stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: kevin king on November 28, 2020, 11:22:32 PM
-
http://www.foxmodelmotors.com/
-
http://www.foxmodelmotors.com/
It would be very tempting to offer some suggestions on that, but past experience suggests it would not be well-received.
Brett
-
LOL Brett..😆
-
Yay!!
#^
-
It's been saying that for awhile now, hopefully they follow through.
-
Some of the products have been saying that for 20 years and they're still coming soon. In addition to the upcoming news, I find it hard to believe there would be a market for a antiquated engine. The last 60th anniversary was retailing near $100. If you traded in a engine of any type, size , condition, Fox offered that engine to you for $59.99. Duke's nephew in charge at the time was going to make another run provided he could ascertain 50 orders. This never came to fruition and the idea was dropped. He made it clear that in order to follow through, the engines would have to sell for $100. He was very skeptical in regards to this in that who is going to buy them. At that time, one could purchase a LA .46 for less $$$$ than that.
Fast forward to today, who is going to buy a new Fox other than some demented user like myself? It seems like one has long missed the boat on the opportunity to sell them and make some profit on it. Fox at least offered a glow plug with the engine and Mecoa states that they won't offer plugs on engines due to the gazzilion dollar rhodium costs. So if Fox was going to sell this engine for $100 back then, one would have to wonder what Mecoa is willing to offer them at. Based on the price list of parts they offer, it's going to be quite out of reach considering the piece of crap needle valve assembly is nearing $30. The rod that looks like it was produced by a caveman is $22. Here's 2 parts and were not even a portion of the way there.
One would be far better off by buying a decent Fox, purchasing Brian Gardener piston liner and having a Fox that runs well and starts even easier.
-
Some of the products have been saying that for 20 years and they're still coming soon
+1
I'd say it's closer to 30 yrs.
-
Mr. Cook you make a very good argument for a new Brodak .40 . Or a LA or an Enya .30 .
Brad
-
I'd buy one for my collection ... probably never would run it and wouldn't care!! It certainly would be a great conversation piece like my OS 60 GSA-1 and GSA-2. At least this would become something that very few folks would have in their collections and from some of the posts wouldn't want and that's all right too!! Back in the day, I've spent and wasted more money getting drunk and puking it up. At least I'd have something I can set beside the other Fox engines in my collection!! ;D LL~ LL~
-
Hello. I'm sure Randy/MECOA could make and sell a Fox 35 but it would be brought by engine collectors and would need nice packaging and perhaps a few anodized pieces to look special. Going off current trends I'd bet there are more engine collectors out there then active stunt flyers .
The control line stunt community would most likely buy a new design that is a 36-80 size light weight rear exhaust engine that is not a second hand, side exhaust LA46 or FP40 . It would probably cost so much many would go electric or buy a second hand E-bay or C/L forum engine instead.
When I was an agent for Fox engines back in the early 1990's most people brought the 35's and the light weight 40's or parts but back then the cheap Chinese engines killed it along with all those cheap but excellent O.S. FP 25's and 40's.
Now the Chinese are no longer producing engines and Enya and OS have stopped making suitable engines (only SH engines from Taiwan seems to show promise) there might be a small market for specialist engines that may grow that only the Ukraine and Russia manufactures seem to touch (not including the reworks from Brain Gardener and others).
If you are going to bring back the Fox 35 stunt why not bring back the Fox 59 Stunt , Fox 59 Long Shaft or Fox 36X Combat for the 'collectors'.
Regards Gerald
-
The Fox 35 by MECOA will come out at the same time as the Johnson 35 by MECOA. Have your grandchildren place their orders now!
-
Update it to a .46, PA needle assembly, call it an OS .46 LA-S. Then it will sell... LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
MECOA already produces a 46. From what I heard, the timing is not suitable for stunt use.
-
Along with the promised Atwood Shriek and Holland Hornet. R%%%%
Regarding the Fox, at least he should do the ABC or Ceramic versions and correct the bypass volume problem. Then it might be worth buying, especially with a decent conrod. Modified they are great, lightweight sport engines. At least cold, they are easy enough to start, and the ceramic and ABC don’t need the high Castor contact.
-
I'm not going to get excited until I see the new ad in Flying Models. D>K
-
I'm not going to get excited until I see the new ad in Flying Models. D>K
H^^ LL~ H^^ Steve
-
I'm waiting for the electrified version....
Brett: say it! say it!!
-
LOL Brett..😆
It's less funny than you think. A group of the Fox factory people, including Betty, did a promotional tour including the Northwest regionals, and asked several experts to evaluate their 60-sized stunt engine. They wanted to do it on Friday, didn't have any takers. Finally Paul Walker does it after the contest. He evaluates the engine and gave them some suggestions. They just argued with him. I think this is the ceramic 60 which they later claimed "tore the wings off the airplane" it was so powerful, they were going to "throw the handle at the airplane to save the engine" (??) but it "flew anyway" - in as bizarre an ad copy as I have ever seen.
There was never a reason that Fox could not have been competitive with other sport/beginner stunt engines, but they were always a day late, and the "improvements" they made mostly consisted of writing ridiculous advertising claims and slapping more American flags on the box. Only after *40 years* of being obviously behind the times did they fix the thing so you could safely put a muffler on it, and they supply a muffler that absolutely everyone will immediately toss. The needle/spraybar from 1972 needed *one* change to make it nearly ideal, and it would have been trivially easy (drill the seat 1/8" deeper and make the threads 1/8" longer), it has been burping violently or quitting on profiles since 1947, and most of the rest of it could be solved by relatively simple QA changes.
Brett
-
I think this is the ceramic 60
Oh dear.
I saw one in a hobby shop and maybe a few advertisements and that was it. I just couldn't understand why, at the time it came out, they didn't pay someone like Paul Walker to campaign the thing to give it some street cred in the control line community. Sad.
-
I'm waiting for the electrified version....
Perhaps an outrunner mount that looks like a Fox crankcase and cylinder with nose replaced by an outrunner motor? (See Nilly Willie photo) ;D
-
Perhaps an outrunner mount that looks like a Fox crankcase and cylinder with nose replaced by an outrunner motor? (See Nilly Willie photo) ;D
Betcha it doesn't burp on the outside corners...
-
Betcha it doesn't burp on the outside corners...
May be not but it might qualify for the Fox Hurl. S?P
-
Oh dear.
I saw one in a hobby shop and maybe a few advertisements and that was it. I just couldn't understand why, at the time it came out, they didn't pay someone like Paul Walker to campaign the thing to give it some street cred in the control line community. Sad.
That's just it - you drive all the way from Fort Smith to Eugene, get the most technically capable, not to mention most successful, multi-time national champion, world champion, to evaluate your engine and airplane - and you argue with him and tell him he is wrong? No offense, but how does that work again?
They made several engines that had some potential - like the rear-exhaust 36 based on the RAF engine, that was around and could have made a decent niche engine to compete with early tuned pipe engines like the OPS, but no, they knew better. They finally tried to fix the 35 needle valve, and came up with the side-saddle thing that absolutely everyone tossed immediately, wouldn't fit in any full-fuse airplane and breaks off on the first light inverted crash. They went back to the "full taper" needle that were all off-center due to machining issues, but also hangs from the notoriously sloppy threads and is even more prone to leaks than the 60's version. I had to cut the knob off the parts I got, set up my drill press and little grinder my dad made me when I was 8, and regrind it like I was using a tool-post grinder. That's a long weekend taking $8 factory-fresh parts and reworking them to fit correctly. I am still figuring out what to do about the sloppy threads - maybe braze up the existing threads, and then find someone with a lathe to single-point them to a higher-class fit? It's nuts, and should be completely unnecessary.
I have probably flown more patterns with a Fox 35 than I have RO-Jett and it's probably even-up with the 40VF. It was very frustrating to see the same old problems endlessly. I didn't know for sure how to fix them at the time, and any success I had came as the price of endless experimentation and stumbling on a system that worked, eventually. But then again, I am not a factory engine expert, they are, and failing to acknowledge there is any problem at all and utterly ignoring everything new development for, say, 60ish years now, that just seems like bull-headedness to me.
I don't know what Mecoa is going to do - if anything, I suspect they will make whatever parts they are missing, scratch "75" where it says "60", and then put out the same old thing until they use up most of the stock on hand.
Brett
-
I don't know what Mecoa is going to do
Well, first they gotta sell all those Johnson Stunt 35s and Holland Hornets..... ;D
I think they'd have a better market for a Fox 15, certainly you guys have gotten to the level where you are throwing them so far as to lose them and now need replacements...
-
I thought this might amuse - you can see the impact it had on British aeromodellers back then (this engine test is from the 1950 'AeroModeller' Annual). The only trouble in those days was that you couldn't get one for love nor money on this side of the Atlantic!
-
I thought this might amuse - you can see the impact it had on British aeromodellers back then (this engine test is from the 1950 'AeroModeller' Annual). The only trouble in those days was that you couldn't get one for love nor money on this side of the Atlantic!
Up to 18,000 rpm, happier above 10,000 rpm? What engine is this?
-
Up to 18,000 rpm, happier above 10,000 rpm? What engine is this?
According to AeroModeller, Fox's specified fuel for the 35 was: "Castor Oil 33%, Mehanol 25%, Nitro Methane 42%"! I don't think it was quite regarded as a stunt engine in Britain in those days - more like F/F Open Power.
The quoted price, by the way, was $11.95.
-
I would buy one in a heartbeat if they corrected the burp. Otherwise the flat and tapered needles are ok (for me anyway) after adding a piece of fuel line to seal and hold steady. MECOA might be better off making hemi kits instead of a a new 35. They go for big bucks on auction.
-
I am very fortunate to obtain the 65th Anniv version witg hemi/ stuffer, reworked by Lew Woolard just before he passed. I bought it new from him. Have not yet decided what airplane will be matched with it. Most likely a Smoothie.
-
According to AeroModeller, Fox's specified fuel for the 35 was: "Castor Oil 33%, Mehanol 25%, Nitro Methane 42%"! I don't think it was quite regarded as a stunt engine in Britain in those days - more like F/F Open Power.
The quoted price, by the way, was $11.95.
"Run in at 4000 rpm for an hour"! That does *nearly nothing*, even if you properly heat-cycle it for an hour, that's not nearly enough.
BTW, if you run it on that mixture at 18,000 rpm, 7-second FF runs are what you should expect, don't even need a timer. And, don't stand in front of it, or to the side of it.
But, don't forget that 1948 was A LONG TIME AGO, and the Fox was a reasonably strong engine in it's day; in particular, the British were running various extremely rudimentary diesels, and something like the original sand cast Fox was probably at least as sophisticated and well-made as any other engine of the day. It wasn't, compared to some contemporary US engines, but as far as performance goes it was at least a match. The difference is that the British were in just about as bad a shape as the defeated Axis countries, and some things were still being rationed into the mid-50's. You can take one look at, say, and Anderson Spitfire and see that these were the same people making sophisticated military devices a few years earlier.
The problem is that, after Bob Palmer and later George Aldrich found the formula for precision stunt, it was highly competitive for the next 9-10 years. But they never acknowledged that it had been superseded when various people started building bigger/better airplanes. At great effort and skill Gieseke kept going for a while before even his skills were insufficient to make it competitive. Here's a general rule that will serve you well in stunt - if Bear couldn't do something, the rest of us don't have a chance.
Now. even low-ball engines nearly half the size and built to a $50 price point can beat the snot out of it, if you know what you are doing. That's not surprising, despite what anyone's delusions might hold, stunt performance has changed dramatically in all areas over the last 60 years or so. The fact that this is still a controversial statement, and someone will likely answer, "well, if you know what you are doing you could still win any contest, but the judges ....", tells you what the problem is.
Brett
-
I hate to burst your bubble, but Paul W. doesn't live in Eugene. I wish he did, because I could get some quality coaching.
In defense of MECOA, in spite of all the negatives I'm reading here, I have bought a couple new engines from MECOA. Their quality and fit is second to none.
-
I hate to burst your bubble, but Paul W. doesn't live in Eugene. I wish he did, because I could get some quality coaching.
Where were the Northwest Regionals traditionally held, Floyd?
For those NOT going out of their way to be contrary, and those from the rest of the country, said evaluation was held at the traditional site for the Northwest Regionals, the overflow parking lot for the Eugene, Oregon airport.
In defense of MECOA, in spite of all the negatives I'm reading here, I have bought a couple new engines from MECOA. Their quality and fit is second to none.
Well, if they have it in stock, there is generally no problem. The issue is the advertising of things that they don't actually have, with disclaimers in tiny print saying things like "don't order this, we might make it some day" and the unusual definition of "coming soon" were "soon" is defined as "more than 15 years from now".
The few things I have gotten from MECOA have been OK, and I think if they make it themselves, it is probably OK. The Fox parts above were probably straight from Fort Smith, not made by MECOA. The delivery is usually pretty fast, it shows up - if they have it at all. I think it's a nearly one-man operation that has done a service to modelers by buying up all this stuff that would have gone to the junkyard otherwise, but with ambitions far beyond the available personnel.
In any case, making stunt fliers happy has go to be near the bottom of any manufacturer's list, they might work for years to refine something, then, something better pops up, and the market evaporates overnight. That's what happened to ST60s.
Brett
-
I still have a Fox .35 powered "fun" ship. No, it's not a world-beater but it's fun. Flying around the burp puts a smile on your face.
I look at Fox .35's like Harley Davidsons - old school, light years behind the competitors, but still fun nonetheless.
If they make them and people buy them it's all good.
-
It is nice to see MECOA providing the service that they do but I don't see much of a market for making glow engines. I was part of the good old days. Now, I wonder if they were really that good. Products like the Fox were all any of us had so it was good enough and we had fun in spite of the limitations of the equipment.
I have three Fox 35 50th anniversary editions. One has never been run. I am in no hurry to use them when I have engines like the Magnum 36 in my stash.
Electric is taking over. And, it is not only the younger fliers who are no longer interested in tinkering with internal combustion engines. It is so much easier these days to plug it in and go.
-
Kudos to MECOA, at least they are trying to make engines in the US.
Most everyone else has given up. I have had some good and some not good with MECOA, but they are still selling motors.
-
"Run in at 4000 rpm for an hour"! That does *nearly nothing*, even if you properly heat-cycle it for an hour, that's not nearly enough.
In those days, AeroModeller's engine guru was a man called Laurence Sparey. He had some strange, antiquated ideas about a lot of things, especially running-in, and didn't appear to do much (if any) flying. There was a big improvement when Ron Warring took over, which was maintained when Peter Chinn took over from him on the demise of Model Aircraft magazine.
-
In those days, AeroModeller's engine guru was a man called Laurence Sparey. He had some strange, antiquated ideas about a lot of things, especially running-in, and didn't appear to do much (if any) flying.
There are *a lot* of engine experts like that, unfortunately - either never fly at all, nearly raw neophytes, or feel qualified to pronounce judgement on engines for events they know nothing about. I can recall two particularly egregious examples that appeared in Stunt News, where an individual managed to assess 5-6 engines in, apparently, one afternoon, running them strictly on the bench. Here's a hint - while you can certainly can tell something about how they run by port heights and bench running, and maybe dismiss some real outliers as "unworkable" in a few cases, you cannot really evaluate them without flying them, and flying them extensively in top expert categories over the period of months/years.
One of the articles I mention curtly dismissed the 40VF as having "typical radio numbers" and therefore unusable for stunt - shortly after it had won 3 NATs in a row and World Championship (not to mention uncounted regional contests).
Brett
-
Right on, Brett.
As we used to say in R&D, “ONE TEST IS WORTH A THOUSAND EXPERT OPINIONS”.
Bob Z.
-
There are *a lot* of engine experts like that, unfortunately - either never fly at all, nearly raw neophytes, or feel qualified to pronounce judgement on engines for events they know nothing about.
For the health of our hobby I think it is important to be as inclusive as possible. Our club has members who neither build nor fly, but their membership fee contribution helps keep our club afloat. I suppose it is the same with this web-site: the extra numbers help drive the advertisement value of the site and help keep it afloat. The challenge is that in this hobby there are more dilettantes then experts. In fact, probably more than there are actual builders and flyers (notice I say "and" and not "or".)
Youth and adolescence seems to be the time for trying out a wide array of things to see what you like and learn where you should invest your time while on this earth. Nibbling at the edges serves youth greatly by giving them wide (but shallow) experience. But, I would think that as we reach maturity when we become involved in something we would give it more consideration than just a nibble. At least to the extent of our abilities.
The frustration is when the "nibblers" present themselves as experts. How does someone new to the hobby distinguish? The nibblers have as much right as anyone else to express their opinion; however, many nibblers have no idea, apparently, that they are nibblers. They don't know what they don't know.
-
The frustration is when the "nibblers" present themselves as experts. How does someone new to the hobby distinguish? The nibblers have as much right as anyone else to express their opinion; however, many nibblers have no idea, apparently, that they are nibblers. They don't know what they don't know.
That is precisely the problem. No one sets out to be malicious, they genuinely want to help, and think they are. But, the sad truth is that the "local engine expert" has done more to hold stunt back or inhibit people's progress than any other single phenomenon (for a lack of a better word) in the last 40 years. And whether they mean to or not, what ends up happening is indistinguishable from preying on beginners in their desire to help.
But it's not just that, one the idea that you should take engines apart and modify them for stunt, almost *everyone* started doing it. Any contest where I am not judging, I end up spending most of my free day listening to engine problems and helping people fix them. Even some pretty experienced modelers do some pretty silly things, looking for something complicated, when it is frequently absurdly simple. Like "my engine 'ran away' so I added some head gaskets, but it didn't help" - when the problem was a clogged needle valve, not to mention that lowering the compression frequently *causes* "runaways" instead of fixing it. It wouldn't needle on the ground, what makes you think it would fix itself in the air? That's why I am continually out of spare parts - I end up spending so much time putting "un screwed up" parts on other peoples airplanes that I run short on them. I don't begrudge it but it illustrates the scope of the problem.
You see the same thing almost continuously on the "engine setup tips" forum, people looking for complex issues when it is simple. I got to be considered a guru several times when *all I did was put people's engine back to the way they came from the factory* - and somehow that makes me some sort of OS whisperer? It would have worked exactly the same way *had you left the damn thing alone* in the first place! Meaning, also, that *you didn't need any sort of engine expert or "help" - the "help" you got just screwed everything up!
The opposite happens, too, of course, people living with problems that are blatantly obvious and insisting that there is no problem. Since this started out with Fox 35s - burps. Many times, most of the time in fact, even if it quits and causes a crash, the owner insists that, variously, "that's what it is supposed to do" and how great and reliable those Fox 35s were. Or "it's a tank problem, the engine is fine", or "needed a hotter glow plug" - not the one acknowledged fix, when if done, allows you to use the same tank and glow plug that was previously deemed defective. This is exacerbated by, every once in a while, one that works unmodified, thus providing the necessary positive reinforcement that there is nothing wrong. An extremely (and deservedly) notable engine guy told me once, in the space of 3 paragraphs, that "it never does that", "it does do that, but that's how it controls the speed", and "it does do that and the fix is to route the tank vents differently".
I don't know if there is any realistic solution to this, and it's not like we are curing cancer here, we are old men playing with model airplanes, so maybe it doesn't need a solution. But it does frustrate me greatly to see people struggle because of bad advice, or ignoring obvious problems, and never getting anywhere, when the *best equipment we have ever had in the history of the event* and the *necessary information to make full use of it* is widely available for free, usually in minutes or hours.
Brett
-
Engine work is like sex, all men think they're good at it.
Motorman 8)
y1 LL~ H^^
-
The majority of people who fly the old engines- K&B, Veco, McCoy, and Fox do so for nostalgic reasons.
People who are competitive fly the modern engines.
Neither group is right or wrong.
-
The majority of people who fly the old engines- K&B, Veco, McCoy, and Fox do so for nostalgic reasons.
People who are competitive fly the modern engines.
Neither group is right or wrong.
Exactly, the problem is the guys who say "I want to fly in stunt contests, so I sent my engine to <<generic engine expert>>" - and then they get back something that is far worse than it started.
As long as everyone knows what they are getting into, no problem. It's the people who get led down the wrong path, ending in frustration, that bothers me. Just look at the Engine Setup forum, there is virtually no discussion or activity with competitive systems, it is 98% (and I counted) trying to get reliable runs on vintage equipment, most of wasn't any good to start with, or which has been butchered to death and never have a snowball's chance of getting better, but tons of "advice" that while it may be well-meant, is *utterly ridiculous*.
I have seen numerous cases were a stock Fox 35 would have been *far better* and "far more powerful" than the "Super Modified for Lucky Best Stunt Run" 46LA that they had.
Brett
-
Or avoid all that and just buy a well established electric system for competition and a Fox for nostalgia flying.
-
Or avoid all that and just buy a well established electric system for competition
But then someone will mount the battery too high or too low impeding the electron flow and the problems start all over again... :D
-
and they still have problems to but still have fun
-
It is nice to see MECOA providing the service that they do but I don't see much of a market for making glow engines. I was part of the good old days. Now, I wonder if they were really that good. Products like the Fox were all any of us had so it was good enough and we had fun in spite of the limitations of the equipment.
I have three Fox 35 50th anniversary editions. One has never been run. I am in no hurry to use them when I have engines like the Magnum 36 in my stash.
Electric is taking over. And, it is not only the younger fliers who are no longer interested in tinkering with internal combustion engines. It is so much easier these days to plug it in and go.
truest words y1 like , "comming soon" parts etc. :)....since 15 years mw~.
Makes no sense , because parts number is to low to turn their "switch" into "GO" .
H^^
Peter
CL since 1970 LL~
-
Engine work is like sex, all men think they're good at it.
Motorman 8)
Buy a (K&B) Stallion , be a Stallion .
Buy a Corvette , be a C....tte.
Buy a Ferrari , be a F....... .
"Shortys" always needs "BIGGER" toys to play with .
Very last T-Shirt has NO pockets.
H^^
Peter
-
I have seen numerous cases were a stock Fox 35 would have been *far better* and "far more powerful" than the "Super Modified for Lucky Best Stunt Run" 46LA that they had.
There are similar comments on the R/C side as well. One I recall reading about not so long ago was a story on a newbie who couldn't seem to keep his fingers off the carb adjustment screws on his Fox. Older style carb required setting up the low speed first, then the high speed, not the other way around. This seasoned veteran would explain this to the newbie, who couldn't get it to run reliably, then tweak. Plane would take off, fly decently, land.
Saw him the next weekend, same problem, still dinking with the carb adjustments. The vet tweaks his carb, followed by an another series of successful flights. Other fliers would badger him, "Why don't you get an OS? :## never had a problem with OS <= I but Foxes are always a problem." ~^
Next time the vet saw him, his plane now had a new OS engine mounted. This solved the newbie's problem, of course .... HB~> LL~
-
And he still didn't learn. D>K
-
Saw him the next weekend, same problem, still dinking with the carb adjustments. The vet tweaks his carb, followed by an another series of successful flights. Other fliers would badger him, "Why don't you get an OS? :## never had a problem with OS <= I but Foxes are always a problem." ~^
Next time the vet saw him, his plane now had a new OS engine mounted. This solved the newbie's problem, of course .... HB~> LL~
Of course, that doesn't solve the problem here. Even if you know exactly what you are doing, a Fox is not competitive, it's not a matter of people not knowing or not learning the tricks, it's a matter of inadequate performance even in the hands of the masters.
Bob Gieseke knew more about these things than anyone who ever lived, if he can't do it, no one can.
Brett
-
Duke personally taught me how to tune a carb, and it worked well. Life goes on, so now I fly only electric. They tune so much easier...
-
Of course, that doesn't solve the problem here. Even if you know exactly what you are doing, a Fox is not competitive, it's not a matter of people not knowing or not learning the tricks, it's a matter of inadequate performance even in the hands of the masters.
Bob Gieseke knew more about these things than anyone who ever lived, if he can't do it, no one can.
Brett
Hello Just wondering here as few engines like an OS LA46's or VF40-46's will probably prove competitive compared to electric in the future .
Which Fox engine had the best potential forgetting about the Fox 35 a minute?
Perhaps:
Light weight ABC 40 C Frame engine of combat origins
The 'Ceramic' light weight modified but still old design Eagle 60
Hawk 60 with light weight and schnuerle porting but pipe style timing
B frame 50 up-sized 40 engine
The Eagle Mk4 RE as a 74 heavyweight that needed a diet
Old Fox 78 baffle piston engine
Older Fox 59 stunt if it didn't wrap and overheat with its steel fins and was made like the Merco 40 ABC
Regards Gerald
-
This conversation is interesting for 3 reasons
1) If MECO actually makes one, I'll be surprised and pretty sure MECOA is not going to change a thing, unless it is easier to make.
2) Only a few on this list will buy one. 90% will not own one and only 1% will actually use one on an airplane.
3) Everyone has advice for MECOA.
-
This conversation is interesting for 3 reasons
1) If MECO actually makes one, I'll be surprised and pretty sure MECOA is not going to change a thing, unless it is easier to make.
2) Only a few on this list will buy one. 90% will not own one and only 1% will actually use one on an airplane.
3) Everyone has advice for MECOA.
It is also interesting that there is an expectation ~^ for a 70 year old design to provide the power for larger wing area planes requiring later, more powerful technology and increased displacement engines. D>K
-
" Brett said "It's less funny than you think. A group of the Fox factory people, including Betty, did a promotional tour including the Northwest regionals, and asked several experts to evaluate their 60-sized stunt engine. They wanted to do it on Friday, didn't have any takers. Finally Paul Walker does it after the contest. He evaluates the engine and gave them some suggestions. They just argued with him. I think this is the ceramic 60 which they later claimed "tore the wings off the airplane" it was so powerful, they were going to "throw the handle at the airplane to save the engine" (??) but it "flew anyway" - in as bizarre an ad copy as I have ever seen. "
It was so powerful it flew the airplane, even after it tore the wings off, but we , did, put the wings back on for the second flight !
Randy
-
The top competitors in the 50s would get a bunch of engines and use the best one. (Duke provided the top guys for free so the winner always flew Fox) They did not use mufflers. Their models were superbly as light as the finish would allow. (40 points then) The engines were beat to death and didn’t last long. By comparison, modern engines are miraculous, the available power allows reasonable engine life and oil requirements are better understood. Airfoils and control systems have been refined. (45 deg everywhere isn’t good?) It is a whole different ballgame.
And now electric.....
You want to fly a Fox? Build a very light green box Nobler, no muffler, 25% castor 3% synthetic fuel and avoid competition. You will have fun. That is what it is good for these days. Enjoy and have fun, it’s a hobby, not a career.
-
It was so powerful it flew the airplane, even after it tore the wings off, but we , did, put the wings back on for the second flight !
Yes, while the superior performance of the Fox 60 Ceramic Stunt renders conventional aerodynamic surfaces superfluous, there is always appearance judging.
I am still stuck on the assertion that throwing the handle at the airplane saves the engine. How does that one work?
Brett
-
I am still stuck on the assertion that throwing the handle at the airplane saves the engine. How does that one work?
Translated from Arkansasese it means "to throw a towel into the prop to stop it from running backwards."
Not sure why you'd design a 60 size engine to run backwards. Maybe to have a breaking effect on the downside of the wing-over? ;D
-
I am still stuck on the assertion that throwing the handle at the airplane saves the engine. How does that one work?
Not the handle, that's what Fox .15's are for. %^@ LL~
-
This might be the answer.
-
" Brett said "It's less funny than you think. A group of the Fox factory people, including Betty, did a promotional tour including the Northwest regionals, and asked several experts to evaluate their 60-sized stunt engine. They wanted to do it on Friday, didn't have any takers. Finally Paul Walker does it after the contest. He evaluates the engine and gave them some suggestions. They just argued with him. I think this is the ceramic 60 which they later claimed "tore the wings off the airplane" it was so powerful, they were going to "throw the handle at the airplane to save the engine" (??) but it "flew anyway" - in as bizarre an ad copy as I have ever seen. "
It was so powerful it flew the airplane, even after it tore the wings off, but we , did, put the wings back on for the second flight !
Randy
Fox tried to do a little marketing and had some unrealistic exaggerated statements? I give them a little credit for trying.
Wow no one has done that ever.
its called exaggeration and everyone in marketing does it.
1) Ever watched a car commercial, or listen to anything that came out of Carol Shelby's mount? ( and I like Shelby)
2) Strong enough for a man but made for a woman
3) The pickup truck catching an airplane nose wheel landing.
4) "Bleach so white it blocks you shadow"
5) 4 out of 5 Dr's prefer .....
6) Anything with weight loss supplements.
7) Motor so strong it pulled the wings clear off.
8) The lonely Maytag repair man.
-
After watching a friend have 2 flying seasons basically wasted with the hassle and bother caused by several finicky Fox 35 engines, I seriously can't conceive what people see in these POS slag relics. Wasted flight after wasted flight. It's the perfect engine for people who like to endlessly tinker and trouble-shoot. Banish them all to sock drawer hell where they belong.
-
I wonder if the 75th anniversary engine will have 50th anniversary on the case still?
-
After watching a friend have 2 flying seasons basically wasted with the hassle and bother caused by several finicky Fox 35 engines, I seriously can't conceive what people see in these POS slag relics. Wasted flight after wasted flight. It's the perfect engine for people who like to endlessly tinker and trouble-shoot. Banish them all to sock drawer hell where they belong.
Oh, really? I don't have a Fox .35, but have friends that do. They were easy starting, refuel, a couple flips with glow plug igniter connected, and they were off for another series of successful flights. They vibrate a bit more than my McCoy .35 Red Heads, but I never noticed them to be a problem engine in the CL circles.
-
I seriously can't conceive what people see in these POS slag relics.
Brent: don't be so coy. Tell us what you really think! LL~
Well, at this point I have to come out of the closet and admit that I really like the Fox 35.
For saber-dancing.
It is the perfect engine for saber-dancing! And the older and more broken in, the better!
-
I think the Fox 35 was my third engine. Yes it was hard to start the first time and I tried to break it in per the instruction sheet. When I finally put it on a plane it started okay but would go lean. Was told it was not broken in yet. Opened the needle to where it would fly barely and each time I would go in a few clicks on the needle. By about a dozen flights it got to where I could loop and do 8's. Was told that it took this person all summer to break his in. I still fly that Fox of mine and it will do the pattern without getting hot or leaned out. I have torn it down once to clean all the carbon and burnt castor out of it. I have sence learned to run a Fox 35 on the bench enough that I can put it in the air and finish breaking it in.
When I was a member of the RC club I flew Fox 40's . Was told several times I should use the electric starter for safety. I asked why when my engine will start on first or second flip. I also told him if guys would learn how to start and set a Fox they would have less trouble with the engines they were using. D>K
-
I called the factory once to tell them my Fox 35 had a bad vibration. They told me to run 29% castor.
It wasn't that the vibration was excessive, it was more than my McCoy RH. Some of them also ride Harley-Davidson's whereas I like my turbine smooth Kawasaki Voyager XII with in-line 1200. May have something to do with the reason why they didn't see vibrations as excessive. ;D
-
One thought I have is if they do make new ones, they should include all the improvements that people have made. Modern piston and liner, Randy Smith head, hi-zoot crank shaft, super tigre needle valve.
If price goes up, you should get a better product.
I learned a lot with my Foxes, however none of them ran as good as my stock O.S. Max-s 35.
I'm not sure what year the max-s came out, around 1963? Fox came out in 1948.
Fox 35 is a design that was and is ok, but it is not a modern P.A. You are not going to win the nats with one.
Perhaps Joe Gilbert could with his light Ringmaster.
I just want to have fun with what little time I can devote to the hobby.
May you all keep your lines tight.
-
Oh I forgot the stuffer backplate.🙂
-
Oh, really? I don't have a Fox .35, but have friends that do. They were easy starting, refuel, a couple flips with glow plug igniter connected, and they were off for another series of successful flights. They vibrate a bit more than my McCoy .35 Red Heads, but I never noticed them to be a problem engine in the CL circles.
I might have been one of those friends, though we've never met. I've had more darned fun with Fox 35s since about 1953 than should be allowed ... Never competed in Stunt at the Nats, maybe that's the secret.
D>K
-
As long as there are Bi Slobs, the Fox .35 will always have a home.
My current daily driver has a twin-charged four cylinder, both supercharged AND turbocharged. It effortlessly cranks out 365 nearly silent HP, but the sound of an old Mustang with a 289 and glass packs is still much more attractive. To me Fox .35's are the muscle cars of controline. They have a wonderful, unique note (and smell!) that in and of itself makes them worthy to own at least one.
My $.02 - Not every controline plane flown needs to be capable of winning a current world championship. It's OK to go fly something just because it's fun once in a while. If a Fox .35 makes you smile - have at it.
Plus they have the added advantage that you get to relive your most current flights every time you walk by the dirty clothes hamper and smell the castor oil.
In peace,
Chuck
-
every time you walk by the dirty clothes hamper and smell the castor oil.
My wife won't wash my "flying clothes" with the other laundry.
Apparently, "I love the smell of burnt castor oil in the morning" is not in her vocabulary.... :D
-
My wife won't wash my "flying clothes" with the other laundry.
Apparently, "I love the smell of burnt castor oil in the morning" is not in her vocabulary.... :D
Same here. But my wife has no problem when she contaminates the Keurig with some pod full of mocha almond cinnamon caramel chocolate' cafe that lingers through the next 5 brews of black coffee I drink.
"Can't live with em', pass the beer nuts."
Chuck
-
I have a totally separate “flying” wardrobe in an isolated part of my closet. And yes the get washed separately.
-
After watching a friend have 2 flying seasons basically wasted with the hassle and bother caused by several finicky Fox 35 engines, I seriously can't conceive what people see in these POS slag relics. Wasted flight after wasted flight. It's the perfect engine for people who like to endlessly tinker and trouble-shoot. Banish them all to sock drawer hell where they belong.
That's amusing but your friend is the problem, not the engine. I fly several Fox 35s and they generally start on the first couple flips...and fly the entire tank unless I did something stupid with the glow plug or fuel delivery delivery. I rarely have to adjust the needles. They also have Big Art tongue muffs and fly fine without overheating or whatever the reason is not to run tongue muffs on them. The downfall of the Fox 35 for my flying is the burp...no tight outsides.
-
The downfall of the Fox 35 for my flying is the burp...no tight outsides.
:! The quick and dirty fix I saw posted somewhere was simply epoxying a scrap stick of sealed (against fuel) plywood to reduce the crankcase bypass volume. This accelerated air-fuel mixture through the bypass so the fuel mix didn't condense and collect in the crankcase. Burp b1 was caused by droplettes of fuel condensation hitting the combustion chamber, causing a temporary ignition hiccup. :X
-
Fox tried to do a little marketing and had some unrealistic exaggerated statements? I give them a little credit for trying.
Wow no one has done that ever.
its called exaggeration and everyone in marketing does it.
But the "exaggeration" doesn't make sense no matter how you slice it! It "tore the wings off of the airplane"? Forget that it's ridiculous and even if true- I don't want the wings torn off my airplane. Is destroying the airplane some figure of merit? You would think exaggeration would be presumed to sell "more" engines, not have people avoid it.
By the way, I saw at least one of the airplanes they were using (a SIG Magnum with about a pound of tip weight and 30 degrees of rudder offset - to make the engine feel really "strong"?) , it was possible the wing would have fallen off during appearance judging. So that part I can easily believe.
My guess is, if anything like this happened at all, one or the other of the wings *did* fold, probably at the usual spot for wing-mounted gear, just outboard of the gear blocks, from a combination of fatigue, poor workmanship, and vibration (and I don't know if this engine is a particularly bad shaker but ST60s running max props were not exactly jet turbines, either), In this case, a Veco 19 would probably keep it in the air flying level. That's a shame, you don't want to see airplanes fall apart, but tells you nothing about the value of the engine.
I can guarantee you from watching it happen and having it nearly happen that you can probably put more stress on the wing with a 40VF, and ever since we had tuned pipe engines and even ST60s, the rate of wing failure has gone up astronomically, as first discovered in New Jersey in the early-mid 80's. 60's exposed only questionable construction technique, but tuned pipe engines require the airplane to be built much more strongly than you used to even if you do everything right.
But, what in the name of God would "throwing the handle at the airplane" accomplish in regard to "saving the motor"?! It will likely hit cylinder first. Not to mention you create a powered spear that flies off who knows where. In the extremely remote chance that the "airplane kept flying" with no wings, I guarantee you need to hold in all the up it has. Let go, and it goes on a majestic ballistic arc into the ground. That sounds like putting the engine out of it's misery, maybe that's what they mean by "saving" it.
That is not exaggeration, it is a combination of bizarre nonsense or outright (and completely transparent) lies. Insulting people's intelligence with that sort of obvious bullshit does not sell engines, particularly when you can get any number of known quantities that have proven competitive at any level - many for *less money*.
Brett
-
My $.02 - Not every controline plane flown needs to be capable of winning a current world championship. It's OK to go fly something just because it's fun once in a while. If a Fox .35 makes you smile - have at it.
Agee.
I have lots of respect for top competitors. I admire the skill and discipline.
I also think there is a place for non-competitive enjoyment.
I’ve burned a good bit of fuel just doing inside and outside loops and lazy eights.
-
After watching a friend have 2 flying seasons basically wasted with the hassle and bother caused by several finicky Fox 35 engines, I seriously can't conceive what people see in these POS slag relics. Wasted flight after wasted flight. It's the perfect engine for people who like to endlessly tinker and trouble-shoot. Banish them all to sock drawer hell where they belong.
I had similar results - but, being a bit slow on the uptake, I kept at it for much longer than two flying sessions, it probably took me about a year of very regular flying, *dozens* crashes caused by engine issues, and 4 destroyed airplanes, before I got reliable runs. And I still, to this day, even with my subsequent 40 years of experience, *have absolutely no idea what caused most of the problems, or how what I did fixed it. For example, I have a project in the background that uses a Fox 35. Since I only got it to work with a Sullivan 4 ounce round tank, I saved the tank, still have it from the last flight in 1978, and if/when I finish, I will be running the same tank with no changes except having bleached it back out from dark brown to white again with hydrogen peroxide. I am afraid to even take the stopper out, that might make the magic escape.
Once I managed it, it was *remarkably stable*, I mean, remarkable even by current standards. As long as *you never touched it* - change one thing or even tighten a screw, and all bets were off. That's why it was a pretty good competition engine back in the 50's - it had at least equal performance to most of them, it lasted *forever*, and as long as you could get it working once, it was going to keep working until you did something. Even when it was working incorrectly, it would work incorrectly in *exactly the same way*, until you changed something, then it might work right, or might work wrong, but whatever it was doing, it would keep doing indefinitely.
That meant that as long as you didn't *have to* change anything you were set. It made it almost impossible to safely switch engines or make any real changes for performance reasons, because you never knew what you might get, it could do what you expected, or start flaming out at random again. If it crapped out, and you changed engines, all bets were off.
It has always been an exceptionally poor sport engine -almost anything else you can get, including a lot of its early-50s counterparts, was a lot easier to deal with. Even the lowly McCoy 35 Redhead which was a bargain-bin special, could be thrown together and work without a lot of fuss. It wore out quickly, performance was nothing to write home about, but it was probably going to work and not require a month or random experimentation to stumble on a functional system.
Now, of course, all of the vintage engines are far more difficult to deal with than the low-ball cheapest modern engines. The things these old engines have going for them are nostalgia and the fact that there are *tens of thousands* of them just lying around to use.
It makes nearly no difference to me what engines people use, but when I see someone struggling or having issues, it is rather frustrating to watch them screw around with problems that have long since been solved just because of nostalgia.
Brett
-
:! The quick and dirty fix I saw posted somewhere was simply epoxying a scrap stick of sealed (against fuel) plywood to reduce the crankcase bypass volume. This accelerated air-fuel mixture through the bypass so the fuel mix didn't condense and collect in the crankcase. Burp b1 was caused by droplettes of fuel condensation hitting the combustion chamber, causing a temporary ignition hiccup. :X
I tried that about 20 yrs ago with hardwood and dimensions from an illustration posted on the web. Whatever the reason it didn't change anything (probably my fitting inaccuracy) and I worried it might come loose in flight so took it out. This was on a hemi w/stuffer backplate, no muff and an upright mount...and contrary to info I see posted it also burped the same as a profile mount.
-
I tried that about 20 yrs ago with hardwood and dimensions from an illustration posted on the web. Whatever the reason it didn't change anything (probably my fitting inaccuracy) and I worried it might come loose in flight so took it out. This was on a hemi w/stuffer backplate, no muff and an upright mount...and contrary to info I see posted it also burped the same as a profile mount.
That is really strange. Could you perchance have offended a witch who hexed your engine?
-
That is really strange. Could you perchance have offended a witch who hexed your engine?
What is strange?
-
I never heard of a Fox having burp problems upright or inverted, only horizontal.
-
I never heard of a Fox having burp problems upright or inverted, only horizontal.
There are other possible causes of engines quitting. Mine quit repeatedly in an inverted mount, it stopped when I went to a round Sullivan clunk tank. The same tank with the same geometry didn't work on a profile mount. If you have the classic "profile burp", there is one and only one fix.
That's what I meant when I said it was never a good sport engine. I still have *absolutely no idea* why putting a Sullivan round clunk tank in my Nobler made it work, even with everything I have since learned, I only have a vague notion and some theories. I kept the tank intact and around for ~40 years since, because I don't know if I could ever replicate the same magic again, even with another tank of the same design. I still have the other one I bought at the time in the original package, the new ones might not have the same properties.
I can tell people how to set up their 20FP and have it work with absolutely no other knowledge, the only times it hasn't worked the way mine did is when it is "improved". Follow the directions and you will succeed. Same with ST46 (which was frustrating in other ways), same with a 40VF, same with a PA61, same with a RO-Jett 61 BSE. You sure can't count on that with a Fox. That alone is a good enough reason to avoid it, unless you have a nostalgic need to fiddle with engines.
Brett
-
You want a Fox 35, buy it at a swap, an estate sale, off a friend at a club. Or let them give you one. Often the old ones can be run without a muffler, RC fliers usually don't notice. Chain Saw engines thunder no matter what. I never use Foxes, somehow someway, I own ten.
-
Mine quit repeatedly in an inverted mount, it stopped when I went to a round Sullivan clunk tank. The same tank with the same geometry didn't work on a profile mount.
If not uniflow, may have something to do with the way the fuel moves outward due to the centrifugal forces. Square or rectangular tank, it is easy to place the vent end inside the tank toward the inner upper corner, so it is always properly venting. Round adds a new situation because you don't have that out of the way corner. I'm sure that by say filling the tank with a liquid, then rotating the aircraft about its engine line access to simulate flight centrifugal forces will help reveal the issue.
-
Fuel tanks-
Go to youtube.
Enter twistmastertank
For controls -
Go to youtube
Enter twistmastercontrols
Thank you Bob Reeves!
-
Hello from Ukraine !
Today I receive parcel from my friend which made to me new ABC Eagle 60 (new abc p/l , new cylinder head combustion chamber so as Como 51 , and pdp channel, compression 11.3(0%nitro ))
my previous ABC Eagle awesome !
(http://os1.i.ua/3/7/15904843_dabbcce.jpg)
(http://os1.i.ua/3/7/15904844_ecef1a5d.jpg)
(http://os1.i.ua/3/7/15904846_26216cd1.jpg)
(http://os1.i.ua/3/7/15904849_5abe1cf0.jpg)
(http://os1.i.ua/3/7/15904852_f7160416.jpg)
(http://os1.i.ua/3/7/15904842_68cc8788.jpg)
I ordered one additional ABC P/L set , if somebody want buy it write me .
I like sound of older engines .
More than , i will starting to using piped engines ( OS46VF ) in this season .
Peace on earth and let s Fly together !
-
If they do produce it I hope they easily correct some of the glaring errors designed into it or at least produce it with the accuracy of modern machinery. I also hope they have decent parts support.
Of course none of these things will happen.
Motorman 8)
I purchased a new Fox 35 about ten years ago from Tower when they were about sixty bucks. I still have it new in the box. The muffler is a joke. One of the attaching muffler bolt holes does not align to the engine. Since I didn't notice this for several years it was too late to send it back to Fox as they had recently closed shop. I will say the tooling and QC absolutely sucked. Flash still on the engine which need to be removed with a dremel. Now the engine is going to be reproduced for $180. If the tooling is the same I wouldn't give fifty bucks for one of these engines. They are not the Foxes of old
-
I bought a Fox .25 R/C in the late 1990's, the cross scavenge one. I got it because I really like the older cross scavenge technology, but have never put it to use. It came with their latest MKX carb. First thing I noticed besides the obvious rough looking exterior finish was the threads for the prop nut were cut slightly off-center. I suppose a properly reamed prop will still center on it, but that caught my eye.
Am told that such are good running engines, and I suppose so. But meanwhile I have a couple decent Enya .19's, and a few Schneurles of .20 - .25 displacement. Only other Foxes I have are the .15-X, so just haven't felt a compulsion to go Fox .35 since I have other .35's (McCoy, K&B, Enya).
-
I bought a Fox .25 R/C in the late 1990's, the cross scavenge one. I got it because I really like the older cross scavenge technology, but have never put it to use. It came with their latest MKX carb. First thing I noticed besides the obvious rough looking exterior finish was the threads for the prop nut were cut slightly off-center. I suppose a properly reamed prop will still center on it, but that caught my eye.
Am told that such are good running engines, and I suppose so. But meanwhile I have a couple decent Enya .19's, and a few Schneurles of .20 - .25 displacement. Only other Foxes I have are the .15-X, so just haven't felt a compulsion to go Fox .35 since I have other .35's (McCoy, K&B, Enya).
Go fly that Fox! I fly a Flightstreak with the plain bushing (4 bolt back plate) Fox 25. It shares the same muff as the Fox 35. Starts, needles and runs just like an OS FP or Magnum GP. Nothing quirky about it. Castings/finish is ok but not as refined as OS, etc.
-
Go fly that Fox! I fly a Flightstreak with the plain bushing (4 bolt back plate) Fox 25. It shares the same muff as the Fox 35. Starts, needles and runs just like an OS FP or Magnum GP. Nothing quirky about it. Castings/finish is ok but not as refined as OS, etc.
Bill, good report on use. ;D I haven't "turned woke" %^@ on Foxes, yet. ;)
-
Bill, good report on use. ;D I haven't "turned woke" %^@ on Foxes, yet. ;)
Tach numbers from my bench run notes...5% nitro/25% castor at sea level.
R/C carb
14.2k rpm 9/4 nylon MAS
11.2 9/6 wood Rev Up Pro 4
CL venturi
12.0 9/4 wood TF SuperM
10.1 9/6 " " "
7.1 10/6 nylon MAS
-
Starts, needles and runs just like an OS FP or Magnum GP.
Which one are you talking about? Both versions I tried required extensive break-in and had nothing like the power of something like a 20FP, and shook like the dickens.
Brett
-
Tach numbers from my bench run notes...5% nitro/25% castor at sea level.
R/C carb
14.2k rpm 9/4 nylon MAS
11.2 9/6 wood Rev Up Pro 4
CL venturi
12.0 9/4 wood TF SuperM
10.1 9/6 " " "
7.1 10/6 nylon MAS
Bill, your numbers on 5% nitro follow very closely to Peter Chinn's in his Jan. 1982 Aeromodeller engine test article. Peak HP of 0.41 at 13,500 RPM isn't too shabby. I imagine that with a tongue muffler and replacing carb with a venturi setup would peak it out a little more. HP is up there in the mild .35 cross scavenge range. According to Peter, a 10x4 to 9x5 seems optimal for the R/C.
http://sceptreflight.com/Model%20Engine%20Tests/Fox%2025%20RC.html (http://sceptreflight.com/Model%20Engine%20Tests/Fox%2025%20RC.html)
I'm gathering that the venturi you got probably is set up for excellent suction, may be the reason for slightly lower RPM's. Then it seems to make a good choice for a Sterling S-1 Ringmaster.
-
Hello A great way to test the characteristics of potential engines is put them on a combat wing, its also a fun way to run them in , as they don't have to work too hard .
I had a particularly tight Fox 35 I put on a vintage combat wing with a 8x6 prop had it was happy running rich and not overheating till it loosened up.
Must say I have found the OS FP/Magnum GP 25 my favorite slow combat engine, light and powerful and doesn't run too hot . When run on a combat wing the OS FP20 was too slow and lacked power and old Fox 25 baffle ran too hot when pressed but the Fox 19 schnuerle ported engines run real well and the 25 version got to give the OSFP25 a good run for its money. Fox 35's don't have the power to weight of modern schnuerle engines but they look nice on vintage models and sound good. Where a modern engine may run better they don't have the right character on a classic model. Having sold a few Fox 35's when I was a Fox agent in NZ they certainly outsold other better or modern Fox engines but it was what people wanted for their classic/vintage models and Bislobs. Would I try selling them again at today's prices???... no, the internet offers to many options to flyers now, compared to 25years ago ...
Regards Gerald
-
Which one are you talking about? Both versions I tried required extensive break-in and had nothing like the power of something like a 20FP, and shook like the dickens.
Brett
First version of the 4 bolt back plate...plain bearing 25 crossflow. I bought it used with very little flight time. I converted to cl with the Fox bolt on venturi. I don't remember much about break in but it starts, runs, needles as smooth as any of my offshore engines (which include 40FP and 40GP among others). No more or less user friendly than any other modern engine. HP wise I don't have an FP20 for comparison but it pulls the Flightstreak with authority (.015x60), 9/6 MAS, 5/25 all castor Sig in a wet 2 stroke, Fox 35 muff without tank pressure...one speed the whole flight.
-
HP wise I don't have an FP20 for comparison but it pulls the Flightstreak with authority (.015x60), 9/6 MAS, 5/25 all castor Sig in a wet 2 stroke
That's one of the ones I tested, and actually own that one - early 70's with the square "flange". The other one was much older and looked like a bored-out 15x/19 with a cast-in venturi.
I found the same - you had to run 6" of pitch, which is very much like the other similar baffle-piston engines (with the exception of the Veco 19). Much more like the OS-25 baffle-piston engine and Fox 29. It works OK that way, but doesn't give anything like the speed stability of a 9-4 or 10-4. Try it, and it's clearly "over the top" in the maneuvers, and very weak overhead.
By the same token, the 20FP will run with a 9-6 but you have to run it so slow compared to what it wants that it is uncontrollable and also won't draw fuel. That was the mistake almost everyone made with any schneurle engine from the schnuerle wars, and no one really caught on until Bubba, Rich Tower, and company, also added a frequency-dependent regulator- the tuned pipe.
The entire premise of the "small engine experiments' was to find engines that could be subbed in for a Fox 35 on profiles, require *no* modification, and ran 4" of pitch just like regular stunt planes. And also avoid the problem with the 40FP, which is *far too powerful* to go where a Fox 35 goes and "runs away". "Runs away" is stunt-speak for "run like it was designed to run". After getting beat over the head with working examples for years, I finally did some simple calculations that showed the 40FP "runaways" were a problem because they were giving about twice the horsepower that you needed. So - get one that runs about the same but is half the size.
Brett
-
The entire premise of the "small engine experiments' was to find engines that could be subbed in for a Fox 35 on profiles, require *no* modification, and ran 4" of pitch just like regular stunt planes. And also avoid the problem with the 40FP, which is *far too powerful* to go where a Fox 35 goes and "runs away". "Runs away" is stunt-speak for "run like it was designed to run". After getting beat over the head with working examples for years, I finally did some simple calculations that showed the 40FP "runaways" were a problem because they were giving about twice the horsepower that you needed. So - get one that runs about the same but is half the size.
Brett
Reminds me of a small enginened stunter I designed and built 35+ years ago using a K&B 3.5 (I also used them for combat back then). It was a magic combination when it ran on song at full revs but fell out of the sky if it went rich or to lean and lost its setting. Way more critical then a Fox 35 but the K&B 3.5 had twice the power of a OSLA20 or Fox 35 just not consistent enough 'the way I had it set up'. This is before the common use of AeroTigers and piped engines around here (NZ) but does make me wonder if its worth digging out and experimenting with again just for the challenge . My flying buddy got his version going better with a new at the time
Fox 19BB schnuerle as it was a bit more tame and easier to tune .
Regards Gerald
-
I have ten want one.
-
Dan Banjock gets them to run. Often hand fits the piston. The crank bushing, also hand fit. Can he win with it flying in Old Time? Yes. He's also wins with it in Classic in local meets and comes close at the NATS. Why buy a Fox 35 new? They're all over the place at swaps. Or, ask your friends. I have ten, most given to me. Never use them. Never say never though. Looking at a plane beautifully built and light. Only engine that fits and is usable, considering tank size available, is the FOX. Well, there's FOX News, how can some of you resist the name? Fox 35s are a sub hobby of our hobby. Enthusiasts work on them and work on them until they function ok. It's fun for sport flying. Ringmaster time. Old time correct. A Brian Gardner top end plus conrod goes for a hundred, if he's making them or has a left over set or somehow there's one for sale by a private party. How much is a RoJett mit pipe, or a PA if one is around? Five or six hundred? Put that on a profile sportster? Don't think so. Fox 35 hand me downs are cheap, sometimes free. Sport plane sport plane. Are there engines that are a better even for a sport plane? Yeah. Any LA or FP 20 or 25. That's not the point.
Ken Cook has been infected by Fox for 30 years as a matter of fact. Why? They're fun and funny and frustrating. My wife's like that.
-
If our propulsion systems were all about functionality why would any of us use glow? Throw the switch. Hear the repeatable and reliable hum.
-
If our propulsion systems were all about functionality why would any of us use glow? Throw the switch. Hear the repeatable and reliable hum.
Hello
If that electric system had a nice "hum" then it would be easier to take but most brushless motors make a most disagreeable egg beater like whine. Both my sons say 'never' to electric as they prefer the real noise of a glow engine (well my youngest son Max actually prefers diesel engines) but I am happy to fly electric mainly because they don't get fuel sodden.
Currently have 4 Fox 35 stunts (and many more Fox 36's) on sports/vintage models (Ringmaster, Shoestring, Roskill Stunter and Spectre vintage combat wing) that are ready to go and must say each runs well.
Regards Gerald
-
Yes. I tell Mike Palko the dental drill makes my teeth hurt. Called it a hum for literary effect. You are absolutely right, Gerald. God awful sound. Electric powered control line should be banned. Electric power has no soul. It makes men weak. Dilutes male hormones. Never fly electric without a protective tinfoil hat. You have been warned.
-
and the cows go off their feed and the milk dries up.....
-
and the cows go off their feed and the milk dries up.....
McCoy and Enya cows do fine on the feed I give them.
-
Just wondering - how many times did a FOX 35 powered model win the World F2B Championships ? Duke printed on his boxes in the 50's - "Nationals and Internationals Winner - Four Straight Years" but no "World Champion". As a guy who never missed an opportunity to advertise his wares, I find this a bit strange. Witness too, the half dozen "Anniversary" models he released over the years.
-
Bob Gieske won the worlds In 1974.
-
Bob Gieske won the worlds In 1974.
Is he the only one ?
-
The Bear also won the NATS that year. H^^
Now gentlemen, wait until you can't hear an open exhaust IC engine from the center of the circle. D>K
-
John, so you are flying a Drone Diesel or OS FS20? LL~
Best, DennisT
-
So did anyone pre order their $185 Fox 35 yet?
Motorman 8)
By the time that engine shows up (if it ever does) there will be nobody left to buy it. With battery power gaining popularity, electrons will most likely be the preferred power source before too long.
I should have plenty of engines to last me for quite some time so I will continue to plod along with them as long as I can get parts and the components to mix fuel. And, if I can still get glow plugs.
-
Now gentlemen, wait until you can't hear an open exhaust IC engine from the center of the circle. D>K
The wife is already telling me that I need a hearing aid.
-
The siren call of a Fox 35 is it's character.
Character equates to vibration, both audio and tactile - and for many that's enough.
I reckon that blindfolded I could pick out a 4/2 switching Fox 35 from any other motor on the planet and that's reason enough for me to open my eyes and want one.
Yes, I do own a 40th Anniversary Fox 35 and as an engineering solution it stinks but it makes a smile wrinkle my face.
Evolution has past it by and having and holding one is like viewing a fossil from ages gone by.
Would I sell it, heck no, would I use it, maybe but who would put a fossil to task.
Chris.
P.S. these days a Fox is a comparitor, it marks a point and standard in time that tells us how far we have come and which without we would not appreciate current machinery.
-
P.S. these days a Fox is a comparitor, it marks a point and standard in time that tells us how far we have come and which without we would not appreciate current machinery.
In Spanish, "compartir" means "to share". I've watched those flying a Fox .35 Stunt have a total blast at it. A flip or two with glow battery connected, fires right up, in flight doing its 4-2-4 break in and out of stunts is a sight to behold, and something worth sharing.