strong as the Fox, shouldn't it do it also?? ..........:-) Regards, Phil Bare

I think Brett has it here. The engines may have similar power, but they also have completely different run characteristics. To get the best from an engine you have to cater for its unique characteristics.

David Ruff · « **Reply #16 on:** March 09, 2015, 04:02:27 PM »

Quote from: Phil Bare on March 08, 2015, 04:01:47 PM

: and leave you with an engine that's just a weaker sister of an OS with a third less displacement. :

Andrew, I am curious as to what OS you are comparing to what Fox?

Regards, Phil Bare

David Ruff · « **Reply #17 on:** March 09, 2015, 04:03:12 PM »

Quote from: Andrew Hathaway on March 08, 2015, 03:03:49 PM

I'm just going to knock this down a bit, hope you don't mind. The short answer is that OS engines have no soul. There's no nostalgia, no unique temperament, no personality, no charm, no challenge. There's a bit more to it than that, like run characteristics, weight, period correctness, etc but really the only reason to run a sorta modern Fox (by Fox standards) in a modernish airplane is because you really want to run that specific engine because you appreciate it.

A couple thoughts on the worn out Fox question... Personally I don't believe in long bench break-in for a new Fox. It may give you the chance to adjust the needle or shut down the engine if something goes terribly wrong, but Foxes take forever and a day to break-in, and you're just wasting fuel doing it on the test stand. The Fox instructions suggest putting the engine on a plane and just running the engine easy in flight until it's had a chance to wear in a bit, and that does work to an extent. If you put a new Fox 35 fresh out of the box onto a Ringmaster or Flite Streak, whatever sport profile you choose, and fly it for a season or two, eventually the engine will either start being friendly, or it'll have some kind of failure. Either way, it still takes forever to break in the Fox, and you're spending valuable time at the field flying an engine that is less than ideal and that could fail in some way at any point.

So whatever is a person supposed to do when they want to run a Fox 35 just for the fun and challenge of it? Personally, I go on Ebay, or to other pre-owned sources, and pick up Fox 35s that clearly have been run, while avoiding those that have clearly been abused (crash damage, rust, mismatched parts, etc), and usually I get a bargain price (well below $50, often closer to $20), and an engine that's already been run enough that it can actually be used. Being a used engine, I take the time to go through the engine and inspect for damage, mildly clean up any minor problems, reassemble carefully with new gaskets, etc and the engine is about two seasons or 4 hours of test stand running ahead, and it's ready to toss on a sport plane and go fly.

That said, I'm not building a Nobler, or some other 500 sq in stunter around a Fox 35. That's just asking for trouble. But on a Ringmaster, Flite Streak, whatever that I'm willing to accept a less than ideal solution, or I want the nostalgia, character, and enjoyment that only a Fox can provide, there's nothing better. There's a sense of accomplishment that comes from making garbage work.

On a related note, the other option is to throw all kinds of aftermarket parts at the Fox, spend hours reworking the internals, and all that nonsense, but at the end of the day it's still just a Fox and it's going to run the same, unless the aftermarket parts steal the soul, the character, the personality, and leave you with an engine that's just a weaker sister of an OS with a third less displacement. The fun in the aftermarket parts is that the engine is a toy, something you can play with and get different results. Kind of like Legos for the model engine enthusiast. If you just want to fly and never mess with the engine, run an OS.

I agree totally

Phil Bare · « **Reply #18 on:** March 09, 2015, 04:32:20 PM »

I think Brett has it here. The engines may have similar power, but they also have completely different run characteristics. To get the best from an engine you have to cater for its unique characteristics.

Rustler, you might have some thing there. That is probably why I run 9X4 props on my .25 LA and 11X4 props on my Fox .35 S.
I have used 10X4 props on my .25 LA but it seems a little happier on the 9X4.
My flying field is at 2800 ft above sea level so that might have some thing to do with it.
Oh, I run the Fox in a 'wet two' mode.

Regards, Phil Bare

Author Topic: Break in =wear out??? (Read 3366 times)

frank mccune

Break in =wear out???

Brett Buck

Re: Break in =wear out???

Phil Bare

Re: Break in =wear out???

rustler

Re: Break in =wear out???

David Ruff

Re: Break in =wear out???

Chris Wilson

Re: Break in =wear out???

Andrew Hathaway

Re: Break in =wear out???

Phil Bare

Re: Break in =wear out???

Andrew Hathaway

Re: Break in =wear out???

Phil Bare

Re: Break in =wear out???

Brett Buck

Re: Break in =wear out???

Andrew Hathaway

Re: Break in =wear out???

Jim Kraft

Re: Break in =wear out???

Phil Bare

Re: Break in =wear out???

Phil Bare

Re: Break in =wear out???

rustler

Re: Break in =wear out???

David Ruff

Re: Break in =wear out???

David Ruff

Re: Break in =wear out???

Phil Bare

Re: Break in =wear out???