A question for those with Fox engine experience

I picked up some older, NIB Fox engines a while back; two .40BBs and a
.36BB. None came with mufflers.
Fox sells a "tilt up" and "tilt down" muffler for the .40. Which do you
feel is the most versatile? I don't know which, if any, models the engines
will go in, but I'd like to put one of the engines on the test stand to see
how it runs. I want to buy the muffler I'd be most likely to be able to use
in the future.
Thanks for any tips,
desmobob
Reply to
desmobob
Loading thread data ...
I would get the tilt up muffler since you don't know which model your going to use the engine in. Fox engine require a prolonged breaking period. Once they are properly run in, they are strong and reliable. Most complaints you see about them are from people who have not fully broken them in. I say almost two gallons worth of fuelI have two Fox .15's and after they were broke in, they are screamers, Very good engines.
Reply to
Vance Howard
I found that site and bookmarked it shortly after I bought the engines. I'm wondering if I would have bought the engines at all had I seen that site first.... ;-)
Good flying, desmobob
Reply to
desmobob
That was my initial thought, but then I wondered if one was the "standard" and the other was for unusual mounting requirements. I can't seem to figure it. I guess the tilt up model would be good in models with a cheeked nose instead of a cowl? But why the tilt down? Since I have three of the engines, it certainly wouldn't hurt to buy one of each type. (It would just hurt my wallet....)
Good flying, desmobob
Reply to
desmobob
Congratulations on your engine purchases. Those are very good engines. But like it has been stated here -- they do require a long break in period...why some older ones are better buys than new ones.
Those BB engines run good. The "tilt up" mufflers are really "tilt out" mufflers so when the engine is mounted on beams and the cylinder is mounted horizontally.
They got an undeserved bad reputation when engines came on the market that didn't require a break in period and so seemed to be more reliable. I have seen guys crank and crank on a new Fox in a model. He was cussing it while others were telling him to dump the engine and get a "good" one.
These modelers were the new generation of modelers who wanted everything to work right now with no investment of their time in learning or breaking in.
The Fox engines were/are good engines when treated like Foxes were designed to be.
Ken
formatting link
Reply to
Ken Cashion
I've had good luck with Fox engines if they are broken in correctly. Two gallons rich running on the test bench is not unusual for a fair break-in. You can also motor the engine on a drill press with a half gallon of Marvel Mystery oil fed to the carb and the needle adjusted for a very light oil mist out the exhaust. Run the press at 1800 rpm or so for 24 hours and when you are done you will have a 1st rate engine that will run forever or until you crash it.
Reply to
Frederick Witt
I don't mind long break-ins. Sometimes (like today) I get in the mood to put an engine on the test stand and let it run. (I broke in a new RCV 91CD today.)
TWO gallons? =:-0 Now that's a l-o-n-g break-in! Are you suggesting the engines aren't suitable for flight until then? Yikes!
Now that is an interesting approach to the problem....
Good flying, desmobob
Reply to
desmobob
I do not see how the drill press can give the temperature cycling a break-in gives, but it will wear away the surfaces as they should but not with the same fit. Thermal expansion will be different for different parts of the engine.
Ken
formatting link
Reply to
Ken Cashion
Gentlemen! Gentlemen! What is all this about long brea-kin periods of Fox engines? I don't know if Fox still offers it or not, but they sold a fine powder that one mixed with a bit of fuel and applied through the intake venturi for a faster break-in. May still be available...' I used it on a Fox 45 I bought many years ago and that little gem is now on my second Four Star 40 and will take the plane straight up.... broke a crankshaft on it about ten years ago and Fox replaced it for small change and it still is running very strong..... Other commenters are correct...take time to get it right and that old Fox will run on and on and on and on... Frank Schwartz
Reply to
Frank Schwartz
I have always considered the end of the breakin the point at which it delivers peak power. In which case two gallons would be only a little more than average. Modern Fox's don't require the long break in that the old ones did. They use CNC machining now and tolerances are better. They no longer set them up extra tight and lap the rings in. But they do use hard metal and the ringed engines do take longer to break in than an OS.
Reply to
Sport Pilot
All three of my brand new Fox engines were made in the mid-eighties; pre-CNC, I'd guess.
Good flying, desmobob
Reply to
desmobob
That sounds interesting. I have a selection of superfine powdered abrasives an old Corning Glass employee gave me for the purpose of fire-lapping the barrel of a troublesome rifle I have. I don't think they'd be suitable for the Foxes, though.
I wonder if there is a common abrasive that's harder than the Fox cylinder bore, but softer than the bearings? Not that I'd use it....
I'll play it safe and give one of the .40BBRCs plenty of test-stand time, then I'll put it in a high-wing model to finish the break in. After I order a muffler. I think I may keep the other .40 and the .36 as conversation pieces, or if I really like the way the .40 runs, just the .36.
Good flying, desmobob
Reply to
desmobob
Good old Lusterlox. A bit more aggressive than Tin Oxide, IMO
Back in the '80's, that was a 'behind the counter' item at the hobbyshop.
Only sold it to those with a clue, as anyone who thought 'a Little is good, More is better' got bit hard by Lusterlox, and got to use Duke Fox great policy on getting parts on his motors afterwards.
My Enyas seemed to take as long to break in as the Fox, but the airbleed carb on the Enya made them more Newbie friendly than the Fox
** mike **
Reply to
mike
If you mount the engines straight up, use a tilt up for low or mid wing and a tilt down for high wing. If you side mount, use a tilt up to get the muffler away from the fuselage (less gunk!).
Their mufflers all have rear exits so a deflector may help.
Reply to
Paul McIntosh
I have seen more than a few folks break-in and then break-out their engines using Lustrox. Pity. But I had to smile.
Ed Cregger
Reply to
Ed Cregger
No. I think Fox's were CNC since the 70's. I remember buying a Stunt .35 in the late 70's and was suprised it didn't get real hot on the test stand and take a gallon of fuel before it would four stroke at a reasonable temp. But I could have just gotten lucky. But IMO its that people keep repeating stuff from when Fox was popular in the 50's and 60's.
Reply to
Sport Pilot

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.