glowplugboy

My Feedback: (17)

I have regained my respect for the Fox engine name in the last year or so. The little Fox .15 is a powerhouse and I use it week end, week out flying combat, which is the toughest form of r/c flying there is on an engine with all the dirt naps. Takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'. Believe it or not, I am running it on 25% nitro with lots of castor oil in the mix. Runs hot as a firecracker but cranks out the power nevertheless
I have been bench running an ABC .46 with an APC 12 3/4" X 3.5 degree pitch fun fly prop, and within only 18 oz. of fuel, I am getting a steady 12.4K out of the engine. It goes through that six oz. tank in a hurry though, whewww!
The fact that Fox now has CNC machines along with their hand set up machines says to me they are trying to compete with the imports. I just wish they made a straight muffler, not a tilt up or down!!![X(]

RaceCity

That little .15BB is a sweetheart of a motor isn't it? Kinda blocky looking, but rugged as the day is long and they run great.

Another completely ignored little jewel of a motor is the .25BB. I give Fox an "A" on that one as well....

Viva la DUKE!

'race

50+AirYears

Over the years, I've collected a lot of engines. Some I bought, others were given to me. Bought an old Fox baffle 15rc that the owner said wouldn't run. Looked it over, told him I could tell him how to have the engine running in about 20 minutes. He said several "Experts" had tried and told him the engine was just a piece of junk. I gave him the $2.00 he was asking, pulled the head and backplate, removed the piston, turned it 180 degrees, and put things back together with the baffle on the bypass side of the engine, like it should have been in the first place. Turned an 8-4 at about 13900 on 10% fuel. He was shocked when I told him all I had to do.
In the AF, had another sgt trade me an OS 30 RC and $5.00 for another similar Fox baffle 15RC. He put it on a Graupner Bergfalke glider. Flew it at half throttle. He talked how he got a better engine in the trade.
Anyway, out of the over 170 engines I have (including several CO2s and about 20 Jetex) 62 are Foxes, ranging from a new-in-box 049 up to an older .78 R/C. Got my first CL Fox 35 about 1957, stopped painting my props red, and started getting in a lot more flying. Most of my planes today, CL, Radio, or FF use Fox

dprater

This is a timely post, I was given a Fox 60 last week that no one has got to run long enough to break it in. Here is where I'm at: using 5 percent with Castro: did the crank case nod: did the throttle barrel mod but just a little may need to file more: have not touched the head.
I've put three or four tanks through it now, it starts good, but when I get the top end set it too lean in the middle, get the middle right its too rich on the top. Do all the heads need the mod? Or do I need to just push more fuel through it first?

Thanks
Not a Fox member yet!

dammitman

My Feedback: (15)

well, once i get full throttle to be set at max, just a clik rich, i cannot hold the nose up without it going lean and dying. its like it just aint getting enough fuel and i cannot get it to run in a nose up position at all. when i tilt nose down, it will richen up and run fine. i have tried both needle adjustments and cannot fix this problem. one thing i am wondering is if i have my pressure tap for exhaust/tank pressue right. do you think that a bigger fitting would help? also, i have the fitting mounted on the header at the engine and not on the pipe. would changing that help? any help is appreciated of course. thanks.

dammitman

My Feedback: (15)

which eagle 60 do you have? also, is that a airbleed carb (newer type) or a 2 needle older type?

dprater

Its the newer airbleed carb. And I think it's one of the latest eagle 4's (one piece crankcase) with Fox on the backplate.

Thanks
Not a Fox member yet!

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

DP, are you running a 12x8 on it, it should turn a Graupner 12x8 at precisely 11,000 rpm. What did you do to the carb, I have several of those carbs and they needed no mods.

RaceCity

Dammitman...

Pressure taps USUALLY work best when they're place at the widest point of the muffler. Just like 99% of the mufflers on the market...including Foxes.

Header tapping might work....might not. Why mess with it? Put the tap where it belongs and eliminate that question.

As for a larger pressure nipple? Ehhhhh....we're not dealing with much volume here, so I tend to think that a larger ID fitting would be little if any help. It wouldn't hurt to check to make sure your pressure fitting is unobstructed. Run a pin through it to make sure it's clear.

Where the needle setting is concerned? Make sure you're not pulling air bubbles/foam in the line. If you are....all bets are off, and no amount of diddling will fix it until you address the real issue. Be sure the tank is well padded, as close to the carb as is possible (this is one time where shorter IS better). Fresh fuel lines inside and outside the tank. If you've got a cheap chinese tank, throw it away and use a good tank. Hayes, GP, Tettra, Jett. Notice I didn't say Sullivan or DuBro.

Make sure you're not running too much prop. You've got to let the Q-500 wind up, and not load it down like a rented mule with a big club of a prop.

Keep us posted!!


'Race

dammitman

My Feedback: (15)

OK,,,i have no air bubbles at all. here is the setup. its a goldberg skylark arf with the stock gas tank. its made to fit perfect but it looks to me as if it might be a bit low for this motor. i also didnt use the little bitty fuel line in it and used bigger pickup line for the tank clunk. i have a macs header and pipe. i checked the exhaust pressure nipple and its cleaned out,,,no clog. i have had no trouble with putting the pressure nipple on the header in other engines so i just did it on this one as well. i need to ask, how does one put pics on this website? again, all help and suggestions are greatly appreciated,,,,,,,,,

RaceCity

Dammitman...

I love the Skylark. Classic model, and I only regret the GB doesn't offer it as a kit. I don't do ARF's, but I digress...

Several GB designs paid scant attention to fuel tank position (Falcon 56 was one example, and the Skylark design is from the same era). In this case...the tank was situated fairly low with respect to the carb and that can cause problems.

With an ARF, it's likely that the tank is too low, AND....poorly isolated from the airframe, if isolated at all. This can be a problem by causing the fuel to foam with the resulting leaning effect on the mixture.

Let's consider your post however for a second. You stated you were one click off peak, and that's just not going to hack it. You are going to have to richen the mixture more. You should be able to get a "jump" in the rpm when you quickly pinch the fuel line. If you're not getting that...you're too lean. Period.

In my honest Fox opinion....I think you've got the wrong motor. Quickee motors aren't really intended for sport flying in that they don't throttle nicely in most cases like might expect.

Try richening the mixture a bit first. I still think your best solution is to get a more appropriate motor for the plane...a Fox .40BB or the .46ABC would be far better choices where your flying fun is concerned.

'Race

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

Tower sells a universal muffler (Dubro - I think) that straps on and works well at retaining enough heat for the engine to idle well. It costs less than $20. I don't think the original Fox .25 had provision for a bolt-on muffler.

That series carburetor required that you set the low speed adjustment first, before setting the high speed needle. It won't work the other way around at all. But is easy to do, once you realize that the low speed adjustment sets up the basic setting for the high speed needle. Close the low speed adjustment and then back it out about 1.5 turns. Then do the same thing with the high speed needle.

Use fuel with some castor oil in it or you will be looking for a new connecting rod very quickly. That was the engines only "fault" that I could find.

It is very powerful for a bushed engine. I really liked operating the one on my wife's Falcon 56 (REM).

Ed Cregger

dprater

Hobbsy

I have a 12 x 6 on the 60. I think I have the problem solved. And when I would leave the glo starter on the glow plug it ran perfect, so I took the Fox plug out and put a F 5 in and it's like a different motor altogether. I let it idle for a hold minute and it transition to full throttle just great. Hope this will be a good engine for me,

Woody 51

Got 2 x .40 BB deluxes, a .45R a .46 ABC and a .74.
Love them all.

Running a "Fliteline Solutions" Head Button in the .74.(with the old Mk X twin needle carby) That solved all the unreliabilty problems and it is a real stump puller.

The .45 R is my favourite. Ran perfectly straight out of the box and is soooooo reliable. It has an airbleed carby. It is very easy on plugs. It us still running the original idle bar plug that it came with out of the box.

Got one of the new 2 needle carbs for the .46 but as the engine is currently stored awaiting a model, I have not fitted it.
I use 5% nitro, 75 % methanol and 20% Synthetic Oil/Castor Oil fuel mix.

gcb

Ed, when you say original, are you referring to the 3-bolt backplate or the 4-bolt? Some of the 4-bolt ones were mounted over and under the exhaust.

George

50+AirYears

Fox had two different 25s. There was the original cross flow bushed .25 from about 1956 to 58, which went from an integral venturi and I think first used a rotary restrictor in the exhaust to produce an RC version. It also was redesigned to take a bolt on muffler and the bolt on CL venturi or a two needle RC carb. The second, and current .25 is a Schnuerle ported ball bearing engine. Both of them could turn a 9-4 prop at well over 14000 on 10% fuel. They have a different mounting pattern
My only experience with the current air bleed carb is on the .46. Like many of the other engines, it benefitted from a piece of fuel line over the needle threads to cut out some suction loss. I also had to grind down the high speed needle end of the spray bar to allow the needle to get a decent mixture.
Quite a few people lost confidence with Fox on the early MK X carburetors. P. G. F. Chinn mentioned this problem some years ago when he did a report on something like 10 different carbs in MAN. He started to list the MK-X as the worst of the lot, but figured that with the problems he was having , he'd call the factory first. Was asked if he followed the instruction sheet that came with the engine. Found out the carb was built to have the idle needle adjusted first, then the high speed needle. Doing this, the Fox 45s at least could be set to a reliable idle under 2,000 rpm, with a top end over 14000 on 10-6 props. I used to set up Fox 45s for people this way, and they were very happy with similar performance, but often lost the settings by trying to get a "better operation" by treating the carbs like anybody elses. I also got told there was something wrong with my tach when I showed people what kind of settings I was getting. Didn't matter that my tach readings matched theirs on their engines.
Loved the folks who got mad with the engine reviewer in RC Reports when his tests showed the Eagle 3 or 4 outperformed some 120 FSs on similar props.
Also, one of the reviewers who replaced Pete Chinn had a great comment about Fox engines and the company. One of the readers wrote in about how he uses the reviews to select new engines, but with most of the reviews the engines he bought never came close to the reported performance, untill he bought a couple Fox engines. The Foxes performed better than the reviews. The reviewer stated he couldn't be certain why, but with the other companies, he got in engines sent by the companies with specific operating instruction and with prepaid shipping to return the engines by a certain date. When he approached Fox, Duke sent him a couple purchase orders for the desired engines, telling him to buy his engines from the LHS. Do the review on what the customer is going to get, not what the company wants you to review.
RC Reports sometime later not only said something similar, but also reported that at least one mfg admitted to the reviewer that their review engines were hand built and fitted specials, properly broken in, not true off the line production engines.

AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken

My Feedback: (180)

OK Fox fans, which would you choose for a twin? The .45 or the .46? Which is easier to sync? Flightline mentions the vacuum slot issue on the .46 but also mentions it for all BB engines. NOT taking price into consideration, which would you choose.

50+AirYears

I only had a couple dozen runs on my only 46, but I think there is enough power difference that I'd probably go with the 46. I never noticed any significant difference in handling or adjustment between the two, although my .46 never gave quite as low an idle as my .45s. With the 45s, I could get a reliable idle of as low as 1950 rpm on an APC 10-6, where you could sometimes see the individual prop blades. I never got the .46 below about 2300.

With the proper tank set-up, I've had the 45s idling for over 15 minutes without loading up. In fact, at a club fun-fly, a group of us had to sit at idle while a boo-boo was recovered and the runway cleared, and my Fox was the only engine in the group of 4 planes (A postal relay team assignment) that didn't load up.

badger5964

My Feedback: (6)

Well I have two Fox .45 BBRC with EZ carbs destined for a twin bash of a Sig Four Star. I've never run a 0.45 but they have the reputation of being the friendliest of the Fox lot.

I have run the .46 ABC. Had problems with transition from idle to wide open, so I installed a Perry carb. Still had issues. Switch prop from an 11x5 to a 10x7 and everything went to smooth. I put the EZ carb back on and with the 10x7 it now had a good transition. The 0.46 likes to spin. Unlike its big cousins the 0.60 and 0.74 it does like its nitro between 10-15%. The big ones like 0-5% nitro.

However the twin four star is just a thought now unlikely to get started for more than a year. You likely know the answer to your question before I do.

Scott

50+AirYears

The .46 is the only Fox I have with the Air Bleed EZ carb. Every 45, 60, 50 and whatever other Fox rc engine I have uses everything else they put on their engines from rotary exhaust baffle on a bushing .19 up to the Mk X.

The .45 is definitely an easy to handle engine. I regularly hand-start mine in one or two flips, which is really rewarding after having a maven walk by and comment " A Fox? You'll never get it to run.", or as on one occassion "Look at that, Tony put a Webra on that plane!" (Fox 40 with an old Top Flite white nylon 10-6).

Also enjoyed hearing people say the Duraplane needed a good .40 to take off from grass. I didn't know the Fox 25s were mislabled 40s? In fact, my first one alternated between a Fox Baffle 19 rc and a baffle 25 rc. The second one only used a Fox 25BB.

And as far as durability, I once hit an oak stump dead center with a Fox 45 powered 6.5 pound cabin job. Had to replace the plane, prop, high speed needle, drive washer, and tapered collet. The engine didn't otherwise even have dinged threads on the drive stud. My first 15 BB RC lasted over 3200 flights with a 4 ounce tank before it lost compression.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

------------


Sign me up!

I still have my original 1962 Fox .15X. A good friend gave me an identical engine over ten years ago. The first one is worn out and missing a couple of parts, but the one my friend gave me is like brand new, never been ran. I had a Fox .09 also, but I can't remember if I had it before or after the .15X.

In the USAF, I bought a new .36X at the base hobbyshop. I wish I still had that engine. That thing would scream on Fox Missile Mist fuel.

I had a Fox .45 Schneurle ported wart engine in the Seventies that I flew the heck out of and then I loaned to a friend. He later bought it from me. Right after that I bought a Fox .15X R/C engine, though I don't think they used the X in the name, but it was a very similar engine. I think I had a couple of those. Yes, it had the baffle for the exhaust.

I then bought a Fox Eagle .60 baffle piston engine. After an hour of bench running at a slobbery rich setting, it then took fifty flights to somewhat "break-in" (two piston rings). I loved that engine and was heart-broken when I dumb thumbed the Kaos it was powering into the ground at a pattern contest (dirt blew into my eyes from a coming thunderstorm). The engine was totalled. I sent it back to Fox. They removed the cylinder head and the carburetor, put a new engine underneath those parts and set it back for a grand total of $28. That was a heck of a deal in those days.

I've owned a couple of Fox Eagle IV .74s that I bought new and flew. The .74s are gorillas in power production. Now I have collected two or three old Fox Eagle 60s once again (loop scavenged with two rings). I probably have another Fox engine or two squirreled away somewhere. I love them.

While I love Fox engines, be prepared to spend a little more time during break-in than most other engines. At least that is how it used to be. Maybe it isn't today with CNC machining, etc.

RaceCity

Cool stories all.

My trusty old .40BB finally lunched a connecting rod after 14yrs. It'd been clattering a bit for a year and a half but running strong. Then the fateful day arrived...it wouldn't hold a needle setting worth beans and it was making lots (more) noise. The little end of the conrod had finally worn to death. So, a new rod, wrist pin and keepers.....a grand total of about $10 in parts and she was back in business. Still holds it's place as a front line engine for me. EZ hand starts, and dependable as the day is long.

Let's see...$10 in replacement parts for 14 years service. That's what....75 cents per year? Not bad!

Sport_Pilot

They do break in faster than they used to. Even the cast iron piston versions. In fact almost as fast as an ABC engine. But all that castor oil helps too. The ringed engines take about the same time or maybe a little longer as the better quality ringed engines. Which means they take longer than an OS, but last better.

RaceCity

I'd go along with that Sport. My Foxes back in the 70's had to go through a "grind in" process it seemed before you could even worry about "break in". <GGG> Those poor things would belch black glop for at least a gallon. Maybe by the second season they'd be just about settled in.

The newer ones are much quicker to come in, although still not the motor of choice for the instant gratification sort of r/c'er.

My .15BB seemed ready to fly right out of the box. My .25BB needed a few tanks on the bench, and a few more tanks in the air before it wanted to play nice. It's a rocketship now....

The .40's seem to need a bit more massaging still. Nothing unreasonable, but some time on the bench is time well spent.

All this would be unacceptable if it weren't for the fact that the engines do in fact achieve a very nice running fit, that with minimal care (and good amounts of castor) will last for a very, very long time.

AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken

My Feedback: (180)

I'm going with the .45's. Sheldons has them on sale for 79.99 How can you pass that up?

Other engines in the less than $100 price range:

Super Tigre GS45- $65
Mecoa 46 - $70
Tower Hobbies .46 - $75
Super Tigre G 51 - $80
Magnum 46 FSR ABC - $80
Thunder Tiger Pro 46 - $88
Evolution 46NT - $90
OS Max 46AX - $95

All of these with the exception of the OS and Mecoa are made in China. Not suggesting that Chinese engines are inferior in quality, but I'd rather my hard earned stay here in the US.[sm=thumbup.gif]