I thought this had been sorted, that the big case J-SS.35 was a full 35 size motor. However, looking through my files I find I have p.23 of the 4/63 MAN, Chinn's test of this motor.

Quote :-

It is in the first place, of slightly smaller displacement than the well-known Johnson J-CS (Combat Special), J-BB and J-RC engines, (all .3585   (continued on page 84)....

The "Continued" bit is crossed out by hand, so it may be a typical magazine typo, and not p.84. However, the continuation should answer the question once and for all, - is the big case SS a 35 or a 33? Anyone got the magazine to check?

According to the American Model Engine Encyclopedia the 1960 36 Combat special was a .358 at .770 bore and stroke while the  1960 Stunt Supreme was a .349 at .770 x .750 and then in 1961 the Combat spectial and Stunt Suprem are listed as both being .358 displacemant.
The earlier small case stunt motors were on the 35 case with the 35 piston/sleeve and 29 crank...   Just to confuse everyone....   
Jim

Uh-oh! Steve, can you confirm BB Combat Spcl.? I was trying to get Johnsons sorted in my mind, but instead of getting resolved it's getting more complicated!

Yep!  I've got one from back in my days at college.  I'm not sure of all the details since I did not buy it from a store and it was a long time ago.  The engine is marked CS on the case and looks just like a regular CS except that the venturi is opened up to minimum wall thickness and the top of the venturi has been machined at an angle (low on the intake side).  Inside it looks like a CS except for port clean-up and it has a ball bearing on the shaft.  The forward bearing is an oilite like the standard engine.  I bought it from a fellow combat flyer who was quitting.  His story was that it was a Riley Wooten mod but came from the factory with the rear ball bearing.  I could not comfirm his story, but his other engines ran really well so I bought it.  I think I paid the princely sum of $25 for it.  I got the engine in 1962 or 63 and installed it in a modified Equalizer.  It would really haul using a 9X8 Power Prop but did not run so well on smaller props.  It was last flown almost 20 years ago on a Sneaker.  I still have both and have been thinking about another flight or two for old times sake.
Steve

Dennis/Steve/et al - Thanks for all this.

Yup, Bare has the plans for the short boom version of the Sneeker. http://www.controllineplans.com/frameset2.htm

I stumbled across a Fliteline kit of a long boom version some years ago, that I didn't know existed. I liked the Sneeker for fun flying, but didn't really care for it for actual combat matches. Others have agreed, but I'm not real sure why. Mine seemed to act a little weird, which I attributed to the equal span design. But it may have been wake turbulence, too.    Steve