Engine

[sadams714441]

Good morning
Any thoughts.  I have this Fox 36rc engine.  Can this be changed over to control line.  If so anyone know how they are.    I have had this for over 15 years. New in box.

Steve Adams

[john gunn]

contact
lee machine shop for the conversion

[sadams714441]

Do these make ok control line engines

[Bob Matiska]

Interestingly, there's an active thread on the other forum about this very engine, asking the same questions. If you're a member over there, check it out. In the meantime:

Fox produced both 36 and 29 plain bearing engines in the 1970s for r/c and controlline use. I had a 36 and ran it a lot on several models, then passed it to another modeler in my area a few years ago. I have one of the 29s but haven't run it yet. As iron piston engines, they need a good breakin, then will perform well, offering decent handling and reasonable power. Some guys pull the venturi insert and use lots of nitro and make them scream. In your case though, I'm not aware of a venturi that's available to replace the r/c carb, so I'd suggest wiring the carb open and using it. You'll note that the front end on the r/c versions is longer than on the ukie engines, to give more clearance between the prop and carb, so that might actually prevent damage if you plant the plane into terra firma!

Good luck!

Bob in NEPA

[Dave_Trible]

As  Bob says above these make pretty decent engines.  These are the C/L version.  The only real difference is the carb out front.  You can just lock it down but better would be a Jim Lee venturi  and regular needle assembly.  I  didn't try one 'in the day' but find I like them and will put one in a classic airplane some day.

Dave

Just remembered Jim has an engine of mine exactly like yours and did the conversion (I'm slow getting it picked up) so he has the dimensions for it in hand.

[frank mccune]

      Hi Steve:

      Your Fox .36 will make a great Stunt/Sport engine!

       I flew on for years and in the old rules of Slow Combat.  it would keep up with anyting.  I flew one in a Nobler and it was a great Stunt engine that would 4-2-4 cycle very well.  A friend of mine suggested that I add an extra head gasket to tame it down a bit but I never saw the need.  I still have a couple in the attic.  Mine produce much more power than my Fox .40 Stunt from the same time period and was smaller.  This engine was another one  killed by the AMA screwing Duke Fox.

     Remember that they are a Fox and like a lot of caster oil.  "Cool and Clean."

                                                                   Good luck,

                                                                   Frank McCune

[James C. Johnson]

They are quite powerful.. I ran the 29 in a nice RC Job back in the 80s... there was one problem I could never solve... I could never get the carb to stay that one... they run well.. plus the head off the 35 Stunt will fit on it... it's kinda a cool engine to play with.

[Motorman]

We had a guy in our club go to a big model airplane flee market and everyone donated stuff like that to sell to help the club make some money.

MM

[Robert Zambelli]

"This engine was another one  killed by the AMA screwing Duke Fox."  ??

I'm not sure I understand - please clarify.

   Bob Z.

[Bob Matiska]

About 40 years ago, when Slow Combat was coming into its own, there was some concern about it becoming too fast. So there was some talk about disallowing ball bearing engines, since the plain bearing engines of the day didn't have as much power as their ball bearing brethren. K&B developed a 35 based on their 40 front intake engine, but with a plain bearing front end, and the Fox 36 PB may have been Duke's effort to develop a reasonably powerful engine that would meet the rules. But AMA never did require plain bearing engines for Slow Combat, so efforts by Fox and K&B never paid off. I have one of the K&B's, btw, bought it at Riley's hobby shop in Lubbock at a substantial discount. Nice engine.

If I remember correctly, Duke also developed the Fox 74 in the 1960s because of rumors that the AMA was going to settle on a 0.75 cubic inch limit for R/C Aerobatics. But the AMA adopted the international limit of 10cc's instead. Duke wound up making a 60 out of the 74 and then had the heaviest 60 on the market... not good for an aerobatic plane. I think I remember Duke lamenting somewhere how he sunk every one of his "last pesos" into the 74 and it took a while for him to recover from it.

My memory of that time period is slipping, so if somebody remembers it differently, chime in.


Bob in NEPA

[Paul Smith]

You could build an authentic old time profile carrier plane and have an authentic engine.  Up until 1976 you need a stock plain bearing engine with the factory throttle.

[Randy Ryan]

About 40 years ago, when Slow Combat was coming into its own, there was some concern about it becoming too fast. So there was some talk about disallowing ball bearing engines, since the plain bearing engines of the day didn't have as much power as their ball bearing brethren. K&B developed a 35 based on their 40 front intake engine, but with a plain bearing front end, and the Fox 36 PB may have been Duke's effort to develop a reasonably powerful engine that would meet the rules. But AMA never did require plain bearing engines for Slow Combat, so efforts by Fox and K&B never paid off. I have one of the K&B's, btw, bought it at Riley's hobby shop in Lubbock at a substantial discount. Nice engine.

If I remember correctly, Duke also developed the Fox 74 in the 1960s because of rumors that the AMA was going to settle on a 0.75 cubic inch limit for R/C Aerobatics. But the AMA adopted the international limit of 10cc's instead. Duke wound up making a 60 out of the 74 and then had the heaviest 60 on the market... not good for an aerobatic plane. I think I remember Duke lamenting somewhere how he sunk every one of his "last pesos" into the 74 and it took a while for him to recover from it.

My memory of that time period is slipping, so if somebody remembers it differently, chime in.


Bob in NEPA

But AMA doesn't make the rules, the membership does with input to the various rules commitees. If anyone screwed Duke Fox it was the membership. Or maybe he jumped the gun with these engines and shot himself in the foot. Now I'm no fan of the AMA these days, but back then it was competition oriented and quite good at representing what the membership wanted. Duke was Great, but I think it more of a bad business decision than the AMA screwing him if there was an issue at all.

[Dave_Trible]

Just as a matter of perspective,  this particular engine was born out of a combat special engine -gone bad- and the need to use up a very large investment of parts to save the financial bacon.  It worked out I think for Duke and these engines found a few very good uses but I don't think the AMA had anything to do with this......just sayin'....as they say.

Dave

[frank mccune]

    Hi:

     I concur as to what Bob Matiska said.  Duke himself told me the stories about the the .36 plain bearing and the .74 RC engine.  He blamed the AMA for screwing him on both of these engines.  After this, he never took out another ad in the AMA publication.

    I do remember that Slow Combat required that there would be only suction and plain bearings only.  There was also a Carrier event that had the same engine requirements.  This had to be in circa 73-74.  Later in the 70's were  flying Slow Combat with the above restrictions .  I ran the Fox .36 pb, and friends ran the ST an K&B pb engines.  My Fox gave up nothing in the speed department.

     Anybody remember Howards Rush's endorsement of this  engine in 1972? Tallyho, a new Fox is here. Lol 

                                                                                                                Stay well,

                                                                                                                Frank McCune

[Howard Rush]

I remember that.  I had a prototype.  It did a decent job of pulling a combat plane.

[Tim Wescott]

But AMA doesn't make the rules, the membership does with input to the various rules commitees. If anyone screwed Duke Fox it was the membership. Or maybe he jumped the gun with these engines and shot himself in the foot.

I wasn't there at the time, but I will say this -- every business decision you make is a roll of the dice.  If you're deciding to sink money into product development you're rolling the dice both on it working and on it selling.  If you don't sink money into product development you're rolling the dice on being able to continue selling whatever you have.  Similar damned if you do, damned if you don't situations abound for saying either "yes" or "no" to customer contracts, hiring, moving, etc., etc.