Cylinder numbering

**Cribbs74** Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:56 am

When did Cox stop stamping cylinder numbers? None of my engines have numbers stamped on them and yet I see stamped cylinders all the time. Is it a hit or miss type thing or was there a period of time when they just came sans stamp?

nitroairplane Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:03 am

well read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_model_engine#Cylinders
it helps a lot with cylinders.

**Cribbs74** Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:10 am

Indra, I was just there, it doesn't say anything about when they started or stopped. I may have missed it.

warrenlead Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:43 am

According to Dan Sitter's Cox Model Engine Handbook, "Generally the numbers were imprinted on the base of cylinders starting June 1, 1961 and continued as new cylinders were developed.... the practice continued until 1976"

The idea was to distinguish different cylinder types during production runs. So if there was only one type of cylinder being produced at a certain time there would be no need to stamp them, hence why you sometimes get cylinders with no numbers on them.

nitroairplane Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:46 am

But them then how did the #1 slit cylinder come about?

**Cribbs74** Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:21 am

warrenlead wrote:According to Dan Sitter's Cox Model Engine Handbook, "Generally the numbers were imprinted on the base of cylinders starting June 1, 1961 and continued as new cylinders were developed.... the practice continued until 1976"

The idea was to distinguish different cylinder types during production runs. So if there was only one type of cylinder being produced at a certain time there would be no need to stamp them, hence why you sometimes get cylinders with no numbers on them.

Thanks Warren,

I knew the why but, not the when. Much appreciated.

**Cribbs74** Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:28 am

nitroairplane wrote:But them then how did the #1 slit cylinder come about?

If you are speaking about crankbndr's cylinder it could be any reason. Simply a worker who was tired of confusion an decided to stamp like it was done in years past or possibly a modeler who wanted to keep things straight for his own purposes.

Upon further inspection the #1 appears to be scribed and not stamped. I may be wrong there. If scribed then it's a good possibility it was done outside the factory.

John Goddard Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:51 am

Just a thought.
I imagine that 61 was just about the pinnacle of production when the ability to distinguish between the different cylinders for the many different products they'd
Be manufacturing every day would have been paramount. 76 was perhaps the beginning
Of the end where perhaps individual weeks were dedicated to single model
Production which might explain no more numbering.

Mudhen Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:30 pm

nitroairplane Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:37 pm

Mudhen wrote:
John Goddard wrote:Just a thought...76 was perhaps the beginning of the end...
Interesting thought, John.
Although off topic, I believe the “beginning of the end,” was when Cox moved away from hobby/competition engines to slot cars, gardening tools, and toys. These diversities may have been lucrative in the beginning, but they had an egregious end. I often wonder where the company could have been had it remained focused on what it did best.
Mud

I reckon through better management through from the late '70s it could have survived.

Jason_WI Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:50 pm

Maybe the Conquest 40 would have made it to production.

nitroairplane Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:52 pm

I reckon cox would hae been the first to get into BNF warbirds and stuff.
I find it kin of ironic that cox started the RTF craze that eventually killed them.

Sponsored content

Cylinder numbering

Cylinder numbering

Re: Cylinder numbering

Re: Cylinder numbering

Re: Cylinder numbering

Re: Cylinder numbering

Re: Cylinder numbering

Re: Cylinder numbering

Re: Cylinder numbering

Re: Cylinder numbering

Re: Cylinder numbering

Re: Cylinder numbering

Re: Cylinder numbering

Re: Cylinder numbering