Author Topic: Help Identify My Fox Engine (Read 1981 times)

Jim Carter · « **on:** February 03, 2024, 12:04:57 PM »

Greetings! Gentlemen, I'll admit, I am far from solid knowledge as to how to identify various engines but this one brought quite a discussion with our gang today. We held a "2 man up race" that was for suction .35 engines (Fox, Enya, OS, McCoy) and the planes were to have a minimum 350 sq in wing area (Ringmaster, Buster, Shoestring, Twister etcetera). Well, the event went off just fine however after all was said and done, there was an interesting discussion as to what type engine I had. Honestly, I thought it was just an old Fox .35 engine. So, can anyone help identify it from these photos? I'd appreciate it!! Thanks in advance.

Jim Carter
Titusville, Florida

Colin McRae · « **Reply #1 on:** February 03, 2024, 01:12:14 PM »

Not sure what Fox engine it is but it does not look like what Fox called their 35 'Stunt' engine. I have a Fox history document for the Fox 35 stunt engine. It describes the Fox design changes dating all the way back to the original in 1948. From the pictures in my Fox document, none of the Fox 35 stunt engines had an angled glow plug as far as I can tell.

I have a Fox 15. It does have an angled glow plug design. So, Fox did use that design on various engines.

kenneth cook · « **Reply #2 on:** February 03, 2024, 02:24:31 PM »

These were produced in the mid seventies. They were offered in .29 displacement and .36. The .36 uses the same piston liner as the .36X. The displacement is only marked for the .29, it would have .29 on the engine lug. No marking means it's a .36. I believe Fox referred to this engine as the Sporster. Not a Sportsman like Mccoy used. If you have the muffler, it fits the .35 and it's far superior over the blimp POS version that the .35 stunt used. Not only is it less restrictive, it fits over the stack like it should encompassing all four sides not just butt up to it. In addition, the large black oxide needle used on this engine is far superior to the .35 stunt needle. It actually works for starters and it's a mystery to me why it wasn't used more. It was used in some of the combat specials up to the MK IV and eventually into the coffin back .40's.

Ken Culbertson · « **Reply #3 on:** February 03, 2024, 02:32:41 PM »

Are you sure it is a .35? It looks a lot like a mid 70's 36RC converted to stunt but I am not a expert at engine identification. I am not sure if the .35 Stunt ever came with the square backplate. Fox made a lot of limited specials, could be one of them.

ken

Robert Whitley · « **Reply #4 on:** February 03, 2024, 08:03:43 PM »

It’s a Fox 36 stunt.
I have two of them and also two of the rc version. The angled plug also differentiates them from the 35s.
The rc ones have the carb body cast integral to the case the same as the four bolt backplate Fox 40s were.
I also have a Fox40 stunt and a Fox40 rc.

Motorman · « **Reply #5 on:** February 03, 2024, 09:36:12 PM »

The difference in displacement between a 35 - 36 is basically nothing. The engines branded 36 were a little more racey for combat I suppose. Did you win?

Dave_Trible · « **Reply #6 on:** February 04, 2024, 10:01:47 AM »

This appears to be the .36 (call it sport) that Duke made to use up parts made for an ill-fated combat engine. That's why .36-the max combat displacement allowed and the slant plug to get a glow starter on up against a combat wing's leading edge. I had a couple I ran on the stand a few years back and they seemed docile and reliable. Never got them into an airplane but I'm sure they would have been fine general sport/stunt engines.

Dave

Jim Carter · « **Reply #7 on:** February 04, 2024, 12:24:30 PM »

Quote from: kenneth cook on February 03, 2024, 02:24:31 PM

These were produced in the mid seventies. They were offered in .29 displacement and .36. The .36 uses the same piston liner as the .36X. The displacement is only marked for the .29, it would have .29 on the engine lug. No marking means it's a .36. I believe Fox referred to this engine as the Sporster. Not a Sportsman like Mccoy used. If you have the muffler, it fits the .35 and it's far superior over the blimp POS version that the .35 stunt used. Not only is it less restrictive, it fits over the stack like it should encompassing all four sides not just butt up to it. In addition, the large black oxide needle used on this engine is far superior to the .35 stunt needle. It actually works for starters and it's a mystery to me why it wasn't used more. It was used in some of the combat specials up to the MK IV and eventually into the coffin back .40's.

Hey Mr. Cook! Man, it looks like I am truly grateful for your knowledge and expertise. I had no idea of these variations until now, thanks to you!

Jim Carter · « **Reply #8 on:** February 04, 2024, 12:28:48 PM »

Quote from: Motorman on February 03, 2024, 09:36:12 PM

The difference in displacement between a 35 - 36 is basically nothing. The engines branded 36 were a little more racey for combat I suppose. Did you win?

Nah, I didn't win BUT... I did have a good time. The engine ran fine but we were halfway through the 25 laps before the thing began to really roar. When it did, the guy I was up against knew there was a "tiger on his tail"

!

Jim Carter · « **Reply #9 on:** February 04, 2024, 12:31:18 PM »

Quote from: Robert Whitley on February 03, 2024, 08:03:43 PM

It’s a Fox 36 stunt.
I have two of them and also two of the rc version. The angled plug also differentiates them from the 35s.
The rc ones have the carb body cast integral to the case the same as the four bolt backplate Fox 40s were.
I also have a Fox40 stunt and a Fox40 rc.

Thanks Mr. Whitley! Now I know

!

Howard Rush · « **Reply #10 on:** February 04, 2024, 03:02:23 PM »

The Jive Combat Team had some of the early ones (I had one; I found another in the PTG estate). I flew some combat with mine. It was a good engine.

Ara Dedekian · « **Reply #11 on:** February 04, 2024, 11:23:51 PM »

What Kenneth Cook said. We referred to them as Fox 36 plain bearings here in the north east. I flew Slow Combat with them on Flite Streaks in the seventies.

Most recently the engine, mounted on a Tutor I with a 12-6 prop got me a second place win in Balloon Bust at last years Brodak.

A fun, nostalgia engine.

Ara

FLOYD CARTER · « **Reply #12 on:** February 08, 2024, 03:32:43 PM »

I have never admired Fox engines, although I have had a few- but never in competition.

It is amazing that Duke kept changing and inventing new engines. Almost as if he never quite got it right and kept trying

Juares Garafoli was another restless engine inventor! Some were good, some bad.

If I produced a popular engine, I would not change it, just to always have "something new".

Jim Carter · « **Reply #13 on:** February 09, 2024, 11:24:43 AM »

Quote from: FLOYD CARTER on February 08, 2024, 03:32:43 PM

I have never admired Fox engines, although I have had a few- but never in competition.

It is amazing that Duke kept changing and inventing new engines. Almost as if he never quite got it right and kept trying

Juares Garafoli was another restless engine inventor! Some were good, some bad.

If I produced a popular engine, I would not change it, just to always have "something new".

Good morning Mr. Floyd! Please, please don't think me being disrespectful in any way ... but you're a musician, right? How many times have you changed or played a particular instrument, be it guitar, violin (as in your photo)? Granted they are all violins, but haven't you played a different violin for some reason even if you never played the same one twice ... you played it, right? Well to your comment, I believe it's the same with Mr. Fox, Mr. Garafoli and Mr. Enya! While there's no way for me to know their hearts and thoughts, I think it's the journey ... not necessarily the destination! Does this make sense? Sorta' like us building model airplanes ... rarely do we build the same one with making some major or minor change before changing to another design completely. Wouldn't you agree? Anyway, this is just one man's thoughts

Jim Carter

Air Ministry . · « **Reply #14 on:** February 09, 2024, 08:30:08 PM »

The Mentioned contraptions , the care & diligence of the operator in Running It In , had as much influence on its capabilities , as the other factors .

Like Nortons . They just keep getting faster , until . . .

If you look at it , the Fox was in a cut price mass produced market .

Like TRIUMPHS , if you look at the records they held , you get their measure , in the Competition Field .

A Stradivarius quality machine might be equally pricey . You appreciate the fine tuning & care in assembly etc required .

They all have their attributes & ecentricities / characteristics ( method / Mnfg./ production / As In LITE in the Fox . ( in that Era . )

Brett Buck · « **Reply #15 on:** February 09, 2024, 09:01:45 PM »

Quote from: Howard Rush on February 04, 2024, 03:02:23 PM

The Jive Combat Team had some of the early ones (I had one; I found another in the PTG estate). I flew some combat with mine. It was a good engine.

From AAM in the mists of time - "Tallyho, a new Fox".

Brett

Dave_Trible · « **Reply #16 on:** February 10, 2024, 11:43:44 AM »

Quote from: FLOYD CARTER on February 08, 2024, 03:32:43 PM

I have never admired Fox engines, although I have had a few- but never in competition.

It is amazing that Duke kept changing and inventing new engines. Almost as if he never quite got it right and kept trying

Juares Garafoli was another restless engine inventor! Some were good, some bad.

If I produced a popular engine, I would not change it, just to always have "something new".

I'm sure it was about marketing. In any sales business you have to refresh your product to keep it up to date and give reason for someone to buy a new whatever. Then of course one-upping whatever your competitor is doing to gain market share. In those days these were going businesses that had to keep moving to stay in business. Kit makers were always bringing out something new as well. You wanted to build only so many Noblers or Ringmasters...

Dave

FLOYD CARTER · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2024, 02:52:08 PM »

Jim C. I think I see your point. Maybe it's just "curiosity". Can it be better? Don't know until I try.

But the violins I have played have been made by different people, all over the world. Not just one person,

I have indeed discarded violins and bought others. But that was only because I could afford something better.

Frank Imbriaco · « **Reply #18 on:** February 11, 2024, 08:38:42 AM »

Duke told me at the 1970 Glenview NATS that he was planning to come out with this edition for the purpose of the slow combat event. That event, although unofficial at the time, was growing in popularity. The event prohibited engines with bearings. At the 1972 Glenview NATS, slow combat was run and a few of us had these up front. The only one I have left was further modified (just 1 of 50) at Fort Smith.
Larry Scarinzi sold his copy to me.
Hey, where's Andre Ming, lol ?
He worked for Duke and hand assembled the fifty modified ones. Mine is mounted to a Scarinzi designed- "Killer "and still flown at Vintage Combat events. It's an ear splitter.
The engine pictured here is NOT one of them.

Jim Carter · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2024, 02:29:30 PM »

Quote from: FLOYD CARTER on February 10, 2024, 02:52:08 PM

Jim C. I think I see your point. Maybe it's just "curiosity". Can it be better? Don't know until I try.

But the violins I have played have been made by different people, all over the world. Not just one person,

I have indeed discarded violins and bought others. But that was only because I could afford something better.

Thanks! I'm glad my response didn't upset you. I think it's just as you worded it ... "curiosity" and those guys certainly had the imaginations, skills and abilities to experiment to their hearts desires and get paid doing it even if some failures cropped up

!!

Jim

Rusty · « **Reply #20 on:** February 20, 2024, 09:27:16 AM »

Quote from: Air Ministry . on February 09, 2024, 08:30:08 PM

The Mentioned contraptions , the care & diligence of the operator in Running It In , had as much influence on its capabilities , as the other factors .

Like Nortons . They just keep getting faster , until . . .

If you look at it , the Fox was in a cut price mass produced market .

Like TRIUMPHS , if you look at the records they held , you get their measure , in the Competition Field .

A Stradivarius quality machine might be equally pricey . You appreciate the fine tuning & care in assembly etc required .

They all have their attributes & ecentricities / characteristics ( method / Mnfg./ production / As In LITE in the Fox . ( in that Era . )

You had to bring Triumphs. Amazingly, Triumph made a brand new motocross bike and it was raced for the first time in the Supercross (east) series, televised on Peacock. In the very first race going against Yamaha, Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki, Gasgas and Husqvarna, it came in 6th place. Not bad at all.

My first dirt bike was a 1960s Triumph 200 Tiger Cub. It broke down in the first race and left me stranded.