Fox question.

[John Rist]

The Fox 35 I scored on Ebay looks like it will be usable.  I have it all apart and the burp plug fabricated.  I am waiting for parts from RSM to reassemble it.  In the mean time I took apart another old Fox 35.  It will never be a runner but I was looking at it for parts.  Now for the question.  The crank from the Ebay engine has a grove around the counterweight. The crank from the parts engine does not have this grove.  What is this all about and which crank would be the best runner?  Both cranks are in good shape.  By the way the Ebay engine has a C clip piston.  The parts engine piston has brass slider pads.

Next question.  I have another old Fox 35 I thought might be another good parts engine however it has a 4 bolt back plate and has been rigged to run on crank case pressure.  It also looks to have a larger then normal venture opening. What is this thing?  Is it special?

[Frank Imbriaco]

The four bolt , without seeing it, is likely an early combat engine.  Manufactured  beginning 1957 with several variations ; plain finish head, black head, red head and some say " Rocket" on the case. Some of  the early ones also had a hole in the crankcase to remove the wrist pin.It is more powerful and there are internal differences from a Fox 35 stunt(3 bolt backplate) and they weren't created to 2-4(although someone will no doubt say they can ). They also share the same mount.

[Motorman]

Wash the oil off the case and cranks. Clamp the case lightly in a vise and put both cranks in and mount a wood prop. Take the prop by the tips and wiggle it back and forth to see which shaft is tighter. If there's nothing to choose keep the original crank in it.


MM

[John Rist]

The four bolt , without seeing it, is likely an early combat engine.  Manufactured  beginning 1957 with several variations ; plain finish head, black head, red head and some say " Rocket" on the case. Some of  the early ones also had a hole in the crankcase to remove the wrist pin.It is more powerful and there are internal differences from a Fox 35 stunt(3 bolt backplate) and they weren't created to 2-4(although someone will no doubt say they can ). They also share the same mount.

Some pictures of the 4 bolt Fox 35

[john e. holliday]

Early combat special.   Later ones had square intake.

[Bill Adair]

John,

I think that is just a remote needle setup on the early combat special. Noticed the spraybar is a nozzle type projecting only half way into the venturi.

Bill

[John Rist]

John,

I think that is just a remote needle setup on the early combat special. Noticed the spraybar is a nozzle type projecting only half way into the venturi.

Bill

Yes the remote needle valve is mounted on an aluminum plate mounted on the top two back plate bolts.  The back plate has a pressure tap.

[John Rist]

Wash the oil off the case and cranks. Clamp the case lightly in a vise and put both cranks in and mount a wood prop. Take the prop by the tips and wiggle it back and forth to see which shaft is tighter. If there's nothing to choose keep the original crank in it.


MM

I did the above.  Their is no difference so I will keep the original.

[frank mccune]

           Hi:

        I think that you may have a 1957 Fox Combat Special.  I have a 1958 CS and it is a very nice engine!  Run it in a wet 2 cycle and enjoy it for what it is.

                                                                                                                                                   Good luck,

                                                                                                                                                   Frank McCune

[bob whitney]

  the remote needle assbly is from the Bathtub Venturi  29 R

[Andrew Hathaway]

Edit:  It's come to my attention that I don't know enough about the subject to possibly have a valid opinion.  Please disregard this post.

[C.T. Schaefer]

I cant vouch for the 57 and 58 CS motors except that I have one of each and the 58 screams! It pulls my Half-Fast at 100+ with a (9x6). It is original and standard in every way. The 57 is also standard and looks good on the bench. All I gotta do is build an appropriate plane for it. Maybe this winter?  TS

[Frank Imbriaco]

 
As Fox combat engines go, the 57 and 58 are fairly poor.  Fox phased them out quickly.  I've got a few of them, and I've yet to find a good one.

[/quote]
Andrew: Don't know the source of your info, but these are very good running engines for their size and displacement. I  recall that in the late 60's, Bill "Butcher" Staubach, who arguably was at or near the top of the fast combat heap on the NY/NJ/Pa/east coast during the  mid 60s through the  70s -bolted a 57  Fox 35 Combat on a profile carrier with a custom   exhaust throttle and did extremely well .

Duke Fox didn't phase them out, as you say. It was an evolutionary thing- the engines were pretty much the same from 57-60/61. That's called product development. Things were moving at a good pace back then. Duke went on to other combat engine designs in order to stay at or near the top.
FWIW, Larry Scarinzi also used them back in the day and his opinion isn't the same as yours. These are real world experiences, what are yours??

[Gerald Arana]

Wash the oil off the case and cranks. Clamp the case lightly in a vise and put both cranks in and mount a wood prop. Take the prop by the tips and wiggle it back and forth to see which shaft is tighter. If there's nothing to choose keep the original crank in it.


MM

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER put an engine in a vice PERIOD!   You are just asking to squash the CC.   Don't ask me how I know

Instead, mount the engine in an engine stand (Like you are going to run it) and then check for a crank fit.

Good luck, Jerry

[RandySmith]

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER put an engine in a vice PERIOD!   You are just asking to squash the CC.   Don't ask me how I know

Instead, mount the engine in an engine stand (Like you are going to run it) and then check for a crank fit.

Good luck, Jerry

I have 5 brand new  ST G21-40s bent cases  from a guy  doing exactly that, holding them lightly in a vise .....a  NO NO

Randy

[Andrew Hathaway]

These are real world experiences, what are yours??

Seriously?    This is exactly why I avoid participating on this forum.  If you have a different opinion of the topic, by all means share it, but this nonsensical questioning of a complete stranger's "real world experiences" as a way of discounting their opinion is exactly the kind of thing that drives people away from the hobby. 

Nevermind.  I'll just keep my experiences to myself and leave you folks to your indisputable 60 year old anecdotal facts.

[Frank Imbriaco]

 Andrew:

My reply wasn't  personal; with the intent of  making you fold your tent and leave... but you made a really strong comment about the quality of an engine  and it left me ( and probably others) a bit baffled.
What I meant is what competitions, if any, did  you use these in and then ascertain  that the Fox 35 combat series from 1957- to 1960/61 were of poor quality ?
OK, so they had bushed mains and didn't put out the brake horsepower and RPMs of later day Foxes, but within the context of the era- they were a nice option for the guy who couldn't afford , say, a Johnson

  IMO,there is a lot to be learned from the veterans on this forum who fought the combat wars with these engines back in the day.

I don't know the condition of the ones you've purchased,  may have been n.i.b. ,but many guys used them  back then and some of us still  use them now  in vintage combat ships ( someday come   witness the VINTAGE COMBAT FESTIVAL AT GSCB on the East coast)and they're pretty darn good runners. Sure, the later variations beginning with the Fox Combat Specials from 62-64, 35 and 36x needle bearing series , 36xBB , etc.. etc. are all better by comparison, but they were all part of Duke's evolution of his idea of what a combat engine should be.

 Quote :"Anecdotal facts "
 Based on your age, I'd say that is what you've presented.

[Andrew Hathaway]

I wouldn't classify my comment as being all that strong.  "As Fox combat engines go, the 57 and 58 are fairly poor."  Meaning that compared to the rest of the combat engines Fox built, they are "fairly" poor.  I even used the word fairly, specifically to weaken the statement. 

I didn't expound on why I consider them to be relatively poor engines, because I didn't really feel it was relevant to the discussion.  I mentioned that I have "a few", which actually translates to about half a dozen if you lump the CS's and Rockets together, and that I've yet to find a good one.  Freely implying that the age, wear, etc contributed to my opinion.

Honestly, I spend too much time carefully choosing my words, and re-reading my messages before clicking the post button.  Knowing that someone will undoubtedly skim over my post and promptly misconstrue my message.  It's exasperating knowing that any time I click that post button, my contribution will either be completely ignored, or someone will question my age or experience because they maybe disagree with me. 

[Garf]

Wash the oil off the case and cranks. Clamp the case lightly in a vise and put both cranks in and mount a wood prop. Take the prop by the tips and wiggle it back and forth to see which shaft is tighter. If there's nothing to choose keep the original crank in it.
MM

Never under any circumstances place a case in a vice for any purpose. It is so easy to distort the case, especially a Fox. There seem to be too many self styled engine experts out there.

[john e. holliday]

I was there during that period of time when Fox came out with the engine for combat.  Club member had the first Black Head 35.   We didn't know about crank case pressure yet.   His was the fastest and most reliable of the engines at the time.  57 I was a teenager with the Flying Eagles.   In 62 when I moved back to KC I had my first crank case pressure engine.   K&B 40.   Learned the hard way don't fly combat with it.  I then got the first Combat Special that Charley's Hobby got in.  Immediataly took it home and fired it up.   As soon as it started I shut it down.  Boy was that thing loud.   

I think I can safely say Andrew was not thought of in the 50's.  His experience is from purchases made long after those engines were produced.  Yes those engines needed care when using.   You ever seen a Black Head Combat Special after a lean run on 50% nitro.  Seems they grabbed the wrong can of fuel.  Even with that I don't know how many hours were put on that engine.

Now Andrew I wait for your E-Mail or PM as I don't think I said any thing to hurt you.     

[EddyR]

I remember a guy that had a black head when they first came out. He had it on a "NoBody",Don Still flying wing. The NoBody had a very thick wing and needed power to fly it. It was the fastest combat model around for a while.
Ed

[Dennis Leonhardi]

I had a 1959 29X and loved it - definitely one of my favorite engines!  And, mounted on a Voodoo, it carried me to 4th in Open Combat at the ’63 Nats, flying against the Johnsons and Veco Combat Specials of the day, among others.  (And I started and finished with one airplane.)

As has been stated, the 29 used the same case as the 35, but the number “35” was milled off and “29” was embossed in that location - although difficult to see.

So my favorite story with that engine:  I had a rather heavy Combat Cat with a metal tank and several repairs (after wind flying, just plain goofing off, etc.) and decided to use it in a 1964 contest at Sioux Falls, South Dakota.  I was matched against a pretty good flyer running a SuperTigre .35 in the first round ... I quickly got into that perfect “above and behind” position with him very low ... when he realized I was gaining ground very quickly, he decided to “pancake” and restart, but damaged his airplane beyond repair.

As soon as my engine quit, he walked over to see what I was running; not seeing any number on the crankcase he asked, and I told him.

His response was “Like hell that’s a 29!  It’s gotta be at least a 40!”  Laughed my butt off ...

At that time, the SuperTigre .29 was setting new Class B Speed records every couple of months it seemed, yet the 29X completely dominated Proto Speed (14 laps timed from the launch) for several years.  Reason: tremendous torque, even at relatively low speeds.

I could well be wrong, but thought that 29X would pull a Voodoo or something similar through relatively tight loops all day long with losing a blip of speed.

Dennis

[Dennis Leonhardi]

I remember a guy that had a black head when they first came out. He had it on a "NoBody",Don Still flying wing. The NoBody had a very thick wing and needed power to fly it. It was the fastest combat model around for a while.
Ed

This is my take on Don Still’s NObody ... first edition (1959) with an OS Max .35 combat engine, 4 oz. metal tank, weighed 18 ounces.  At nearly 500 square inches and, as Ed says, a thick airfoil, it was surprisingly fast!

Trophy in the (very old & poor) photo is from the 1959 MN State Championships.  In the first round, my opponent’s launcher stepped on his streamer, so the match was stopped.  When my engine quit, the judges hollered out they would give me 10 minutes for my engine to cool off and then we’d restart.

So I decided to have some fun and wind flew for the 10 minutes.  When you got that thing going and then pulled a sharp turn so the wind hit that 500 squares at a 90 degree angle, it was almost like it was shot out of a cannon!

My opponent didn’t even start his engine for the rematch.

Second version (maybe 5-6 years later) also came in at 18 ounces, but was built like a tank.  I used 1/8” vertical spars at the high point of the airfoil (which I located at about 40% of the chord) and also near the trailing edge, along with a carved leading edge.  The leading edge, ribs and spars were all hollowed out at points, and of course the engine was mounted on its side.

It was another terrific airplane, even better for wind flying because of the engine mounting, and the structure was much, much stronger and warp resistant.

Don’s original used ribs placed at angles behind the high point, which probably made it much stronger and more warp resistant than my first attempt.

Thanks for stirring that memory, Ed!

 
Dennis

PS: I have full size plans + the construction article for Still’s NObody.  If anyone wants to build one, let me know.

[Andre Ming]

Dennis said:

...it carried me to 4th in Open Combat at the ’63 Nats...[/;quote]

Which means (to my understanding) that my old friend Bill James eliminated you, as he went on to claim 3rd place in '63.  Do you recall anything about your match with Bill James?  Bill had been retired from competition combat flying for quite some time by the time I met him. I never saw him fly in a combat match.  Would love to read of your experiences.

Thanks for considering it.

[Dennis Leonhardi]

Which means (to my understanding) that my old friend Bill James eliminated you, as he went on to claim 3rd place in '63.  Do you recall anything about your match with Bill James?  Bill had been retired from competition combat flying for quite some time by the time I met him. I never saw him fly in a combat match.  Would love to read of your experiences.

Thanks for considering it.

Yes Andre, we've actually corresponded regarding this in the past.  I'm working on a post here, "The '63 Nats, Combat and Monoline Pete" where I'll say a bit more.  For now, let's just say Bill has to be the most gregarious combat flyer I've met, he could talk your arm off and was all smiles.  But bear in mind he was absolutely elated - Fox hadn't powered anyone in the top 5 in any age group for a few years as I recall, and he and I were finishing 3rd and 4th.

If you read the larger post I'm in the process of writing, you'll understand I was on a really full schedule.  Had that not been the case, I'm sure we would have spent a lot more time with him.

Summary: a really likable guy!

All the best,
Dennis

PS: I've met very, very few combat flyers over the years that I didn't really enjoy.  I weaned my competitive instincts wrestling, and one-on-one competition is really my cup of tea.  If you think about, wrestling and combat are very, very similar: a pre-determined time limit, an objective point system, and a pin/kill wins it all regardless of the score at that point.  I think most of us who had a passion for combat shared those preferences.