Club FOX!
10-23-2016, 09:11 AM
#4828
My Feedback: (2)
I just noticed something about my Fox 74. The crankshaft has axial play - maybe 1/32 inch. My other bearing engines do not have any axial play. Is this normal for a Fox bearing engine?
I purchased the engine new about 5 years ago. It only has maybe 10 hours of run time. Otherwise the bearings feel smooth.
I purchased the engine new about 5 years ago. It only has maybe 10 hours of run time. Otherwise the bearings feel smooth.
10-23-2016, 04:59 PM
#4829
Sometimes the collet slips forward on the crankshaft and allows for some movement of the crank. I would pop the prop driver loose to allow the crank to be pulled forward and collet pushed as far back as possible, then reinstall prop driver and stick a prop on it.
10-24-2016, 03:41 AM
#4831
This would help axial play? I know what you describe would help thrust play, and maybe axial play.
10-24-2016, 05:52 AM
#4832
I mistook for axial play for endplay. My apologies. Some axial play is a given with a standard C3 fit bearing, but it should be minimal. Axial play and radial play sort of go hand in hand - too much of either means the bearing probably needs to be replaced.
10-24-2016, 07:43 AM
#4833
My Feedback: (2)
Sorry, I was not clear. By axial play I mean in the direction of the centerline of the prop shaft - in the direction of thrust. I can pull on the prop nut and feel some play. Bushed engines typically have axial play, but in my experience, engines with bearings do not.
The radial play of my engine (perpendicular to the direction of thrust) is virtually zero.
The radial play of my engine (perpendicular to the direction of thrust) is virtually zero.
10-24-2016, 08:23 AM
#4834
OK I had it backwards in my mind somehow. I do not believe you can have much axial play without some radial play because both are from looseness of the balls in the race. So I believe IQwkSport's suggestion may be correct.
10-24-2016, 08:30 AM
#4835
It sounds like the crank is either moving in the bearings (i.e. the clamp ring could/should be further in on the crank) or the bearings are about to give in...
A very small play is nothing to worry about as these bearings are looser than regular bearings in other applications.
A brand new engine often has the reverse problem, i.e. the crank is not spinning loose enough due improper alignment of the ball bearings. This usually goes away during the running in as higher temp will allow the bearings to reseat a little.
A very small play is nothing to worry about as these bearings are looser than regular bearings in other applications.
A brand new engine often has the reverse problem, i.e. the crank is not spinning loose enough due improper alignment of the ball bearings. This usually goes away during the running in as higher temp will allow the bearings to reseat a little.
Last edited by Mr Cox; 10-24-2016 at 08:34 AM.
10-24-2016, 08:30 AM
#4836
I recently replaced the bearings on a Fox 45 because the axial play was too large, but the radial play was non-existent. So, there may be a way that the bearings wear out that cause axial looseness but not radial looseness. The axial play is completely gone now with new bearings. This was on a very worn out engine though, it doesn't make sense for the relatively new Fox 74 mentioned above. Maybe the prop hub is not pushed back far enough?
10-24-2016, 09:41 AM
#4837
I recently replaced the bearings on a Fox 45 because the axial play was too large, but the radial play was non-existent. So, there may be a way that the bearings wear out that cause axial looseness but not radial looseness. The axial play is completely gone now with new bearings. This was on a very worn out engine though, it doesn't make sense for the relatively new Fox 74 mentioned above. Maybe the prop hub is not pushed back far enough?
10-24-2016, 09:55 AM
#4838
Ok, Well really I have not worn out but one engine. Most of my experience with ball bearings are on cars but the load is mostly radial and a loose wobbling bearing always has some axial looseness as well. The load on a model airplane engine is mostly axial, so maybe it doesn't work the other way around.
10-26-2016, 12:15 PM
#4842
10-27-2016, 09:20 AM
#4843
I will be putting a Fox .46 up for sale if anyone is interested. It's unused except for the factory test run. In the box with reproduced paperwork, muffler, etc. the spinner is missing, but the spinner backplate is in the box.
11-06-2016, 07:37 PM
#4845
Nice. First Fox I ran was a .35 stunt. Bought a box of misc disassembled.35 parts and a few CL plane kits for something like $15 at the local flea market when I was about 11 or 12. Put an engine together out of the parts and had it up and running on my test stand the next day. Sweet old engine. Still have it. Can't fly CL anymore, as it makes me dizzy and sick. Didn't happen when I was a youngster. Once I started getting migraines about 10 years ago however....
11-06-2016, 11:31 PM
#4846
My Feedback: (133)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Keizer,
OR
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My very first fox was a .15 CL got it running only one time in 1958 when I was in the 8th grade, Didn't know what I was doing and had no support to speak of. In wood shop I built a u control plane made of white pine with control wires made of mechanics wire. Mounted the fox .19 on it but never got the fox running and hence never got the plane to fly. Never gave up and some years later I learned what I was doing and in 1974 started my journey into the world of R/C. Still have a lot to learn!!!!!!!
Last edited by fujiman; 11-08-2016 at 08:29 AM.
11-07-2016, 04:22 PM
#4847
Fujiman,
Hope you have better luck this time around... Welcome to the community!
I first flew CL in about 1954, and, well, the busted pieces were easier to find. Not discouraged, went right back at it. Had some hilarious things go wrong, AND right. It gets addictive.
Had dabbled in 10 cent Comet stick and tissue models, earlier, and pretended they flew. We-ell from my hand to the ground anyway. Some nicely further...
Over the decades since, and into the second century, I've at least dabbled in most traditional ways to inflict flight on our atmosphere. I prefer the direct, physical, tangible feel of CL! Free Flight and RC Soaring are pretty to watch, irrelevant whether you hold the controls in your hand. "Sport" RC involving maneuvering needs too much 'projection' of guesswork to feel what the model is doing. Instead, we watch, try something, watch what happens and correct it where we misread the air or the model. If it goes right, we hardly notice - no physical feedback.
Indoor FF is fun, but hard to find a place to fly it. It does require developing special building and flying skills. Those are useful in anything to do with our models.
After the initial skill mastery of sport RC, simple circuits and bumps, an occasional roll or chandelle, it can get boring. The step to a next level is often costly in models and money. AND requires a definite commitment to pursue. CL models pull on your hand all the time. Do something dumb and the first sense that gets the message is in your controlling fingers.
Moving to another set of demands in CL is relatively easy. Maneuvers? Most all basic CL enjoyable models can do loops, eights, and inverted very safely. Easily mastered at first, and then you start to want to make them better, and how to make them better.
Or racing? You can try that same model to see how you like turning that fast, and if you do there are several very basic Official (and unofficial) events around. You should be able to find opportunity to, first, learn to fly with someone else on your circle, then how to measure your flying for safety in passing or being passed; in landing while another plane is still up, etc.
Once that's nailed, consider Combat? Doesn't need to be as intense as top level contest matches. Maneuvering safely, with someone else there at the same time, adds to your range of skills and knowledges - AND can be vigorous fun.
Scale modeling? The beauty of your favorite "real airplane" on your lines, built with your own hands? Feels good! Several contest event definitions can inspire you with accepted, safe and measurable improvements for both ends of the lines... "Navy Carrier," e.g., simulates takeoff from a short deck, high speed capability (to reach a patrol or threat zone?) and low speed (loiter time in the patrol area?) and arrested landing on a short deck. Some Carrier events score a few points for a model that resembles an "actual" Navy carrier airplane.
On top of all these personal attractions, the guys you fly with make great and helpful friends. You WILL need that, unless you arms are about 60' long. But then you wouldn't need the lines...
Enjoy!!
Hope you have better luck this time around... Welcome to the community!
I first flew CL in about 1954, and, well, the busted pieces were easier to find. Not discouraged, went right back at it. Had some hilarious things go wrong, AND right. It gets addictive.
Had dabbled in 10 cent Comet stick and tissue models, earlier, and pretended they flew. We-ell from my hand to the ground anyway. Some nicely further...
Over the decades since, and into the second century, I've at least dabbled in most traditional ways to inflict flight on our atmosphere. I prefer the direct, physical, tangible feel of CL! Free Flight and RC Soaring are pretty to watch, irrelevant whether you hold the controls in your hand. "Sport" RC involving maneuvering needs too much 'projection' of guesswork to feel what the model is doing. Instead, we watch, try something, watch what happens and correct it where we misread the air or the model. If it goes right, we hardly notice - no physical feedback.
Indoor FF is fun, but hard to find a place to fly it. It does require developing special building and flying skills. Those are useful in anything to do with our models.
After the initial skill mastery of sport RC, simple circuits and bumps, an occasional roll or chandelle, it can get boring. The step to a next level is often costly in models and money. AND requires a definite commitment to pursue. CL models pull on your hand all the time. Do something dumb and the first sense that gets the message is in your controlling fingers.
Moving to another set of demands in CL is relatively easy. Maneuvers? Most all basic CL enjoyable models can do loops, eights, and inverted very safely. Easily mastered at first, and then you start to want to make them better, and how to make them better.
Or racing? You can try that same model to see how you like turning that fast, and if you do there are several very basic Official (and unofficial) events around. You should be able to find opportunity to, first, learn to fly with someone else on your circle, then how to measure your flying for safety in passing or being passed; in landing while another plane is still up, etc.
Once that's nailed, consider Combat? Doesn't need to be as intense as top level contest matches. Maneuvering safely, with someone else there at the same time, adds to your range of skills and knowledges - AND can be vigorous fun.
Scale modeling? The beauty of your favorite "real airplane" on your lines, built with your own hands? Feels good! Several contest event definitions can inspire you with accepted, safe and measurable improvements for both ends of the lines... "Navy Carrier," e.g., simulates takeoff from a short deck, high speed capability (to reach a patrol or threat zone?) and low speed (loiter time in the patrol area?) and arrested landing on a short deck. Some Carrier events score a few points for a model that resembles an "actual" Navy carrier airplane.
On top of all these personal attractions, the guys you fly with make great and helpful friends. You WILL need that, unless you arms are about 60' long. But then you wouldn't need the lines...
Enjoy!!
11-09-2016, 12:40 PM
#4850
Charley,
Not saying you're wrong, but it never happened for me. The centering spring pressures on the sticks are the same to me whether the TX is on or off.
Your 'felt connection' may be a well-developed, largely imputed structure, based on practiced visual-cue interactions... What I feel in CL is several pounds of actual pull, varying by the wind and the attitude, along with varying feedback forces from aerodynamic loads on control surfaces. I could fly a while with my eyes closed, or, at least, without constant visual reference to my model. E.g., CL combat fliers are more interested in finding their opponent's model so as to attack it or defend from it. In CL we never have the luxury of flying "3 mistakes high." And, of course, I do know that a lot of 3D RC is low and slow, and I respect that.
Just chalk it up to preference? I don't challenge or deny your enjoyment, nor suggest that you have a lack in any way for your choice. It all can be "good," and some is "better." A personal choice.
Enjoy!
Not saying you're wrong, but it never happened for me. The centering spring pressures on the sticks are the same to me whether the TX is on or off.
Your 'felt connection' may be a well-developed, largely imputed structure, based on practiced visual-cue interactions... What I feel in CL is several pounds of actual pull, varying by the wind and the attitude, along with varying feedback forces from aerodynamic loads on control surfaces. I could fly a while with my eyes closed, or, at least, without constant visual reference to my model. E.g., CL combat fliers are more interested in finding their opponent's model so as to attack it or defend from it. In CL we never have the luxury of flying "3 mistakes high." And, of course, I do know that a lot of 3D RC is low and slow, and I respect that.
Just chalk it up to preference? I don't challenge or deny your enjoyment, nor suggest that you have a lack in any way for your choice. It all can be "good," and some is "better." A personal choice.
Enjoy!