Engine Cleaning

[Richard Hutlet]

Hello. After a number of years I'm thinking seriously about getting back into C/L.
I have a 40th anniversary Fox 35 stunt that I would like to clean up. The engine has
never been used and is full of dust and debris from sitting in a box for a number
of years. I'm looking for suggestions on the nest way to clean, lubricate and get it into
a condition where I can use it this spring.

[david beazley]

If it hasn't been used and not all castored up, dish soap and hot water with an old tooth brush works.  Disassemble clean with hot soapy water, rinse well , dry, blow off with  compressed air and then immediately lube with light oil, ATF, or WD40. I use Marvel Mystery Oil.  I am sure others will chime in.

[Dave_Trible]

Richard I would remove the backplate and head.  Then soak it all in lacquer thinner for a little bit then scrub it out with an old tooth brush.  Dry it quickly with a hair dryer or simular then put it back together with a lathering of pneumatic air tool oil or after run oil.  Should be ready for break in after that.

Dave

[Randy Cuberly]

Yes...Do exactly what Dave T. said!

Randy Cuberly

[Motorman]

Don't take it apart you'll ruin it. Just hose it off with wd40 then run it on the test stand. Don't worry about dirt in the engine they put grit in it at the factory to help break in anyway.


MM

[Dan Berry]

Don't leave the WD 40 on it. Use it a solvent to knock things around, rinse it with meth and then oil up with Rislone or ATF.

[Andre Ming]

Don't worry about dirt in the engine they put grit in it at the factory to help break in anyway.

Don't know what Fox did after I left in Oct of '75, but during my stints with them from 1970 until then, we didn't use genuine abrasives in the engines during run-in.  We used a very, very thin wash of "Lustrox" and oil.  Lustrox is not to be confused with Garnet powder or other abrasives used for actually cutting metal. It was/is a polishing agent. Lustrox would not help a tight engine. However, if an oily mix of Garnet powder and oil were run through a tight, running engine, it could wear it out in a matter of minutes.  I used Garnet powder and oil to hand lap parts (still do), but never sent it through a running engine.

FWIW: If an engine WAS too tight at the run-in procedure, the fix was straight forward: It went back to the Assembly Dept., disassembled, and the piston/cylinder honed a bit to help it, re-assembled, then it passed through the run-in procedure again.

So, you are correct in that a mixture did pass through the engines at Fox, but not an abrasive in the general sense.

[Randy Cuberly]

Don't take it apart you'll ruin it. Just hose it off with wd40 then run it on the test stand. Don't worry about dirt in the engine they put grit in it at the factory to help break in anyway.


MM

WHAT?  I'm truly baffled by why you think taking the head and backplate off a Fox and cleaning it with lacquer thinner will "Ruin" it...Why is your name Motorman if you give advice like this!!!

I reiterate...Do it just like Dave Trible said to above...You won't ruin it...forcing it to turn without properly cleaning it might ruin something...

Whew some people can make a simple thing really hard!!!

Randy Cuberly

[Andrew Hathaway]

There was another thread like this recently - http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php/topic,37649.0.html

If it were me, I'd completely disassemble the engine, clean all the parts paying extra attention to the oil groove in the front bearing and the wrist pin keeper grooves in the piston.  Even if it's new, it's old enough that the castor from the factory test run could have gummed it up by now.  Fox did have issues with the wrist pin keeper grooves back then too, so it's a good idea to check them anyway to make sure the clips are fully seated and won't pop out.  Make sure there aren't any bits of grit or machine flash waiting to come free and go through the engine.  Then reassemble with a fresh backplate gasket paying attention that the bolts are snug, but not overly tight, and that the piston still moves freely after the head is torqued.  Oil everything well with air tool oil, place in a clean sandwich baggie and tuck it back in it's original foamed lined box for a really rainy day.  Next I'd go out and buy one on Ebay for $20-40 that shows OBVIOUS signs of use, but not abuse.  Then I'd take that nicely broken in, barely used Fox 35, and at a minimum make sure the rod isn't stuck to the wrist pin, check the wrist pin keepers if I'm not lazy.  Maybe clean up the outside if really necessary, then I'd put it on the test stand and run it to be sure it works and doesn't have any really nasty habits.  If it works ok on the stand, I'd put it in a plane and go fly it.

The trouble with the Fox is they take FOREVER to break in.  Plan on multiple bench runs, then about a season of flying on a frequently flown sport plane before they really are working well.  Starting with a well used engine skips a ton of not-enjoyable fiddling.  It's much easier for me to overhaul an engine that already has a nice piston/cylinder fit than to take the time to break in a new one. 

[Andre Ming]

Memory jog:

After run-in, we used to shoot a couple shots of "rust inhibitor" into the exhaust port and worked it around by twirling the prop stud back and forth.  I do not know what brand of rust inhibitor, nor do I know its long term stability. (i.e. Don't know if it becomes like glue/cement or remains in a liquefied state.)

If the 40th Anniversary Fox 35 is very special to you, or you want to "collect" it, then keeping it like new may have some merit.  Otherwise, clean it and fly it.  Taken care of, I highly suspect it will out last you.

[Chris Wilson]

WHAT?  I'm truly baffled by why you think taking the head and backplate off a Fox and cleaning it with lacquer thinner will "Ruin" it...Why is your name Motorman if you give advice like this!!!

I reiterate...Do it just like Dave Trible said to above...You won't ruin it...forcing it to turn without properly cleaning it might ruin something...

Whew some people can make a simple thing really hard!!!

Randy Cuberly

Ah, that has got to be a joke Randy.

But personally I use kerosene as a flushing agent and don't worry about pulling the head off unless its leaking because the plug hole is plenty big enough as an exit point.

The BIG point missed so far is do not rotate the engine until its been flushed out.

(Actually many old time modellers find that model diesel fuel good for this purpose, kerosene is great as a cleaner, ether dissolves and wicks into the smallest crevice and castor is a great corrosion inhibitor.)

[Richard Hutlet]

wow..very helpful to say the least. Due to the fact that it is an old engine and
I have no experience in refurbishing or cleaning I may just go out and purchase
a new one until I gain the skills to tackle the old Fox. So with that said. Anyone recommend
a decent engine for a 40 size C/L? I'm thinking about a Nobler to get back into things. I prefer
a full fuselage and built up wood wing to foam. I started 40 years ago from a guy that taught
us to build busters with cardboard when we had a hard time finding Balsa up here lol.
thanks all for the input. I think I'm going to enjoy visiting this site.

regards...

[Chris Wilson]

A replacement baffle piston 40?

R&B 40 would be high on my list but be prepared to be bombarded by the LA 46 brigade ........ again.

Contact Ian Russell from post 9 -
http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=295312&mesg_id=295312&listing_type=search

Or find him on the Barton forum as 'Rustler.'

[Randy Cuberly]

A replacement baffle piston 40?

R&B 40 would be high on my list but be prepared to be bombarded by the LA 46 brigade ........ again.

Contact Ian Russell from post 9 -
http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=295312&mesg_id=295312&listing_type=search

Or find him on the Barton forum as 'Rustler.'

Hmmmmm...Well you might consider why the "LA46 Brigade" exists!!!!

Randy Cuberly

[Richard Hutlet]

LA46. Excuse the ignorance but please fill in the blanks...

What is LA46

[Chris Wilson]

LA46. Excuse the ignorance but please fill in the blanks...

What is LA46

Now you have gone and done it - over to you Randy!

[Richard Hutlet]

Hey Chris. Off topic but although I live smack dab in the middle of Canada my
son lives in Adelaide for 15 years. Small world Eh . wife was there 2 Feb back
and loved it. Maybe heading there Feb 2016.

[Chris Wilson]

G'day Richard!

Sydney here - anyway the LA 46 is made by OS max engine, 0.46 cubic inch in capacity  and very good value for money if you want a stunt capable engine.

But I wouldn't buy one if you paid me (personal preference.)

[MikeCoulombe]

Great hobbies have Evolution 36 cls in stock.

http://www.greathobbies.com/productinfo/?prod_id=EVOE0365

Personally I would run the Fox, lube it with 3in1 machine oil put fresh fuel in it slap it on a profile and fly the pants off it.

http://www.greathobbies.com/productinfo/?prod_id=BDKCLP-43

If you get near Edmonton.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/AlbertacontrollineFC/

Bruce and the boys know their stuff and are always willing to help out.

[Chris Wilson]

Richard, PM sent.

[Randy Cuberly]

LA46. Excuse the ignorance but please fill in the blanks...

What is LA46

Richard,
The OS LA46S is and has been for the past 12 years or so the best inexpensive CL Stunt engine offered by anyone.
Ther are other engines as good and perhaps one or two specialty engines in it's class that could be considered a litle better but they cost considerably more.  The LA46 is reasonably light at about 9 oz with a tongue muffler and will fly airplanes in the 550 to 650 Sq in class up to about 56 oz in weight and fly them very well.

It is probably the most popular stunt engine around today for Classic airplanes.  It is probably used in more stunt planes than all the other engines combined.  No it's not a Top 10 nationals class experts first choice but I think most of them would reccommend it to anyone in intermediate through advanced class.

They are an excellent choice for Nobler size airplanes and a good choice for even much larger airplanes.  They are very flexible and can be easily tuned to turn smallish props in the 10 to 10.5 diameter range or larger props in the 11.5 to 12.5 in range depending on the venturi size used.

They don't last as long as some of the specialty engines like PA or RO Jett but cost less than a third as much.  They are good for many hundreds of flights and anyone who actually wears one out is doing a lot of flying and will soon be an expert or already is.

All of that is why I said one should consider why there is a legion of LA46 folks!  They're cheap and they work very well and are easy to use and easy to get parts and accessories for!

Why any one would be prejudiced against them is beyond me!

Randy Cuberly

[Chris Wilson]

Why any one would be prejudiced against them is beyond me!

Randy Cuberly

Hi Randy,
I see that you are a " if you are not wid me then you must be agin me," kinda guy!

I really don't have anything against the LA 46 but I do have things for others.

You didn't pick up on the diesel fuel recommendation in an earlier post?

I like non popular choices , that and a cheap price has never wooed me yet in the engines that I have in my stable.

To wit, my engine of choice in that LA 46 genre would be the Enya SS 40 - a tad heavier and a bit more powerful and more importantly one tough engine with a good stunt run capability.

Cheers.

[Andrew Hathaway]

I hate, hate, HATE the LA46.  From the "please don't sue me" remote needle, to the "me too" squarish cylinder, the not quite Phillips head screws, and the hipster blue paint on the early version's case.  I can't make one run the way I'd like them to run, and everyone talks about how easy they are to setup but everyone uses a different setup so there's no clear path to follow.  They say they're inexpensive, but then they tell you to replace the needlevalve, backplate, install a different size venturi, hemi the head, buy an aftermarket muffler, etc but in the same breath they tell you how great it is stock right out of the box.  Uh huh... 

All that said and considered, I've seen a lot of people use them and like them, they're available and not too expensive, so that's what I'd recommend for a Nobler. Besides, they seem to work fine for everyone else except me. 

[Randy Cuberly]

I hate, hate, HATE the LA46.  From the "please don't sue me" remote needle, to the "me too" squarish cylinder, the not quite Phillips head screws, and the hipster blue paint on the early version's case.  I can't make one run the way I'd like them to run, and everyone talks about how easy they are to setup but everyone uses a different setup so there's no clear path to follow.  They say they're inexpensive, but then they tell you to replace the needlevalve, backplate, install a different size venturi, hemi the head, buy an aftermarket muffler, etc but in the same breath they tell you how great it is stock right out of the box.  Uh huh... 

All that said and considered, I've seen a lot of people use them and like them, they're available and not too expensive, so that's what I'd recommend for a Nobler. Besides, they seem to work fine for everyone else except me. 

Well if you're doing all those things to one I'm not surprised that you don't like them.  Some folks just like to tinker me included but it's absolutely not necessary and in a lot of cases actually hurts performance.
The only thing I reccommend changing is the remote needle valve.  Not because they don't work, they do, but because it's a little easier to package the engine in the typical stunt plane.  They work very well with the stock muffler but it is pretty heavy for the typical classic airplane so I also reccommend switching to a $15.00 tongue muffler from Randy Smith or Eric Rule.
As for the backplate the stock one works just fine if you don't overtighten the screws.  If you do overtignten them an it leaks a little bath tub calking compound on the interface and putting it back in place seals everything nicely forever.  I usually change the back cover simply because the replacements are cheap and look sexy!!! 
Don't do anything else to the engine and it will run GREAT!  For props if you have the ground clearance run a APC 11.5-4 and launch at about 95-9600 RPM on 64 ft lines.  Nothing could be simpler.   with less ground clearance a Plelps style 10.5-4.5 at about the same RPM works almost as well on maybe 1 foot shorter lines.  An Enya #3 glow plug or a Thunderbolt R/C plug finishes the job.

Diesel!!!!?? You truly have to be a glutton for punishment to run a "Stinky".

Randy Cuberly

[Andrew Hathaway]

Well if you're doing all those things to one I'm not surprised that you don't like them.

Started off box stock, didn't like it. Changed venturis, didn't like it. Changed mufflers, didn't like it.  Didn't like them one bit, didn't want to waste any more time fiddling when I could spend that time practicing instead.  They're fine for everyone else, they just didn't come anywhere close to the hype in my humble opinion.  Long since sold them, good riddance.

[Andre Ming]

Ah, come on, Andrew. No need to hold back, tell us how you really feel about the LA46.

[Scott Richlen]

On preparing your Fox 35:

I checked with one of our club members, Dick H.,  who has a special "thing" for Fox 35s.  He said the fastest way to get them ready for use is to get it running nice and fast and then poor sand on it.  It makes for much better gripping when you enter the Fox Hurl.   

[john e. holliday]

If Andrew is talking about the blue LA's I will have to agree with him in a way.  But, after I learned to not touch the needle when I first got to the field I kinda of fell in love with them.  I crock potted a blue LA .40 that I had on a profile.   Before crock potting I would fire the engine and adjust the needle.   The engine would then get lean and then second flight I would open the needle back where it started and do my pattern.  After crock potting I would just do a flight and not touch any thing.   The second flight and more were flights I was happy with.  On my Imperial Ringmaster I am using the remote needle set up.   Engine starts great and runs better than I fly.  Of course that isn't saying much is it Andrew.   He has seen me fly and beat me numerous times in our area.

[Scott Richlen]

John:

You are right!  Too many fliers screw around with the needle valve when they shouldn't touch it at all.  If you are going to have decent flights you need to leave the needle alone once it is set.  After the first flight, if you absolutely have to, then adjust it for weather conditions.  Otherwise leave it alone.  I think that a lot of people have developed this habit of twitching the needle valve to a point of compulsion.  I see our guys regularly screw up a flight by messing with the needle before they take off.  They just can't seem to help themselves.  And then they end up with a crappy flight due to poor engine run and are all disappointed.

A good running engine set up properly does not need a needle valve twitch every time you start it!  I think in all of last year I maybe touched the needle on my LA-46 four times.  This occurred only after the first flight of the day and was always in response to changes in weather as the season got warmer or colder.

It just isn't that hard with an LA-46

Scott

[Randy Cuberly]

Started off box stock, didn't like it. Changed venturis, didn't like it. Changed mufflers, didn't like it.  Didn't like them one bit, didn't want to waste any more time fiddling when I could spend that time practicing instead.  They're fine for everyone else, they just didn't come anywhere close to the hype in my humble opinion.  Long since sold them, good riddance.

Andrew...
Can you spell prejudicial!!!  Of course you're totally entitled to be that way but really shouldn't rub it off on entry level folks.
Because any way you cut it ...it's bad advice!

Phew!!!

Randy Cuberly

[Andrew Hathaway]

Andrew...
Can you spell prejudicial!!!  Of course you're totally entitled to be that way but really shouldn't rub it off on entry level folks.
Because any way you cut it ...it's bad advice!

Phew!!!

Randy Cuberly

Sure...

Full Definition of PREJUDICIAL
1 :  tending to injure or impair :  detrimental <a transfer prejudicial to other creditors>
2 :  leading to premature judgment or unwarranted opinion <prejudicial evidence>

I'm not sure that "prejudicial" really applies here.  I'm not being unfair to either the Fox 35 or the OS 46.  In fact if my intended message comes through on the other end, my most unbiased recommendation to a random "entry level" person, to power a Nobler is the LA 46.  I can't deny that they work well for many people, but honestly I didn't like mine.  To be completely fair, I looked past all the things I didn't like and gave the LA 46 a fair shot at winning me over.  I'm not going to lie and say I was impressed, because my impression was that it's just a cheaply produced, gimmicky update of the 35/40FP that I'd already discounted as too finicky.  Even though I personally wouldn't waste the time building another plane around the 35/40FP, or the 40LA, or the LA 46, I can't fault anyone else that would do so.  I can see the value in those engines, many people would be perfectly happy with them, they just weren't entirely compatible with my desires and needs in an engine. 

Just for the record, I fly my Nobler ('57 TF kit/ARF hybrid derivative) with an OS Max-S 35 fitted with a Bri-Stunt ABC setup, Lee Machine Shop .280" copy of the stock venturi, and an RSM tongue muffler with an extra row of outlet holes.  It's a sub $150 engine setup that runs on modern fuel, starts on the first or second flip almost every time, turns an 11" prop like it's not even there, and cranks out a ridiculously consistent 4-2-4 run.  The needle gets bumped a click or two either direction when the weather changes drastically, when that click or two doesn't bring it back to normal I know there's a problem somewhere else in the system (pin holes in the tank, leaking venturi O-ring, leaking fuel filter, etc).  If the LA 46 was nearly that consistent for me, with any of the setups I tried, I could see past it's physical appearance and cost cutting measures, but it just did not agree with me one bit. 

My advice to the entry level folks can't be that bad, since I'd recommend they use the same LA 46 that you recommended.  I just wouldn't go quite so far singing it's praises.  It's not some purpose built, quintessential stunt engine.  It's a cheap, gimmicky, R/C sport engine that even most R/C flyers would look down upon, that just happens to work (very?) well for some as a CL stunt engine.  As I said, that's just my honest opinion, no more or less valid than your own, and I'm just voicing it for equal consideration.  There's no need to take it personally or question the origin of my opinion, no amount of discussion is going to change it.

[Chris Wilson]

Andrew...
Can you spell prejudicial!!!  Of course you're totally entitled to be that way but really shouldn't rub it off on entry level folks.
Because any way you cut it ...it's bad advice!

Phew!!!

Randy Cuberly

Um, where is this 'bad advice' Randy?
Andrew gives a point of view (much like I do) and then backs it up with facts.

I concur with what he says and want to add the 'why' of the LA 46 being popular - which is totally different from being good or indeed better.

1. It was an accidental find for the stunt world (much like the ST 46) starting out from the 40 which was had adverts carpet bombed right through the modelling world. I can think of no other engine that was as heavily thrown in your face as this one was.
And we all love claiming a successful use of something beyond what it was specified for.
2. Along with the massive ad campaign was pay by instalments and a low price, as in it was deliberately built to that price and charged out accordingly.
3. It undoubtedly works and in a variety of setups because it has the peaks of torque and horsepower VERY far apart and as such is very tolerant of prop choice, rev range, fuels etc - that's another way to say it suffers beginners mistakes with aplomb.
So it is 'generic', a jack of all trades from high rev RC use right down to  plodding along with a 13" prop doing the overheads.
But who uses it in this variety of conditions? No one, we all gravitate to our favourite set up and leave it there so this so called flexibility is used one time and from there on can be disregarded as a strength.

So the engine was marketed very well, needed no particular set up knowledge, has a nice run and is cheap - but is it any better than its contemporaries?

No. But the all convincing hype screams otherwise, but after working in the advertising industry for 37 years I can probably claim to see through that and recognize  it for what it is.
A cheap, workable generic one size fits all engine that fortunately don't come in my size or color.

They are the 'Spandex' of the engine world - do you like wearing spandex?

I don't so I wouldn't buy one.

[MikeCoulombe]

Wow, Just Wow, ask a simple question around here. 

[Ward Van Duzer]

Wow! I don't get it, why these days folks throw money at the latest Wizz-Bang .44 and then try and convince themselves they have a wonderful stunt engine. The real solution is simple. Throw money at Randy at Aero products and be happy. Oh yea, then you gotta do what he tells you to! This is 24 years experiance talking to you... (I havent cursed at an engine since!)

Ward-O  

[Randy Cuberly]

Sheesh....Nay sayers always have some kind of protection blanket to criticize something...This really is a good thing but I'm much better and above that so use it if you like but I wouldn't.

That's what I mean by prejudicial.

I only tried to answer the question posed to the best of my long experience and best knowledge of the subject.  Anyone is free to believe what they want and buy or use what they want.  There is usually many correct answers to any question that asks for an opinion on something.

Randy Cuberly

[Carl Cisneros]

I do have to agree with Scott R. on the way he runs his LA46.
just a blue motor/1 additional head gasket/stock muffler and does NOT touch the needle UNLESS absolutely necessary.
As for easy starting, my fox 35X is as easy as pie for starting and running.
I choke the motor a couple of flips, flip the motor a few more times to get fuel thru the motor, connect the glo driver
REVERSE flip the prop on to compression, and away it goes.   you can even ask Scott about this.

The LA46's that I have seen running all pretty much run the same consistant way in that they are set for a fatish 2 stroke for
level flight and turn up when in a manouver then back in to their fatish 2 stroking once again.

As for cleaning a motor, (back on the main subject), I use the Hoppes No. 9 foaming gun cleaning solution and a NEW toothbrush.
Spray it on (after taking the motor apart), let it set for about 15min. give it a spray once more and then brush away letting the
tothbrush do the work. takes me about maybe 30 min. to get it back to a nice aluminum finish. And believe me, I have a had a few REALLY blackened
motors in front of me for cleaning.

I do hope all this makes sense.  I took my alergy meds.about 1/2 hr. ago and they have really kicked in.........................

[Andrew Hathaway]

Sorry Randy, I think you're just missing something as you read the thread.  No one criticized you, or your "long experience and best knowledge of the subject".  No one is discounting your opinion.  Like you said, anyone is free to believe what they want and give their opinion.  So why is it that Chris Wilson, and I, can't voice OUR opinions on the subject, without you implying we're doing something wrong, or that our opinions are prejudicial and invalid?  I've been competing in CLPA for 22 years.  This last season I flew in four contests and brought home three 1sts in Advanced PA, another 1st in Classic, a Spirit of 52, and a Concours award.  At what point do I have enough experience and knowledge that I can expect to be able to voice my opinion without you jumping all over me?    I bought into the hype, bought two LA46s, tried them for a season, decided I didn't like them, and moved on.  Why can't I share my viewpoint without your criticism?  

[Dennis Moritz]

Andrew. What engine do you use? Excuse me, just read your description of the OS35s, ABC. No engine is fool proof, in my experience. But many engines can be tuned to be effective in stunt. Sounds like your Max was tuned. More than tuned. Workable prop, modified tongue muffler, fuel choice. Bristunt ABC, PL - not easy to get those. I thought the p/l runs $100 or so. Venturi $8. Used engine. Did you replace the rod. It's my understanding that an unbushed 35S rod is prone to wear. Leonard Neuman sells those. $15, plus shipping. The OS Max35s that you describe is not remotely a stock engine. How did you mount the tongue muffler by the bye. 35s are not drilled for mounting a muffler. I'd describe your engine as a custom engine. Qualitatively different from an engine purchased off the shelf.

So much depends on the person setting up an engine. I've seen many stunt friendly engines run @#$% poor. Almost all of these have run well, when an experienced modeler who knows what to do makes standard adjustments and if necessary, goes through a common process of trouble shooting.

[Dennis Moritz]

Delete. The repeat.

[Richard Hutlet]

Wow.. very varied ideas. Got to love it. Was even thinking of a 40 to 50 size
Ro Jett...If I can ever figure out how to navigate his website   

[Randy Cuberly]

Sorry Randy, I think you're just missing something as you read the thread.  No one criticized you, or your "long experience and best knowledge of the subject".  No one is discounting your opinion.  Like you said, anyone is free to believe what they want and give their opinion.  So why is it that Chris Wilson, and I, can't voice OUR opinions on the subject, without you implying we're doing something wrong, or that our opinions are prejudicial and invalid?  I've been competing in CLPA for 22 years.  This last season I flew in four contests and brought home three 1sts in Advanced PA, another 1st in Classic, a Spirit of 52, and a Concours award.  At what point do I have enough experience and knowledge that I can expect to be able to voice my opinion without you jumping all over me?    I bought into the hype, bought two LA46s, tried them for a season, decided I didn't like them, and moved on.  Why can't I share my viewpoint without your criticism?  

Phooey...I didn't jump all over you I simply disagree with your opinions which you are entitled to no matter how "off Center" they my be.

I don't have any opinion about you personally at all because I don't know you.  You do seem to take offense at anyone disagreeing with you however and that's what you accused me of...I did get a little smile out of that!

As for your list of accomplishments  good for you however I do feel obligated to tell you, that in the crowd of folks on this forum you don't really rank very high.  I started flying in 1952 and have probably lost more trophies in moves than you currently have!  And I still have a lot!

Enough of this nonsense!

[Carl Cisneros]

OK,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

NOW, BOTH OF YOU PLEASE STOP IT OR I WILL TELL YOUR WIVES AND HAVE THEM HIDE YOUR CONTROL LINE HANDLES!!!!!!!   

[Randy Cuberly]

Wow.. very varied ideas. Got to love it. Was even thinking of a 40 to 50 size
Ro Jett...If I can ever figure out how to navigate his website   

Richard,
You can contact Dub Jett at:

Jett Engineering Inc.
6110 Milwee, Suite J
Huston, TX 77092
Phone 713-680-8113

He actually manufactures the RO Jett engines.  I have three of the 40 BSE engines and they run very well and are very powerful and light.  They are offered in side exhaust or rear exhaust.

Not cheap work very well.

Randy Cuberly

[Andrew Hathaway]

Phooey...I didn't jump all over you I simply disagree with your opinions which you are entitled to no matter how "off Center" they my be.

Are you denying that in reply #23 on 12/29 you replied to my post specifically, with a bunch of dismissing, condescending non-sense, that had no bearing whatsoever on my post?  And now I'm "off center"?  Really?  You do realize you're doing exactly what I just accused you of doing, that you're trying to deny you did?

I don't have any opinion about you personally at all because I don't know you.  You do seem to take offense at anyone disagreeing with you however and that's what you accused me of...I did get a little smile out of that!

I could say the same about you based on all the bawling you're doing in this thread at the mere concept that someone might not like the LA46 as much as you do.  

As for your list of accomplishments  good for you however I do feel obligated to tell you, that in the crowd of folks on this forum you don't really rank very high.  I started flying in 1952 and have probably lost more trophies in moves than you currently have!  And I still have a lot!

Did I claim I ranked very high?  I was sharing my experience level with you, because you always make it an issue if my opinion is not in line with your own.  Nobody is questioning your record, I don't especially care.  You're an old man that's been doing this all your life, I'd expect you to have more trophies to show for your efforts.  I've only got about another 40 years to catch up with you.  

Enough of this nonsense!

I was done with this nearly a week ago.    I'm not the jackass bumping the thread because I can't handle people criticizing an inanimate object I like.  

The ball is your court Cuberly.  

Edit:  Wooo! 700! 

[Randy Cuberly]

Deleted!

Randy Cuberly

[George]

On preparing your Fox 35:

I checked with one of our club members, Dick H.,  who has a special "thing" for Fox 35s.  He said the fastest way to get them ready for use is to get it running nice and fast and then poor sand on it.  It makes for much better gripping when you enter the Fox Hurl.   

 

Everybody knows that is flat-out bull! The Fox hurl is exclusively for the slant plug Fox .15, the Fox .35 is not eligible!!      

George

[Scott Richlen]

Oh no!  Say it ain't so....

come on George!  Can't we get the rules amended to allow Fox 35s in the hurl??

[john e. holliday]

No way, as they last too long, even when abused.