Notices
Glow Engines Discuss RC glow engines

bad engines

Old 01-21-2013, 02:00 PM
  #51  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,301
Received 79 Likes on 62 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

ORIGINAL: rcguy59 There's a saying at our field: ''Cox and Fox, leave 'em in the box.'' Good advice.
It is good advice, if one is not willing to adhere to a few basic rules of care, for the legacy iron/steel cylinder/piston combination, Cox for the piston socket and aluminum crankcase forming the plain bearing journal for the steel crankshaft, which includes Castor oil in the oil mix, oil in a slightly greater quantity than your standard RC mix, proper break in procedures, etc. The newer Schneurle ported ABC/ABN engines are of course easier to break in.

But as in the case of all, few engines can withstand lean conditions and conditions that lead to overheating, Schneurles included.

If anyone has problems with either Cox or Fox, I'd be willing to take the problem engine off their hands.
Old 01-21-2013, 02:39 PM
  #52  
MJD
My Feedback: (1)
 
MJD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orangeville, ON, CANADA
Posts: 8,658
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: bad engines


ORIGINAL: GallopingGhostler
If anyone has problems with either Cox or Fox, I'd be willing to take the problem engine off their hands.
Darn, and I just printed up 500 business cards that read "Mike's Cox Disposal - send 'em here!"

No argument, they have their limitations - e.g. the number of successful throttled Cox engines is rather limited, and then there is the issue of muffling. But that does not make them bad, only limited in their application. Learn how to handle them, keep them clean, ignore helpful advice to use big props and low nitro fuel (unless you fly 1/2A Texaco), and they do what they are supposed to.

Not that this applies much today, since Cox purchases are pretty much relegated to a small niche versus the mainstream, scads of anodized Cox .049's with unusual names notwithstanding.

Old 01-21-2013, 05:59 PM
  #53  
black dog
My Feedback: (13)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: baton rouge 70811, LA
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

the new os they will run but when you copy off thundertiger like the 46 and rename the plston.now they are made in china that should say it all junk.an i have fox engines that are 25 years old that have more power than os ,and i have os thats why i know..
Old 01-21-2013, 10:01 PM
  #54  
50+AirYears
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Irmo, SC OH
Posts: 1,647
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

I've had quite a few engines, good and bad, since I bought my first one around 1950. There have been few I'd call bad, and that was usually one example so I tried to avoid bad-mouthing the whole brand. I currently have something like 172 engines, most of which have been in planes. Currently made engines, Fox, K&B (Meccoa, I think now) OS, Super Tigre, Enya, Saito, Thunder Tiger, ASP, and Magnum. I also have, or had, many older makes, such as Cox, Cub, HB, Johnson, Veco, Webra, Wen-Mac, Arden, McCoy, Testor's, and maybe a couple others I can't remember right now.
As far as engines I was disatisfied with, Wen-Mac, Testors, McCoy And yet I read about folks competing in Nostalgia 1/2A Free Flight with Wen-Mac and McCoy .049s. I have been quite happy with my Cox and Cub engines, but never impressed with the Cox Pee Wee .020 or Sportsman .15. I got lots of flying with OK Cub, but they were loud, and the .14 and .19s were heck on the fingers for starting. Maybe I just never got them broken in. The OS engines I had were easy starting and adjusting, but never impressed me with power, at least the older ones I had. My one Enya .35 was a disappointment. Easy to start, ran reliably, but on the one RC plane I had it in, I had better flying with a Max .30, not a powerhouse. I had bad luck with 3 different McCoy engines, but I've been flying one in an old Veco Smoothie CL plane for over 15 years. I've had the best service out of my Foxes from .049 through .60. Since I bought my first Fox in 1957, I've only worn 2 out, and that was with at least 3000 flights each. And I've clobbered a couple onto shrappnel crashing into things like conrete or blacktop.
Most of the engines I've had were good to great, and even when I didn't like the results I got out of an engine, there were other people who swore by the same one. Like I'll probably never buy another Enya, but there are a couple flyers in my club won't fly anything else. (Actually, at my age, I probably won't even buy another Fox, either.)
Old 01-21-2013, 11:17 PM
  #55  
fgdsfg
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: CulverSouth Carolina
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

as abeginner,this seems useful for me.thanks for your suggestion.
Old 01-22-2013, 05:49 AM
  #56  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,301
Received 79 Likes on 62 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

ORIGINAL: MJD No argument, they have their limitations - e.g. the number of successful throttled Cox engines is rather limited, and then there is the issue of muffling. But that does not make them bad, only limited in their application. Learn how to handle them, keep them clean, ignore helpful advice to use big props and low nitro fuel (unless you fly 1/2A Texaco), and they do what they are supposed to.
Unmuffled, the exhaust throttle works satisfactorily. I haven't tried Cox International's choke tube throttle yet. A decent engine from the late 1970's was the .049 R/C Bee. It supposedly had a clunk tank of larger fuel capacity, but the soft flexible fuel line went bad in short order. I replaced it with a silicon fuel line, but it was too stiff to work. It had an odd coil to it supposedly to work. However I used it on a rudder only plane with auxiliary throttle that didn't do extended inverted flight. It used a silicon muffler cover on the throttle ring, that did a decent job of muffling without losing too many RPM. The engine used the then new die cast crankcase. The engine only lasted a short time until they discontinued it with the supposedly improved Dragonfly engine. This engine went back to the traditional screw manufactured one, increased the tank capacity, replaced the exhaust throttle muffler with an all metal one.

You now notice that those who bought Estes Industries' Cox engine parts inventory are selling engines using the die cast crankcase. Cox must have had a great quantity of left over stock of these crankcases as now they are being sold as the cheapest SureStart engines.

I never had problems with the R/C Bee. It was easy starting, ran faithfully, with over 100 flights I wore out the cylinder/piston, which I replaced restoring the compression and power. Although the silicon muffler cover has burn marks inside, amazingly it is still intact and works.

The only Cox engine that was problematic was the .074 Queen Bee. I could never get it to run reliably. Lately, someone mentioned that it is sensitive to glow plugs, to change out the OEM one. I figured that Cox knew what they were doing, so I never suspected the glow plug. It was one of their last engines, prior to sale of the Cox division to Estes. The engine is heavy, has I've been told the same power as the Tee Dee .049 engine. I don't understand why they couldn't have made the engine with a larger screw machined crankcase, exhaust throttle muffler, SureStart styled venturi. Then it would have been lighter in weight and probably a good seller.

Estes had a problem with quality control I've heard. Those who bought engines from them found a mishmash of parts from the Cox inventory. Level of expected power was unpredictable. I bought 2 of their SureStart engines at $6.99 each when they were liquidating them 5 or 6 years ago. Those I haven't run yet.

Not that this applies much today, since Cox purchases are pretty much relegated to a small niche versus the mainstream, scads of anodized Cox .049's with unusual names notwithstanding.
Electric flight now dominates the small planes, which was previously dominated by Cox engines of all sizes. I haven't bought any new engines as I have over a dozen Cox .049 engines and a few .020 engines of various types. My next purchase will probably be an electric flight system.
Old 01-22-2013, 09:29 AM
  #57  
MJD
My Feedback: (1)
 
MJD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orangeville, ON, CANADA
Posts: 8,658
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

Yup the Queen Bee was essentially an .049 in terms of output. I had trouble with the I fooled with, but as I recall did not try alternative plugs. This was circa 1992. Never had the RC Bee. Pee Wees could be finicky but run the Cox 020 prop and 25% and they didn't give much grief.
Old 01-22-2013, 09:42 AM
  #58  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,301
Received 79 Likes on 62 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

I had success with the Pee Wee .020's, but the ones I bought were the 1970's versions. Perhaps the later ones did not perform as good. With the standard Cox 4.5x2 prop, fuel lasted around 1.5 minutes. If I used a 5-1/4x3 Top Flite nylon prop, fuel would last a minute longer. RC planes, Schoolboy and Roaring 20 would fly at about the same speed with either prop. I had many successful flights with the Pee Wee. I used 25% fuel most of the time, seemed to do well.
Old 01-22-2013, 10:20 AM
  #59  
GLGofLB
My Feedback: (12)
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

Stay away from MECOA  =  PU [:@]
Old 01-22-2013, 11:17 AM
  #60  
NM2K
Senior Member
My Feedback: (14)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ringgold, GA
Posts: 11,488
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

ORIGINAL: GLGofLB

Stay away from MECOA = PU


You will not find better running engines made by anyone else. I have owned half a dozen or more MECOA engines over the last fifteen years. All have exceeded my expectations, including the HP .49VT four-stroke. Follow the instructions and you will have an excellent running engine. This includes those made from imported castings.


Ed Cregger
Old 01-22-2013, 11:48 AM
  #61  
earlwb
 
earlwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Grapevine, TX
Posts: 5,993
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

It sort of winds up being that "One man's junk is another man's treasure."

I think those Spanish "slag" engines that were made years ago were probably the only "bad engines" that I know of for sure.
Even the GHQ and Deezil engines had people who were using them, and having little to no problems with them, even though everyone else couldn't.

I had used a couple of Enya .35 RC engines on a twin engine plane many years ago, they worked Ok too.  As a kid I had pretty good luck with McCoy .29 and .35 engines too. I can't say anymore as to how many Cox engines I had used over the years either. I even had good luck with a Cox Dragonfly engine too.
Old 01-22-2013, 01:37 PM
  #62  
jessiej
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: no city, AL
Posts: 2,613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

Since this thread has largely drifted into a retrospective on Cox, I find it interesting to note that for a very long period of time Cox dominated the opposite ends of the 1/2A market. The beginner/entry level was covered by the RTF C/L models and the expert eventsof C/L speed and high-performance were ruled by the Thermal hopper and then the Tee Dee. The Holland Hornet provided a bit of competition, but not for long.

I suppose that tday the only areas of competition flying for cox are .020 replica and 1/2A Nostalgia free flight and 1/2A Texaco.

jess
Old 01-22-2013, 01:51 PM
  #63  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: bad engines

The Tee Dee also has the output of a .049 also. Probably because it is an .049 as well as the Queen Bee. Please explain!?
Old 01-22-2013, 01:55 PM
  #64  
MJD
My Feedback: (1)
 
MJD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orangeville, ON, CANADA
Posts: 8,658
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

I had no problems with a McCoy .19 and .35 Red Head in my teens on ukies. But.. I think it is safe to say I did not accumulate enough run time on them to completely wear them out in one or two dozen short flights, but I was probably getting close to using up their entire life span.

My first RC engine was a Como .40, essentially an ST .40 with a Perry carb I guess, bought it when I was 15 I think. I had lots of trouble with it, but not the engine's fault - I understood later it was because I rushed into the air without some bench running and break in. Give it to someone else, and they might say it was junk because it kept quitting in the air.

I wouldn't touch a GMS engine with someone else's 10 foot pole after helping a couple of people who had trouble with the carbs on theirs. Great runners when the carbs work.. like so many other engines. And to this day some people claim the carb troubles were baloney.. which is real easy to say when the one or two you bought were fine. Try saying that when you're the guy who paid for the clunker. I'll bet there are a bunch of them flying now that are working because the owner runs them in the lower end of the rpm range and they can needle rich enough on the top end because of the lower fuel flow demand. And a whole bunch that have no inherent defect at all, as well.

All I learned from this is, just because someone bought one of anything and it works, doesn't mean squat. Look at the big picture.
Old 01-22-2013, 01:59 PM
  #65  
MJD
My Feedback: (1)
 
MJD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orangeville, ON, CANADA
Posts: 8,658
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

The Tee Dee also has the output of a .049 also. Probably because it is an .049 as well as the Queen Bee. Please explain!?
Sure, but first can you explain how an .074 has the same displacement as an .049?
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Fd93339.jpg
Views:	62
Size:	9.3 KB
ID:	1843272  
Old 01-22-2013, 02:00 PM
  #66  
aspeed
 
aspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ruthven, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,460
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

I think anything designed and made in the last 15 years, in any country is ok with one flaw in each example. (peeling liners, leaky needle valves) I have had a CS .049 that couldn't even turn over, (lapped it and it is great, two MDS Uktam .15 motors that leak a LOT out of the front bearing, and one out of the headgasket, one other Ucktam runs up a storm, The castings have sand in them, so the threads aren't chased well, so the screws bind, I retapped them and ruined the tap from the sand. Two OK cub .049's out of 6 that won't even run, Old Enya .19 that runs and idles great but quits at full throttle, old TT .25 did the same thing.Worn out Enya .09 before broken in, Thunder Tiger .07 with way too much slop in the crank to crankcase fit (runs ok though in spite of that, I soldered up the bearing anyway.) My smaller newerThunder Tigers .10 to .15's run good but are a bit low on power, a .28 TT would heat up and never run right until I freed up the crankcase to crank, and the bottom half of the piston. Runs great now.My TT .40's are fine. Supertiger X .15 the rod cracked on the first run. All of my other Supertigers are great though, seven or eight of them. Then there are the Cox motors. The reedies go ok til the crankcase wears and then rich, lean rich lean. Hate them. Cox TD .049 and .051, and .09 are great, but outdated (no good mufflers or throttles) Webra .40 Silverline runs great (for a loop scavenged motor) no compression and when the fuel line is pinched it take 20 seconds to stop because there is no compression. You can't even tell where TDC is. Starts up with a starter and will likely last longer than me. Fora .15 Russian F2D motor- wonderful scary fast. LA .10 , .15, and .25 motors are great and fairly powerful, LA .40 is good for a plain bearing motor, .46 os AX isexcellent so far. All my newer stuff is great, even the Chinese stuff. (AP .09, .15, ASP/Magnum .15) MVVS .21 seems strong so far, MVVS .15 kind of slow, Taipan .15, strong runner, Fox .15 BB, strong runner, Fox .35 limping runner, good for a 1950's design. What is the moral? Just sayin.
Old 01-22-2013, 02:11 PM
  #67  
GLGofLB
My Feedback: (12)
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

Yes I have found better running engines made by someone else, OS-Max, DA, YS, BME, Satio, Veco, Irvine, Cox, even Magnum. Oh my god you are not looking hard enough. I have been to the factory and seen the problem. CHEAPCHEAPCHEAP, the 2 strokers dont come up to rpm, why? I dont know, but I have owned and run at least 6 different brands of alcohol engines and MECOA has it place, it just happens to always be at the bottom.I contacted the owner personally andI got no satisfaction, there you go.I am happy for you that your experience has been so positive, however earlier in this thread I noticed that someone else felt that MECOA dont cut it.

Gary Glasband of Long Beach CA
nothing to hide

ORIGINAL: NM2K

ORIGINAL: GLGofLB

Stay away from MECOA = PU


You will not find better running engines made by anyone else. I have owned half a dozen or more MECOA engines over the last fifteen years. All have exceeded my expectations, including the HP .49VT four-stroke. Follow the instructions and you will have an excellent running engine. This includes those made from imported castings.


Ed Cregger
Old 01-22-2013, 02:14 PM
  #68  
aspeed
 
aspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ruthven, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,460
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

You snuck in when I was typing. Yes the Queen Bee is an .074. Mine seems good without the muffler as compared to a TD .049 without the muffler. It didn't work in the swap meet plane I bought with it, but seems good on thetest stand(for a reedy) I think the original poster didn't know whatwould happenwith this thread. Oh yes, My Cox Conquest and Rossi's are wonderful.
Old 01-22-2013, 02:41 PM
  #69  
MJD
My Feedback: (1)
 
MJD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orangeville, ON, CANADA
Posts: 8,658
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

I think the diversity in this thread indicates the difficulty of answering the question simply. I'm sure the OP learned something, but maybe not exactly what he was aiming for.

With the plethora of decent engines for a decent price from known manufacturers, I often wonder what people are searching for with obscure purchases when all they need is a decent sport engine.

As to Conquests.. they are indeed wonderful. I paid a buck or two to have a pair of them reworked with ABC p/l sets but it was worth it to me. And so far, anything I have touched from OPS has been a jewel. Every OS engine I have bought has worked perfectly and still does. The two Enyas I've owned were very well made and behaved perfectly. Handled two (.53, .80) Enya 4c and they were very easy to get along with. Love my one and only 4c, a Saito .72, it was a piece of cake from the start. MVVS .49 - stump puller with amazing throttle response. West .50V1 aka purple-headed Webra - broke the con rod first run, was very quickly serviced and returned, runs like a bear.

Then there is Jett.. top drawer stuff. You pays your money, you gets what you paid for. And they come with real instructions..

Old 01-22-2013, 06:49 PM
  #70  
jessiej
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: no city, AL
Posts: 2,613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: bad engines


ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

The Tee Dee also has the output of a .049 also. Probably because it is an .049 as well as the Queen Bee. Please explain!?
The 1/2A Texaco rules specify a Cox .049 reed valve engine as well as the maximum fuel capacity. At one time cox made an engine especially for Texaco. It had a 5 fin head as I recall, as well as a smaller Venturi opening to reduce fuel consumption

I think 1/2 A nostalgia specifies allowable engines. The Medallion is allowed while theTee Dee is not.

I am not sure, but I think the Texaco rules are set by Sam and the nostalgia rules by NFFS.

Jessj
Old 01-22-2013, 08:18 PM
  #71  
GallopingGhostler
 
GallopingGhostler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clovis, NM
Posts: 2,301
Received 79 Likes on 62 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

ORIGINAL: jessiej The 1/2A Texaco rules specify a Cox .049 reed valve engine as well as the maximum fuel capacity. At one time cox made an engine especially for Texaco. It had a 5 fin head as I recall, as well as a smaller Venturi opening to reduce fuel consumption. I think 1/2 A nostalgia specifies allowable engines. The Medallion is allowed while theTee Dee is not. I am not sure, but I think the Texaco rules are set by Sam and the nostalgia rules by NFFS.
I really liked stick building, did a lot as a child, especially the Comets, some Goldberg and a few Guillow, Sterling, etc. Only problem here in Clovis NM is the winds. However, I haven't given up, especially with an odd ball engine, the Fuji .099S-II ABC RC baffle piston engine. It has low compression of 5.5:1, took a while to get in broke in, initially a little fussy on props. A little on the heavy side for a Q-Tee, but would work fine IMO in something like 55" (1400 mm) span Miss Stik Senior.

Review at: [link]http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=346048[/link]

Old 01-22-2013, 09:10 PM
  #72  
John Wells
My Feedback: (10)
 
John Wells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Louisburg KS
Posts: 860
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

I've had just about every engine over the years. Aviastar and Fox R/C engines were a mess and so was their customer service. Fox control line engines work pretty well.
Old 01-22-2013, 10:00 PM
  #73  
50+AirYears
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Irmo, SC OH
Posts: 1,647
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Default RE: bad engines

I've never had problems with Fox Customer Service. In fact, a few years ago, I had a cranck snap on an old Baffle .25 RC. Gave them a call, and had a new crank in about 5 days. Then, about 6 weeks later, had the same thing happen with my other .25 baffle engine. Gave them a call, explained what happened. Again, about 5 days later, had a new crank. But this time, no charge showed up on my credit card.
90% of my 1/2A flying is done with Cox. 90% of everything else is done with Fox.
Old 01-22-2013, 10:19 PM
  #74  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: bad engines


ORIGINAL: black dog

the new os they will run but when you copy off thundertiger like the 46 and rename the plston.now they are made in china that should say it all junk.an i have fox engines that are 25 years old that have more power than os ,and i have os thats why i know..

Not sure which you are refering to, but neither TT nor OS are made in China. TT 46 is not a knock off. It is designed by the former OS designer and is basically the next generation of the OS SF. The FX was in a different direction and was made to have good power with a restrictive muffler.
Old 01-22-2013, 10:21 PM
  #75  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: bad engines


ORIGINAL: MJD

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

The Tee Dee also has the output of a .049 also. Probably because it is an .049 as well as the Queen Bee. Please explain!?
Sure, but first can you explain how an .074 has the same displacement as an .049?
They made a .049 Queen Bee as well.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.