1QwkSport2.5r

I got them in a box of parts another member sent me. He told me to trade them for something I can actually use to get flying. I have no use for anything that big and probably won't ever.

hsukaria

These might do the trick: http://www.hobbypartz.com/33p-solarservo-d771.html

I bought and use the D772 version in one of my gassers, which is higher torque but slower rate. They are noisy though.

Cougar429

My Feedback: (3)

If you want to stay domestic, I remember the Aerostar. Fords first attempt at designing a vehicle with CAD and IMO, an absolute disaster. That one was at the top of my #$% list to work on. Simply setting it up on the hoist was nearly impossible, especially with running boards. The short bodied were also damned difficult to control in snow. I lived and worked in the north and grew pretty comfortable driving in that environment. Would hate to see someone unfamiliar with those conditions try to handle that one.

hsukaria, that Mazda shared the obnoxious habit of getting an air lock in the heater, but was not unique in where they mounted the alternator. GM stuffed it just behind the driveshaft on a few of their FWD's and required a duct running below the trans and engine to keep it cool. Failed often and made me wonder why they did not swap locations with the much more reliable and accessible PS pump.

I grabbed 8 of these servos at a swap meet. They all had the leads chopped off by the previous owner attempting to build a home brew CNC cutter. I was able to get 6 of them up and running by fabbing up leads and plugs, but not really useful for me:

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/s...0kg_20sec.html

Share Futaba splines so could use that hardware for other apps.

hsukaria

You can use them as anchors for your airboats.

1QwkSport2.5r

Hsukaria - here's that video I mentioned earlier. http://youtu.be/rs_c9DJww0w

hsukaria

nice!!

Sport_Pilot

Engineers are not so stupid. Blame the businessmen. Many of these things are failure by design. Like when it breaks right after the warranty is up.

Sport_Pilot

Having worked with this type of thing before I can tell you that easy maintenance is not part of design. But lowering the assembly time is part of the design. Sometimes it is easier to remove in exact reverse of assembly. For example many people will pull an engine from above because that is what they are used to. But it is often easier to unbolt the K member from the body and pull the engine out from below.

fujiman

My Feedback: (133)

i'm with ya on all that!!!!!!!! most of the parts today are labeled made in china, mexaco, canada. everything is out sourced to other countries. when i was wrenching' of VW back in the 60's and 70's life was so simple!!!!!!!! and they were simple. M. Haggert sang a song and in it he sang "wish they could make a ford and a chevy last 10 years like they should". it's sad to say the US auto makers have the ability to did that but are too greedy to do it. many times even putting peoples lives in danger. most recently the ign. debacle!!!!!!!! shame on them!!!!!!!!!!
i just bought my van to hall around my large models. thot about a trailer also but i would have to store it, no room in yard as we live in a neighborhood and the houses are too close together and the yards are small. i got this chevy van just in time to fix EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!! and it has only 95,000 miles on it. sorry state of affairs!!!!!!!!

hsukaria

All this auto gloom and doom is making our hobby stuff look real good. Fox engines don't seem problematic compared to autos.

fujiman

My Feedback: (133)

just not as serious!!!!!!!! fox maybe be gone so let's move on. i'm just glad i have some hawks!!!!!!!!!

earlwb

Yeah I am really partial to the Fox Hawk .60 engines too. I have four of them at present. I used to have a couple more, but I had sold them years ago unfortunately. I still have the very first Fox Hawk. 60 that I bought at a local hobby shop way back in 1976 or 77 too. I have run the heck out of it, and it outlasted two air boats and four airplanes. I had rebuilt it a few years ago and put in new bearings and a new ring. It still runs good too. I need to put it back on something again soon. But the Fox Eagle series engines are quite good too. I used both the Hawk engines and Eagle II and III engines for pattern plane flying years ago.

Sport_Pilot

Does anyone here have a dealers license? Just wondering if someone put in an order for say 100 engines if they would fill that order. Then sell them here.

hsukaria

I got started too late for the Hawks. I bought all my engine old and used. Was the Hawk shneurle or baffled?

fujiman

My Feedback: (133)

the hawk is shneurle ported. back in the mid 80's i put a .60 hawk in a EZ Pilot arf .46 fw 190 with retracts (Hobby Shack). i used a fox tuned pipe manifold and copper 90 degree elbow, a perry carb, fox adapter off a fox eagle, 11X7 rev-up prop 10% fuel. this combo turned out to be a super one.

earlwb

The Fox Hawk .60 was one of the first .60 size engines Fox designed himself to be Schnuerle ported. It uses a finned steel cylinder that was nitrided to harden the inner part. The engine is small for a .60 size engine in comparison to other .60 or .61 engines. But it was capable of turning some really high RPMS, more like a racing engine to some extent. Fox stated in the marketing hype that it would turn 22,000 RPMs if you wanted to. But since it is a smaller sized .60 engine, one could use it to hop up the larger .45 size planes if they wanted more speed.

The new engines are quite attractive looking with the bright aluminum color crankcase, the red anodizing and the black finned cylinder. But used the red anodizing wears off over time.

It may not be a engine for someone wanting instant gratification though. It took about four gallons of fuel for one engine to get broken in good for me. The second one used about that same amount too. But they have outlasted quite a few airplanes though. Plus since many people have trouble with the Fox carburetors, for whatever reason, it might not be a good choice, if you have trouble adjusting a Fox carb.

hsukaria

I want one!!!

I know I will get laughed out of this forum, but would anybody be willing to swap a Hawk with my 74? (ok, ok, you can stop laughing now)

So, this is a ringed engine then? The carb mounting is similar to the Eagle IV? What does it weigh (without muffler)?

fujiman

My Feedback: (133)

fox offered an eagle .60 with a perry carb. and a fox adapter which i really liked, hence, i started using perrys on my other foxes. really liked the flexibility of them and sizes. one could also use a pressure pump from perry and the press. pump carb. for up to 1000 rpm performance gain. the other reason i like the perry on my foxes is because i'm lazy!!!!!!!!!!!

hsukaria

1000 rpm's are good, worth the extra cost IMO

fujiman

My Feedback: (133)

it does add cost to each eng. but what we pay for stuff in this hobby isn't cheap either!!!!!!!! i guess do what ever floats your boat!!!!!!!!! when one of my engs. run great and runs reliably i get great satisfaction. the fox hawk in that fw 190 i mentioned earlier NEVER let me down and never missed a beat!!!!!!!!! no dead stick landings unless i just ran the tank dry!!!!!!!! so for that, i'll pay a little extra. just a note here, fox carbs. and adjustments never gave me any issues just liked the ez. of the perry adjustments. just my choice.

hsukaria

So you think that extra 1000 rpms was from using the Perry pump or the tuned pipe, or a combination of both?

earlwb

The Perry Carb equipped Fox Eagle I was sold by Tower Hobbies many years ago. I think that Fox did sell a carb adapter for a short while though. It might have been leftover stock from the Tower Hobbies deal they had going for a few years. The Fox Eagle I was a new engine design but it was a baffled piston engine at that time. Fox was revamping his engine lineup then. The Eagle I was sort of a low cost entry level .60 engine for people. It was popular for large trainer planes at the time. It ran about the same as the other brand baffled .60 engines did. Granted people had trouble with the Fox carbs though. That low speed needle seemed to be irresistible to people and they had to mess with it. OS and some others hid the low speed needle on their carbs thus putting it out of sight and out of mind.

Using the Perry adapter with the carb provided was somewhat restrictive for the intake. But it gave a really good fuel draw thus making the engine less sensitive to fuel tank location. But it did affect performance though. So yes if you could get a larger bore carb to fit, you got more performance. But too big of a bore carb meant you needed a fuel pump to compensate for the weaker fuel draw.

hsukaria

ok, I get it now.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Venturi size seems to always have a sweet spot. Go too far and needling can be tricky. One of the easiest ways to gain performance today is to use one of those Jettstream mufflers. Or a mousse can if set up and sized properly. You can get 1,000 rpm or more from them. You have to prop accordingly though. Mainly going with less load, so the engine can come up on the pipe. These are 1/4 wave tuned pipes, and was one of the tricks to the Nelson engines. Even engines that suffer from a restrictive stock muffler can benefit greatly from a Macs black muffler. Being one piece is one of the huge advantages, but I know for one thing, on an O.S. FP type engine, the RPM increase was great when replacing with this muffler. These are not tuned, just a good design.

hsukaria

I have been using a Macs one-piece muffler for a few years now on my Super Tigre G51 engine. I used it mainly for lightness because the stock ST muffler is heavy. I am trying out a mousse can muffler on the Fox 45 that I just recently rebuilt with a new ring and liner. I had to switch carbs because the original MkX is damaged. I am using a bigger venturi carb, I went from the stock .312 to .330. On the bench it still has good throttle response. But not sure about in flight.