meowy84

Hello all. New to the forum but not to Cox. Have been running the reed valve Cox .049s for a few months now. My question concerns the differences between the reed-valve Cox engines and the OK Cub .049 and the Testor's .049. I know the Cox is a reedy engine of course whereas the Cub has the more common slit in the crank induction but other than that....Why do the Cox's seem to be the most popular? Is it because the OKs and Testors are no longer made? Do all 3 engines have comparable power and rpm and ease of starting? WHAT I NEED IS A QUICK CRASH COURSE SINCE I WANNA TRY AN OK CUB.

bigchap

don't know about the cub but i wouldn't trade one of my cox's for 10,000 testors!,that should tell you some of what you want to know.

Tim Wiltse-RCU

OK made a reedie Cub too! I can't remember what the model was now. Power wise the Cox will blow the others way. While at an event up in VA a OK Cub was the winner in the speed class though. It is the norm that an OK engine is making half the power that it is rated for i.e. an OK Cub .049 is about a Cox PeeWee .020 power wise. As for the Testors I have never ran one myself. I hear they start and run well just with the power of a spinning earthworm. A good Black Widow will run 17/18,000rpm and with a few tricks 20,000rpm you will never see that with a Cub or Testors.

Later,
Tim

vauxhall

Hi M84, you may be surprised to learn that the OK Cub is still being sold by the OK Engine Co., just Google that name and visit their site. I was going to buy one, but their freight costs to Australia almost doubled the price , so I didn't bother. I liked the idea of an 049 with a regular glo plug, just like the Frog 049 I used to run. Guess I'll stick with my Cox engines.

gcb

BTW, the Cox TD and Medallion series are shaft induction and are much more powerful than their reed brethren in most cases. I have a GoldenBee set aside for a Q-Tee, but I may use a Texaco engine instead.

The OK Cub .049 is an old design. It can be modified for better performance. An almost MUST is to add taper to the needle or you will go full lean to full rich in about one turn. I have a dozen or so Cubs in various sizes up to .19. I have an .049A on a Brodak Basic Trainer and it performs well. I also have an .049B in a Veco Scout. Both of those planes are CL.

Testors engines run poorly to great depending on which model. The last model they made before going belly up was a good running powerful reedie.

George

mclintock

My Feedback: (3)

For some reason, the last time I tried it was tough to get google to find ok engine comapny,
but I found it in a magazine ad...
the link that is..
[link=http://okengines.com/news.shtml]ok cub[/link]

ptulmer

My Feedback: (5)

I was thinking about becoming a dealer, but I want to try a couple of'em out first. I think the power problem is due to the "regular" glow plug. It would be difficult to get the necessary compression with that extra volume... but, the expensive one is hand fitted and comes with a spinner!

meowy84

Hey it says on the OK website (that McLintock provided) that the price for their Standard OK Cub .049A is $19.95 (+shipping which they say is $6.50 per order not per engine).

$19.95 per new engine sounds pretty good to me. What do y'all think? It's definitely cheaper than a new Cox .049.

ptulmer

My Feedback: (5)

Go for it! (hey, it's your money!) Let's face it, in this hobby you lose alot more than $26 on a bad day at the field. Let us know how it turns out.

meowy84

Sooo, anyone got any experience with these new Cubs (just so I don't have to be the first one to learn from my mistakes). I'm surprised they even sell them seeing as most here seem to run the Cox (or Norvel) and the few that do have the OK Cub engines have the way way old ones.

So the question is: who the heck is OK selling these engines to if all the hobbyists here (which I assume is an accurate cross-section of the 1/2A hobby) run Cox?

You guys said the Cox .049 reedies are more powerful than the OK .049 but other than that if one's not looking for the most power are there any huge drawbacks to the OK engines? I mean do they wear out much quicker than the reedies or are they way more finicky to start, et. etc.???

gcb

I would suggest adding taper to the needle as I mentioned above. If you don't, you have about one turn from slobbering rich to full lean. They may have corrected the problem. If not, the needle is a straight shaft with a very blunt taper on the end.

They don't run backwards like the reedies.

Use 15%-25% nitro and 20%-22% castor oil lube (preferably) fuel.

Replacement plugs are less expensive than Cox. I would suggest buying some extra OK short glow plugs with the engine. They are great for small, low compression ratio engines. If you can't order directly from OK Herkimer, you can get them from Brodak Mfg. and other places.

George

Edit: Forgot to mention. Last I heard they were going to drop all models except the "A". That is the one with the red plastic tank mount. The mounting holes are the same as the "Bee" series Cox engines.

DesignMan

I pull out the Cub needle assembly and put in one from a C*x RTF backplate. Works great!

Use lots of Nitro and a hot plug and a Cub will sing. They have very low compression ratio.

Lots of other minor and major mods can be made to get it up to the power of a stock Babe Bee.

I finally acquired the rather rare Cub .049 X. This one has a two hole backplate that matches the Atwood engines. Since I have a batch of those, this will be fun to use.

Flight Risk

My Feedback: (1)

I just noticed at the bottom of the page:
"Due to the cold reception of our Super 60 deux ( which is now out on the market under another brand from overseas ) and our .06BB engines four years ago, we have concentrated efforts on our model train projects with great success. However, we have several model engines of new design in development including .049RR, .1RT, .15RT, and .2RT . Without giving anything away, we're looking at reed valve twins. "

Wow! an OK twin![X(]

BMatthews

I don't know about the new ones but I have two old 50's vintage ones and can't start either one of them.

They are mostly a nostalgia item. You're better off with the Cox engines.

propjobbill

I bought a new standard cub .049 last winter with the red tank. I haven't run it enough to get it completely broken-in. The tank is leaking on it. It was never flown or crashed it turns from about 10,000 = 12,000 rpm with an apc 5.7 x 3 prop not very impressive. Maybe you will have better luck but for my money it would be a good used Cox about $10 = $12 on ebay. If you are going to spend the $30 plus dollars for a new engine Norvel makes the mig startup which can be bought for about $36.00 and it turns 22,000 rpm.

If the glow plug burns out on most of the newer Testers you just as well throw them away unless you know of someplace to buy replacements. I have looked for new glow head with no luck.

BobHH

My Feedback: (18)

OK Guys, for your enjoyment I dug these out of my hope to use box soon. Here is a picture of the OK Cub .049 reedy, OK Cub .049B, Wen Mac .049, Testors? .049 with an exhaust throttle (Rare), and a Holland Hornet (I need a needle valve hint, hint). All have run or will run soon. Hope to put then in some of my prototypes or vintage stuff dated in the same era. As for ease of running and parts I must agree with the Cox. I am running 3 Norvels now and am impressed with their power and performance. A great little engine but you just have not experienced 1/2A flying without running a Cox or one of the above engines. Remember in the old days (I'm not that old!) if you got the engine running the radio did not work. If the radio worked the engine did not run. So if you got 1 flight in that day and did not tear anything up you were the professional flyer!!! Enjoy.

Bob Harris
Early RC Models
www.earlyrcmodels.com

BobHH

My Feedback: (18)

Here is the Holland Hornet that would not fit on the previous post.

Bob Harris
Early RC Models
www.earlyrcmodels.com

meowy84

BobHH, did you say the exhaust throttle on the .049 Testors is a rare thing? Doh! I just sold a complete metal crankcase testors with one on you know where for just over $5 plus shipping. Doh!

BobHH

My Feedback: (18)

I was told it was a bit rare. I have never seen one and this one was given to me by a ignition engine collector. I need to run it and see if it works!!

Thanks,

Bob Harris
Early RC Models
www.earlyrcmodels.com

gcb

Could be wrong but I think the third pic is a Testors and the one with the exhaust throttle is the WenMac.
I have one of the Testors and one of the WenMac (without throttle) that came in an Aeromite. I think the Testors was in a P38 which had one real and one dummy engine. It's been a while.

George

Edit: Forgot to mention, don't have a spare needle for the Holland Hornet. The HH is now owned by RJL and you might be able to get a needle from RJL or MECOA. Good luck.

burtcs

I have samples of most of the OK Cub 1/2a's, .049X, .049A, .049B, .049D (diesel) and .049R (reed valve). I have run all of them and they ok but not that great. I also have a couple WenMac/Testors .049's and they're ok but not that great. All of them except the diesels seem to turn about 16,000 with a 5-3 prop. The OK diesel and the McCoy diesels are diesels and need to be evaluated as such, 6-3 will bite your prop finger, 7-3/8-4 props are kinder and gentiler. I have two Holland Hornets that turn 5-3 props at 17,000 and 18,000 respectively.

They all work, as do Baby Bees and Black Windows et al. The early engines sometimes had propritary glow heads that are in short supply, some will interchange (ie Wen Mac to Holland Hornet) but often the performace suffers. The early engines are usually a bit heavier than a Modern Cox RV (my homebrew Killer Bees weigh about 1 1/4 ozs). The Holland Hornets are pigs. IMHO most of them are noted as dogs because guys tried flying them on 5-10% and 6-3 props and they don't like that. They rock on 5-3 props and 35-40% nitro. I was having trouble starting new Cubs until I tried 60% nitro - wow, they really like it and after about two runs they would start on 40% - excellent!

Why any interest in these old engines? In a word NFFS - the nostalga free flight guys. They have classes for these things, just normal nostalgia and early nostalgia. So if you want to fly you gotta have a Cub (probably the best choice for early nos). I run my free flight Cubs on 60% and a starter spring. They start right up and they run just fine for the 12-15 seconds I need them to run. What are you trying to do?

HTH - Steve B.

johnpipe

Hi,
I was searching the web for info on a wen-mac .049, and came across Bob Harris's pix containing the exaust-throttle model. That's what I have, though no longer complete as the one in the photo. I recognized this engine at once; this engine came from a plastic flying model of the Hiller Flying Platform, and I had one when I was about about 12 years old IIRC (so that would be around 1956). I have the engine right next to me now. The cylinder up front was the spring loaded pull-cord starter (that's missing now; my friend broke the pull cord and spring, and I was never able to get it fixed), and the exaust-throttle had a piece of black fish-line attached to control the engine, and a handle with a length of rigid aluminum tubing was used to control the model in flight ( we got it flying exactly once before breaking the starter, and never got it flying again!).

I had removed what was left of the starter long ago, and eventually removed the throttle. I still have the internal part of the throttle and its hex-nut and washer, but long since lost the throttle control lever and return spring. The platform model I had discarded back then and had kept the pilot figure, which got lost after a while. I had intended to use the engine on a Sterling Beginners Ringmaster kit, which I never did build but still have sitting here today!

gcb

Just before Testors got out of the engine business, they produced an excellent CL engine called the 8000. It was a reed valve engine with a nylon tank and a filled nylon crank case. Reports say it was the strongest running of the reedies. Had the piston, cylinder, crankshaft, glowplug, and starter from the previous model. I like them.
It also came as a "product" engine as shown without tank.

George

For your enjoyment:

Edit: Oops, the second pic should have been a group of them. I'll try again.

Tim Wiltse-RCU

George,

I always thought it was funny that the best running one was the plastic case one, alot of people say it's true!!! Go figure.

Later,
Tim

faif2d

The reason the last Testors .049 ran so well, and they are or were killers, is that Wild Bill Netzband was the main engineer. The man knows what he is doing even if he is not main stream. Bet they were cheap to make too.