I remember in the 60's a very unique engine was developed and marketed. It was called the Aero .35. At the time I wanted one but $35 was way beyond my 13 year old budget. Did anyone have one or see one run? I'd like to know how long it stayed on the market. Here is Peter Chinn's review of it from Model Airplane News January 1964

Yes I remember seeing it on the 308 trade stand in the early 60s but only saw one running once on a test bench about 10 years ago at an Old Warden Rally in the UK. It belonged to a collector.

Looked nicely made.

It looks like performance was equivalent to a .29 to .35 baffled glow engine. It would have been fun to have one, but like you I couldn't afford one at the time either.

Well,

If you couldn't afford one then, you probably can't now either. They are collector items and the cheapest I've seen one is $500.00 for a used one. Neat engines though.

Max

I know a couple of others have made that type of engine. Back in the 80's RCM had a picture page of Clarence Lee's engine collection that was going to the Smithsonian for exibition. One of those Aeros, one by Mr. Lee, and one Japanese brand that was being produced at the current time and being sold by AHC.

The Russians made some larger ones, I think .60 size that were ideal for turbo-prop scale models.

Stu Richmond showed me one back in the '90's when he lived in Apopka, FL.

.The Aero was a neat engine, the problem was that it didn't stay together too long. Wear was a big factor in the demise of the engine and company.
dennis

Dennis,
Can you tell us more about the "wear" on the engine and what happened to the company. Did they last a year, or two maybe? Curious minds want to know.

Hi!
The problem was the big end ball socket!!!

Here's a picture of mine. Bought it about 45 years ago and it was originally mounted on an Ambroid Ares Stunt C/L airplane. Used it over three years and never had any problems with wear. I used fuel with 25% castor oil as was recommended. I ran it about 5 years ago just to see how it ran. Everything was as I remembered and it worked perfectly.

Skydevil1,
The Ares is one of my favorite designs. Wish I had bought one of the Ambroid kits. I was poring over Bill Werwage's construction article on the Juno the other night thinking about building one. I haven't flown the CL Stunt pattern since the 80s but am pretty sure I remember how. I think I'm going to find one or two of these engines. One to display and one to run. Someone mentioned that if I didn't have enough money ($35) to buy one when I was 12 I wouldn't have enough now. There's a big difference in how much you have and can spend when you're 58 versus when you were 12. I am a glad to hear of your success with this engine. It is a fascinating piece of engineering and for no other reason than taking it apart to see how it works I want one. Best regards, Lou.

I think my dad paid about 12 dollars for that kit. Big bucks in 1962. It was one of the best flying C/L stunt ships I ever flew. Brother was it a complicated desigh. I flew "B" speed and combat in the 60's along with some stunt. Never really great at precisicion aerobatics. Had to modify the front end to mount the aero35 on it. That engine was about $40 when I bought it. Worked my brains out for two months delivering newspapers to pay for it. That was when a Johnson 36BB was $25 and a K&B 45 R/C was $28.

I have an Aero 35 that I got from my dad. Mine has a single bladed propeller called an Air-6. The pitch of the blade is adjustable. I like to show the engine to my friends and let them scratch their heads trying to figure out how it works. It is a very cool motor. I had no idea though that they were worth so much!

The engine was a Krasmorutsky Kamarenko 60 , it has a bevel gear and the cylinder was back mounted in line with crankshaft.

See the pic..

The russian engine has a completely different operating method from the Aero 35. An Aero sold on eBay for over 700 dollars a while back.

We shouldn't forget the RCV engines either. They have a 60, 90 and a 120 size inline engine.
I think many years ago, circa 1982 or thereabouts a company (RCV?) had come out with a inline engine, but I couldn't get one then. They weren't really selling them in the USA then. I remember reading about them in a magazine at the time. But I thought it was a American company that was making them. I was probably mistaken as it has been a while.
http://www.rcvengines.com/rcv60sp.htm

sean sweeney,  I remember those single blade props from many years ago. It was all the rage at the time for the control line speed racing.
it seemed like everyone was getting those single blade props and using them on their racing planes.
If I remember, there were several firms making different types of them too.
Cool item to have from the past
Thanks for sharing.

Hello; 5 or 6 yewars ago, a fellow from our field found an aero 35 at a garage sale. He bought it for $5., I took it home to look it over, and dis-assembled it to see how it works.
Mike sold the engine for over $1200. to someone in connecticut. I don't think it wasw Ebay, likely he sold it here on RCU. Amazing engine, it had a little wear on it, but nothing serious.
I didn't run it or later hear it run.

Funny that this should come up now, as just last Sunday we were talking about it. None of the new guys had any idea about it at all.

RCV engines are still available. They operate completely differently from the Aero 35 too.

Here are the whole information about Aero .35 : http://www.modelenginenews.org/cardfile/aero35.html

Really the engine are heavier and longer engine than common model engines in same engine size, the plane need tailheavy to have the Aero .35 to get right C.O.G. (balance)..

RCV engine are more compact in length since the sleeve are used as rotating part to drive the propeller. Do not affect so much in C.O.G. in the plane compared with other engines in same plane.

HINESS 60 was a copy of the Russian engine. Although they all dont operate the same in specific, they all have to turn the piston motion into spinning motion. They are all a celebration of trying something different.

It is too bad they didn't make the Aero 35 engine piston and cylinder double acting, so that it had dual combustion chambers one at each end.
That would have been  a much more powerful engine. Sort of a twin cylinder version then. A 70 twin?
Cool.

OK, so the engine was down on power compared to its contemporaries and up on weight also compared to those of similar displacement, it seems to have run just fine. The benefits of being able to cowl it into a model having an inline engine or one with a tight cowl seems to be its advantage. I need to get one of these just to tinker with. Anybody have one NIB or just slightly run they want to sell? Send me a PM Or email. I am interested.

I just weighed a Johnson 36BB and my Aero 35. The Johnson weighs 10 ounces and the Aero weighs 12. The Aero was designed for cowled in C/L precision aerobatic airplanes. The two ounce difference would mean very little weight needed in the tail to balance the plane. The Fox stunt would probably weigh less than my Johnson but too hard to dig one out.

As the areo was designed for C/L stunt, it didn't have to be a rocket engine. Look at the standard of the day. That was the Fox 35 stunt. Very low on power compared to the average 35 engine like Super Tiger, Johnson, K&B or the Fox 35 and 36X's.

As far as being longer, so? You just moved the firewall back 3/4 of an inch like I did on the Ares. At least you didn't have that big cylinder sticking out of the airplane and have to cowl that big cylinder in.

Finally, it was DIFFERENT! Fun to show up at a contest and have everyone looking at your airplane.

What a beautiful airplane! I had the pleasure of watching Bill Werwage win the Nationals with the original. The shape of that Aero 35 must have been a perfect match for the nose of the Ares.

jess