Not a Cox Engine

It is Aero 35:

http://modelenginenews.org/drj/aero35.html

Oooo horizontally opposed!!!!
That would sound cool.....It’s got a slick design, I like it!

Levent Suberk wrote:It is Aero 35:

http://modelenginenews.org/drj/aero35.html

Thanks friends for the data, it is certainly interesting, here I found a video, at least some explosions ago!
There will be someone who has one and wants to share a video, it is certainly a very rare piece ... thank you for placing this copy here!

I look and look at the drawing, but I can not interpret how they move their transmission parts

Yeah that sounds awesome!!!

Thanks for all the info and reply. 20 years of research and development, what dedication!

Another one is RCV engine:

http://sceptreflight.com/Model%20Engine%20Tests/RCV%2090-SP.html

MBT85 wrote:Oooo horizontally opposed!!!!
That would sound cool.....It’s got a slick design, I like it!

Not actually horizontally opposed. It is a single cylinder reciprocating engine. The only difference with a conventional engine is that, obviously, the cylinder is parallel to the crankshaft. I suspect is would sound identical to any other single cylinder two stroke model engine. The piston goes up & down (well, backwards and forwards), and the crankshaft goes round and round.

From what I can gather, looking at the picture, is that the "Transfer Ball Joint" sits in a socket in the backplate. The connecting rod/crank pin rotates in the end block of the crankshaft, "twiddling" it in a circle, much like a spoon stirring a cup of coffee.

I believe the main reason for the design was to make a more compact engine for use in scale aircraft where the engine could be fully cowled. As pointed out by Levent, the RCV engine is another very interesting concept worth checking out.

Rod.

MauricioB wrote:I look and look at the drawing, but I can not interpret how they move their transmission parts  

After studying the drawing, it lacks detail, might have been done this way to not give away the mechanism to prevent others from copying. The lever that holds the piston has an outer shaft with a cammed tab or slipper block on the upper end, sliding on an inner rod that has as Rod has pointed out, a ball joint that is pinned to the backplate. This inner rod is simply a guide.

The left portion of the piston lever is shafted, sliding up and down on this inner rod, has a crankshaft guide hole as a bearing surface to guide the end, which has a tabbed or balled end to run in some form of a cammed fixed channel in the crankcase to cause it to move left and right for piston "up" and "down" (left and right) action.

The fact that it was less powerful by 20% than other engines (.29 - .35) and its extra cost to produce were its drawbacks. Having an engine head protruding from a cowl for less scale factor was not an obstacle in most modeller's eyes. $35 for the CL/FF version is $287.21 US in today's money. This is up in the range of a modern 4 cycle in cost. In contrast the modern 2 cycle engines are again 1/3rd the cost of it. The other engines back in 1963 were roughly, what, $12 or so, 1/3rd the cost of this engine.

Because of its rarity today, I imagine that it would be very expensive to obtain one as now they are collectable prizes, perhaps more than the rear drum Cox .15 engine. Congrats to the one who has one in their possession.

I seen one of the Aero engines sell on the Bay i think it ended around 1500 USDA your in luck heres one now https://www.ebay.ca/itm/NEW-RARE-EARLY-1960s-UNIQUE-AERO-35-R-C-GLOW-MODEL-AIRPLANE-ENGINE-wBOX/143086881907?hash=item2150a48c73:g:6qcAAOSw8iZcN~0W:rk:10

At 6 days out from auction end and already commanding $565.00 US with 24 bids, no doubt it will achieve at least $1,500 and perhaps even more.
That is for the staunch collector and not a bottom feeder like me.

I’ve wanted one of these things going on 8yrs. My only hope is finding one that someone has no clue what it is.

Bob Zambelli who flies with Rusty has one. We had it at the field one afternoon. It runs pretty well. Neat engine and it's internals reminds me of a Sawzall.

Ken Cook wrote:Bob Zambelli who flies with Rusty has one. We had it at the field one afternoon. It runs pretty well. Neat engine and it's internals reminds me of a Sawzall.

Ken, I don't have doubts about that. According to the write up presented here, it did appear to be a fine piece of craftsmanship. It does make for an interesting piece of history along with its unique piston alignment and mechanism to move the piston between TDC and BDC.

I just get a kick out of bringing one of my old Enya's to the field and have someone younger ask what engine it is, because they never saw one like it, and also commenting that it has its own unique sound.

No doubt that such an engine on an aircraft would garner attention, even with the old folk.

Ken Cook wrote:     Bob Zambelli who flies with Rusty has one. We had it at the field one afternoon. It runs pretty well. Neat engine and it's internals reminds me of a Sawzall.

Lol. That's funny, I was just now wondering about him when I read Ken's post. Of course Bob has one. I'll have to ask him if it's in a plane. I'd love to get some video of it in flight.
Rusty

Rusty, he didn't have it on a plane then. He always had a way of using the unusual though. One that comes to mind was the Wankel on the Brodak Super Clown.

Ken Cook wrote:       Rusty, he didn't have it on a plane then. He always had a way of using the unusual though. One that comes to mind was  the Wankel on the Brodak Super Clown.

He probably had to double the fuel tank size to get the same run time. Those are OS Wankel’s are fuel hogs. I have 3 early versions with the carb mounted on the side plate.

Jason_WI wrote:

Ken Cook wrote:Rusty, he didn't have it on a plane then. He always had a way of using the unusual though. One that comes to mind was the Wankel on the Brodak Super Clown.

He probably had to double the fuel tank size to get the same run time. Those are OS Wankel’s are fuel hogs. I have 3 early versions with the carb mounted on the side plate.

I find that observation fascinating. (Oops! Starting to sound like Spock. )

Back in the 1970's I remember as a college student dreaming of getting a Mazda RX-2 or RX-3 sedan. Then I found out from a dealer mechanic that owners weren't maintaining the cooling system. (This was with the old anti-freeze that had to be replaced every other year, hoses of earlier rubber that had to be checked and replaced on a regular basis - 3 or 5 years and anti-freeze topped off regularly.) Overheating the rotary ruined the tip seals (equivalent to piston rings) requiring an expensive, complete engine tear down and overhaul. Also they didn't get good gas mileage, around 14-16 mpg (V-8 range) whereas the import 4 cylinders were getting over 20. The rotary in passenger cars was short lived.

By the time I graduated, the cars were more than I wanted to afford and got a used 1976 Ford Pinto, then a used low mileage 1984 Dodge Aries.

I've always wanted to get an OS Wankel engine, but the $450 entry level cost when an equivalent power Schneurle was under $100 left desiring similar to the Mazda RX's.

Now the OS Wankel is an engine collector item.

Here's a link to the Aeromodeller test-which does give you a better diagrammatic explanation of the mechanics of the operation:
http://sceptreflight.net/Model%20Engine%20Tests/Aero%2035%20(1).html

And a much later explanation by Peter Chinn: http://sceptreflight.net/Model%20Engine%20Tests/Aero%2035%20(1).html
plus his original MAN test: http://sceptreflight.net/Model%20Engine%20Tests/Aero%2035%20(3).html