RE: Fox engine quality vs the competition...  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> Glow Engines, Gas Engines, Fuel & Mfg Support Forums >> Glow Engines >> RE: Fox engine quality vs the competition...
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Fox engine quality vs the competition... - 1/6/2004 1:59:22 AM   
Daryl Martel



Posts: 595
Joined: 2/10/2002
From: WinnipegManitoba, CANADA
Status: offline 		Getting a little bit more back on topic, the point I was trying to make is that Fox engines aren't exactly highly desired, which is why you don't hear much mention of 'em in comparisons such as this thread. To hold a Fox next to an O.S. engine is like night and day. It's like comparing an industrial farm implement to a genuine aircraft part! Rough industrial finish to an almost jewel like finish! Do Fox engines perform? Sometimes they do. Are they reliable? Sometimes they can be. With the advent of better metallurgy (forget the heavy Fox IRON pistons!), design, precision AND quality control processes from the competition, Fox engines really aren't keeping up with the times. Let's face it, since Duke Fox died, who is left to carry on R & D? They are at a dead end development wise and I doubt they'll ever come out with another modern, quality glow engine. Their gas engines can't be too hard to cobble together - basically a custon crankcase mated to off the shelf industrial parts. If people chose to buy and run Fox, good for them - nice to see not everyone is about minimum weight, maximum performance and appearance. There will always be a need for a basic sport engine. Considering that because of their low desirability Fox engines can often be bought used for a decent price, used Fox engines may actually offer good value! New I don't think they're good value at all! You compare a Fox to a Magnum for example, IMO the Magnum wins hands down too! Hobby People has the Magnum .46 on sale right now for $69.99 - how can you compete with that! Me, I get burned, I move on... My time and money are important to me and I'll stick with more quality brands. You people can defend your Fox engines all you want, to me personally they're no longer even in the same league. I will say this about the Fox company though - nice people offering excellent customer service. They are competing in a brutally competitive and challenging market. This Fox situation kind of reminds me of the motorcycle situation - some people drive Harleys (and we know what a loyal bunch they are!), some Ducatis, others Hondas and some BMWs. They all have a different feel and even though they all get you down the road, people are driving them with slightly different intent. Whatever floats your boat. Lets just have fun doing it!

< Message edited by Daryl Martel -- 1/6/2004 2:36:37 AM >

(in reply to Spaceclam)
       Post #: 51

RE: Fox engine quality vs the competition... - 1/6/2004 3:10:24 AM   
Hobbsy



Posts: 10691
Joined: 12/2/2001
From: Colonial Beach, VA, USA
Status: offline 		The Fox .50 is the lightest of all the .50s, even lighter than the Webra .50.

_____________________________

"I have gone faster backwards, upside down and on fire than most people have gone at all" Don Garlits

(in reply to Daryl Martel)
       Post #: 52

RE: Fox engine quality vs the competition... - 1/6/2004 7:51:18 AM   
dikfor


 

Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
From: , AL, USA
Status: offline 		let's see...51 replies...what was the original topic? hmm...something to do with an engine comparison? c'mon Ed, it's been 6 days since you started this beast- get testing. do it in the house if you have to. hey, i'll send you a TT .42 for the comparo. it's got 10 gallons through it and still hovers a 5lb plane. has bushings though, last time i checked...

(in reply to Hobbsy)
       Post #: 53

RE: Fox engine quality vs the competition... - 1/6/2004 2:14:10 PM   
Ed_Moorman



Posts: 3685
Joined: 1/5/2002
From: Shalimar, FL, USA
Status: online 		I did get in the Tower muflers I ordered, but the weather has been foggy and damp. I would rather wait for a change back to close to the same conditions I started with. Besides that, I had to go back to work. I'm an engineer during the day and I also teach college level math courses for a local university, Troy State in the evenings: 2 in-class and 1 on line this term. And I have a column due on the 15th. Keeps me busy. I know, it's no excuse for not running engines.

With regard to the MAN .61-size engine comparison test, the tester, Dave Gierke, tried various fuel and glow plug combinations until he found the best one for each engine. As I recall, he used a Thunderbolt plug and only 5% nitro fuel for the Fox .61 test. I also remember him saying that it didn't run well on higher nitro fuel, even 10%, and didn't run or idle well on a Fox plug! Most people would run their favorite plug and 10% or 15% fuel and get poor results. it to Dave's credit that he experimented with enough different combinations to find the best one for each engine.

The Tower .61 came in a close second and first in some categories. I think it'll run on anything. Makes me think the Tower .75 would be a good buy.

_____________________________

Ed Moorman, AMA 553, KD4QBM, Revver Bro #156
R/C Report Magazine, Fun Aerobatics Column

(in reply to dikfor)
       Post #: 54

RE: Fox engine quality vs the competition... - 1/6/2004 7:05:20 PM   
3d-aholic



Posts: 1992
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Austin, TX, USA
Status: offline 		I wonder if thats the problem with my Fox. I've been told over and over again, that these Fox motors were actually designed by Duke Fox to run on 0% Nitro. And when I ran this motor 28 years ago, I remember it running great...but it was in fact 0% Nitro...because I was breaking it in.

However....it severely hurts my brain to think an engine would run that much more reliably with 0% nitro compared to 15% nitro. And the reliability would have to undergo at least an order of magnitude of difference to be useful for anything and be reliable enough to suggest the plane would make it back around to land.

I have tested different plugs and that made little or no significant difference.

(in reply to Ed_Moorman)
       Post #: 55

RE: OS AX-GMS-Magnum-Tower - 1/7/2004 8:35:09 PM   
Tribum


 

Posts: 19
Joined: 1/7/2004
From: Park City, UT, USA
Status: offline 		I'm about to order an OS-46AX with a 11 x 6 prop for a Great Planes PT-40 MK II Trainer.

I would appreciate any input on prop choice and what % nitro to use given that I live at 7000ft.

Is there a given protocol for running the engine in? Should you use different fuel for running in? The OS FAQ assumes you already know what you are doing.

(in reply to jcflysrc)
       Post #: 56

RE: OS AX-GMS-Magnum-Tower - 1/7/2004 8:50:37 PM   
3d-aholic



Posts: 1992
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Austin, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tribum

I'm about to order an OS-46AX with a 11 x 6 prop for a Great Planes PT-40 MK II Trainer.


I'm sure you will get a lot of suggestions...most telling you there is only one prop that will work.

Its a personal preference. An 11x6 will make the plane fly faster, an 11x7 is probably average, an 11x8 will make the plane fly slower. I have several OS 46's the previous incarnation or two...all 3 of these props will work and I have used all 3. The make is probably more important than the pitch/size.

An APC will make the plane fly faster and typically seems to have the least wasted energy. A MA prop will make the plane fly slower, have more survivability, and be the roughest sounding. A wooden prop will have the least survivability, probably be the lightest so run fairly close to the APC in RPM's and the one causing the least stress on your engine as far as changes with RPM.

So the question is what is do you think you would prefer? Most people don't know...so they get several props and thats probably what you should do as well....one is bound to break, or get chewed up sooner or later anyways. I would get an APC 11x6 for when you are comfortable with the plane and want to make it more thrilling a bit...and maybe a cheap MA 11x7, 11x8 for the first couple of flights.

(in reply to Tribum)
       Post #: 57

RE: OS AX-GMS-Magnum-Tower - 1/7/2004 9:26:55 PM   
Ed_Moorman



Posts: 3685
Joined: 1/5/2002
From: Shalimar, FL, USA
Status: online 		For a trainer, if you are just learning, you won't be instered in ultimate performance. Especially if you are on a paver runway, get yourself a few Master Airscrew 11-6s. You can scruf these up and still fly. They aren't as fragile as the tips on the APCs. There is no doubt that the APCs will give better speed, but you need a rubber prop until you learn how to land.

Use the same fuel for break-in as you plan to fly with. I would recommend a 10% castor blend like Omega, Power Master or Sig.

As for Fox engines, Duke went through a design phase where they were designed to run on 25% and then, when the price of nitro went up, designed for 0% FAI fuel. The rest of the world doesn't use nitro very much, you know. FAI type engines usually have a much higher compression ratio that makes them run hot with a lot of nitro. They probably had a different combustion chamber shape, too. You are fighting the problem if you want to use 15% in a Fox .61. The article recommended 5% and a Thunderbolt plug. Read the article, it is very interesting.

_____________________________

Ed Moorman, AMA 553, KD4QBM, Revver Bro #156
R/C Report Magazine, Fun Aerobatics Column

(in reply to 3d-aholic)
       Post #: 58

RE: OS AX-GMS-Magnum-Tower - 1/7/2004 9:39:29 PM   
3d-aholic



Posts: 1992
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Austin, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Moorman
As for Fox engines, Duke went through a design phase where they were designed to run on 25% and then, when the price of nitro went up, designed for 0% FAI fuel. The rest of the world doesn't use nitro very much, you know. FAI type engines usually have a much higher compression ratio that makes them run hot with a lot of nitro. They probably had a different combustion chamber shape, too. You are fighting the problem if you want to use 15% in a Fox .61. The article recommended 5% and a Thunderbolt plug. Read the article, it is very interesting.


I have a Fox 40 not a 61....but I have read the article you are referring to.

I kinda thought that Tower won in that article when you take into account, price, warranty and everything else.

What I really would like to know Ed, is why didn't you compare the Magnum 46....seems fairer.

< Message edited by 2MuchThrow -- 1/7/2004 4:45:52 PM >

(in reply to Ed_Moorman)
       Post #: 59

RE: OS AX-GMS-Magnum-Tower - 1/8/2004 12:11:06 AM   
Ed_Moorman



Posts: 3685
Joined: 1/5/2002
From: Shalimar, FL, USA
Status: online 		Hey, I'll test any engine someone gives me, but since I bought all these myself, I went with the .52. It was my second one so I thought enough of the first one to get the second. The GMS, I just wanted to try. Next, I got a small bonus so I bought the OS because it was like a free engine. Since I had 3 new engines, I decided to run my own test.

You also probably noticed I used a fun fly prop, which I run on many of my .46 size engines and did not try several different props. I was making a quick check one afternoon. I got the OS AX and decided to compare it to the others. Now, when I get some good weather, I'll try them with the Tower mufflers I just received.

The results tell me that my OS AX is a pretty strong engine. The Mag .52 is larger, so I expected it to run faster. The GMS was disappointing. Most of them originally came with the tuned muffler, which is identical to the Tower, and I feel its reputation for power came from the muffler. With the standard muffler, it was just over 12,000 rpm (12,100). I'll know more after I test all of them with the muffler. Maybe it gains a lot.

I would also have liked to test the Irvine .53, but they are really pricey and I have about the mid-sized engines I can use. But, if a free one comes in I do have a test bench.

Maybe someone else wants to try a new Mag .46, OS .46FX and a TT .46.

< Message edited by Ed_Moorman -- 1/7/2004 6:30:29 PM >

_____________________________

Ed Moorman, AMA 553, KD4QBM, Revver Bro #156
R/C Report Magazine, Fun Aerobatics Column

(in reply to 3d-aholic)
       Post #: 60

RE: OS AX-GMS-Magnum-Tower - 1/8/2004 2:07:52 AM   
maxtenet



Posts: 707
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: Towson, MD, USA
Status: offline 		Good comparison , but who uses a 12 inch prop on a .46? Run a 10/6 APC and give us the results. It would be far more useful info!

Max

(in reply to jcflysrc)
       Post #: 61

RE: OS AX-GMS-Magnum-Tower - 1/8/2004 4:23:15 AM   
seanychen



Posts: 2914
Joined: 7/20/2002
From: Canton, MI, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: maxtenet

Good comparison , but who uses a 12 inch prop on a .46? Run a 10/6 APC and give us the results. It would be far more useful info!

Max


I use a 12.25" prop on my .52. While 10x6 result would be more useful to perhaps a greater majority, there are at least 25% of people running this engine who fly 3D using 12" low pitch props.

(in reply to maxtenet)
       Post #: 62

RE: OS AX-GMS-Magnum-Tower - 1/10/2004 12:49:35 AM   
CHOCOFAN



Posts: 99
Joined: 1/4/2003
From: juncosP.R., PUERTO RICO (USA)
Status: offline 		Hey ED get the same screw for the Tower Muffler,this time instead of using the same nut, use a lock nut instead and don't over tightin it.

(in reply to Ed_Moorman)
       Post #: 63

RE: OS AX-GMS-Magnum-Tower - 1/10/2004 1:49:18 AM