Fox .09 Rocket Acquisition

As I've previously mentioned, my first engine was the Fox 0.099. I had it on my original Stuntman 23, a PDQ trainer and and PDQ Circus Prince as well as an ice boat. Most of its time was on the PDQ trainer which I finally learned to fly on after nearly two years of trying. (It never had near enough power to fly the Circus Prince which was larger and heavier than the other planes mentioned).
Towards the end of the PDQ trainer, my Fox got progressively weaker as it gradually wore out. As this occurred over 60 years ago I for the likes of me can't remember who I gave or sold it to. Wish I had kept it.

Now the point of this post is this simple fact:

The best compliment one can pay to any object that you purchased is that you wore it out!

How many things do we have in our basements and garages that we are "going to use one of these days" that never get used.

Really something to think about as so many of us members (including me) have engines that they will never use.

Better to use them and wear them out that to hoard them only to have them discarded by our heirs.

A couple of points...was the K&B 09 still being made in 61 or 62? ...the Fox Hustler appeared in '61, the Rocket 09 in '59 OS had been in the market with an 099 since the early 50s-and the Pet itself appeared around 1958-the Cub 099 from 1950 being no great threat to anything by that stage. The Enya 09-II was on the market then as well-and matched the K&B 09 for power...but was it available in the US then?

FWIW as a junior in the very early 70s, I recall the Pet-II's as being truly awful-hard to start from cold and impossible when hot....but of course that was long before the days of small electric starters...given a decent amount of nitro and an electric starter and they would have gone well. As for their commercial success well Peter Chinn records that the Pet-III came on the scene because the Pet-II crankcase dies were completely worn out after producing 300,000 examples of the Pet-II....so by any measure-that's a lot of one engine model.....

ChrisM
'ffkiwi'

rsv1cox wrote:You wrote: Think I will do Bob @rsv1cox's cleaning method, use an old toothbrush with MEK solvent to clean the outside, no reason to disassemble.

Toothbrush yes.  But MEK (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) no!  The only use I have for MEK is when I mix up Bondo for automotive repairs.  It's dangerous stuff.  While at the Naval Air Test Center at Patuxent River we lost a young airman to it and his supervisor was reduced in rank.  The Airman was mixing up a batch in a large tank and suffered extreme exposure.  He died shortly thereafter. This is good advice however. [...] But use in small amounts, do not expose skin or inhale vapors.

Missed your comment Bob, before I posted my previous reply.

Was referring to your use of solvents in general Bob, not necessarily that you used my stuff. Yes, these perclorochemicals are extremely toxic and must be used with extreme caution. When I use it, I definitely have the area well ventilated or do outdoors, and I use very small amounts. This is why after 10 years, I still have almost a full gallon. I have used it to thin PVC pipe cement. Even though the can may be as tightly sealed as I can get it, it seems to over time, lose its solvent and thicken up. A bit of MEK can restore is back to usefulness, without buying another can of cement. Lately, that stuff has become very expensive.

But, in proper ventilation and in necessary, a full respirator mask and gloves, MEK does clean parts thoroughly. But, again, I found it useful for thinning / restoring PVC pipe cement. I bought the can when it was still reasonably priced.

Back in the 1970's, I remember Berryman was extremely caustic. You definitely wanted to keep it off your hands. I guess they reformulated it years later. Later, I'll need to give it a try.

ffkiwi wrote:A couple of points...was the K&B 09 still being made in 61 or 62? ...the Fox Hustler appeared in '61, the Rocket 09 in '59 OS had been in the market with an 099 since the early 50s-and the Pet itself appeared around 1958-the Cub 099 from 1950 being no great threat to anything by that stage. The Enya 09-II was on the market then as well-and matched the K&B 09 for power...but was it available in the US then?

This was me in 1961.


So, anything I say about the Fox .09 Rocket and its counterparts is basically read or inferred, not from experience. My first experience with any glow engine was in the mid 1960's, 1st glow engine aircraft, Cox .049 Spitfire RTF with Silver Bee engine. I hadn't even finished grade school yet.

ffkiwi wrote:FWIW as a junior in the very early 70s, I recall the Pet-II's as being truly awful-hard to start from cold and impossible when hot....but of course that was long before the days of small electric starters...given a decent amount of nitro and an electric starter and they would have gone well. As for their commercial success well Peter Chinn records that the Pet-III came on the scene because the Pet-II crankcase dies were completely worn out after producing 300,000 examples of the Pet-II....so by any measure-that's a lot of one engine model.....

Got my first Pet-III a few years ago, the CL/FF version, NOS, yet to fire it up. My first experience with an OS was in the late 1970's in college. I built a Top Flite Ken Willard 39" Schoolmaster (original version), powered it with an OS Max .10R/C. Had a bugger of a time getting it to run on a Fox short idle bar plug. After, tried a standard Swanson Fireball Hot red short plug with no idle bar. It became a different animal, very easy starting, became my favorite plane for a season.

The 3.1 oz. OS .10R/C was one of the best upgrades for an .049 trainer, IMO.

George you and I are within a couple of years of each other...though I did start modelling at age 8....and have been at it continuously ever since...though specific interests within the genre have changed over the years. I grew up in Dunedin (NZ ..not Florida!!) and didn't even realise there were such things as model clubs till my first year in high school-so I was about 13 when I acquired my first engine-rather ironically (in light of this thread) a McCoy 098....which I subsequently swapped for an ED Hornet (which I still have, BTW)-locally you could buy DC diesels, Taifun diesels, Cox Babe Bees, and a limited range of OS engines...including the aforementioned Pet-II...which was affordable (priced about the same as the DC engines)-and came in a maroon box...whereas all the other OS's came in a deep blue box.

We are talking of an era though-of club fuel-75/25 glow and 1/3/1/3/1/3 diesel at very reasonable prices.."bring yer empty bottles back!"  -and where your glow battery was either a single cell from a semi moribund 6 or 12V car battery , hacksawed off the remainder (remember to use long thin leads...otherwise your Cox head goes 'poof'...)  or in my case-a milk bottle  carrier with two or 4 big bell batteries wired in parallel....and short leads!   Under such circumstances....playing with OS pets was not a fun experience....and there were quite a few of them around at the time. I still have 3 or 4 Pet-IIs and several Pet-IIIs.......of course I couldn't agree more about the Max 10-it was a dream in comparison to the Pet....and powered my first R/C model ca 1973....a David Boddington Tyro....curiously while I still have the R/C gear from that model tucked away in a box...50 years later, I have no idea what became of that articular engine...

ChrisM

Hello Chris, yes some interesting parallels in our lives. I started building in the 1st or 2nd grade with a Douglas C-47 DC-3 Transport, then a Convair B-36, both plastic models (or vice versa, memory gets a little fuzzy after 63 years ). But, flew my share of balsa gliders before then. Learned early on to repair those balsa gliders with cement. Once adjusted to fly properly, cement the tail feathers, plastic profile "bubble canopy" and wing into place. Cement wing splits to make the wing whole again. I could continue flying my gliders where other boys, they'd run their course and I guess the trash.

Most of my building and flying were rubber powered aircraft, especially stick and tissue. I built over a half dozen half-A C/L kits, but had no one to fly with in junior high and high school. Earning money at a chicken farm after school at $1.25 per hour, I bought a new Cox L4 Grasshopper Piper Cub with postage stamp engine. A couple high school friends that work there helped me one summer afternoon after work. With a 15 mph tradewind, I started the engine successfully, peaked it out, did the traditional wingover into the wind into the traditional Figure Nine. Aircraft was completely destroyed. Still have the donor engine.

For about 20 years, I had my Silver Bee engine (predecessor of the Black Widow but with non-stunt 8 cc tank) from my 1965 Cox Spitfire. Then in a move, my modelling box and a box of my wife's new things did not show up at our destination. First time we'd moved with an employer hired moving company. My wife thought she saw the movers putting a couple boxes in their cab and not the back. These were not on the inventory list. I lost my engine and a couple kits. (Since, we've watched movers like a hawk.)

My experiences with glow, although I had them 7 years earlier, really took off after I became a young man, joined the Army as a clarinet player. Got stationed back in eastern U.S., where they actually had calm weather during later Spring through early Fall. A roommate helped me fly my 21 inch Sterling Beginner Eindecker with Cox Babe Bee engine. Built it in the barracks after school hours. Initially, I crashed a dozen times until I got the hang of it, then had successful flights. The plane was lighter than than the plastic RTF's, flew better and more stable. Plus, it was more sturdy. After a bad flight, I'd just straighten the wire landing gear, do a quick flush of any dirt and grass on the engine. If needed, replace the prop, then back to flying.

After a dozen crashes, the fuselage split down the middle. Back at the barracks, I reglued the broken joint, straightened the engine mount. Did a better job of cleaning the engine. Then back to flying shortly after the touch up paint and glue cured. Flew it so much, that the aluminum elevator horn hole where the pushrod passed through was worn double its original size. When I graduated from the school a couple months later, I gave the plane to another soldier interested in it.

Recently I read AMA article shared in another thread by @944_Jim, stating the Cox engines were hard to start. Only experienced with the reed valves, I found them quite the opposite. I had a good 1.5V dry battery (the older ones the size of the insulated metal coffee cups or other style size of a 6V lantern battery), good fuel, good Perfect manual fuel pump and Cox ignition leads. Once accustomed to how to adjust them, I would have them running in one or two starts. Then quickly into flying.

Just received this today, a very nice gift from @Ken Cook. Thanks, Ken!    


This is the first time that I have owned a Cox Competition 8x4 gray prop. It is wide bladed, will later compare it with a Masters 8x4, for my Cox .15 Sportsman.

There are 2 new 7x4 wood props, a Zinger and a Rev-Up. These are really nice. I only have 7x6 wood props and one 7x5 wood in that diameter. The rest are plastic. Ken recommended to use lower inertia wood props on the Fox .09 Rocket, because the crankshafts are a little fragile, don't have the durability of other engines. This is good to know.

The other parts are not Mecoa, but genuine Fox of Fort Smith, AR parts. These will go a long way to keeping this engine in top running shape for a while. Again, thank you Ken!

Also, about 2 weeks ago, @Mike1984 sent me a very nice gift of Cox Sportsman parts. I'll post those later, when I get a chance to photograph them. Those I'll post in my Sportsman thread. Thanks again, Mike!

The Fox Hustler 10 turned up today-its in excellent order and feels nice flicked over with a prop on it. Its one of the later versions-with 'FOX' on the case (albeit in very small letters!) and the backplate attached by 2 screws-as per the cross flow Rocket 15 [the early version used a screw in backplate like the Fox Rocket.09]..also the control line variant with no provision for fitting the 'chopper' exhaust baffle.

Looking forward to doing some comparative tests with it against the Fox 09 and Gilbert 11

ChrisM
'ffkiwi'

Chris, a tach run demo of those 3 engines, Fox .09 Rocket, Fox .10 Hustler, and A.C. Gilbert .11 Thunderhead is an excellent idea, looking forward to what numbers you get from them.

My guess is that Duke Fox named the .10 after the B-58 that was out around the same time.

I now have a functioning propeller tach. Similarly, I want to do similar with my Fox .09 Rocket, A.C. Gilbert .11, Cox .15 Sportsman, and Cox .049 Thermal Hopper in the near future at this 4,300 feet (1,311 m) elevation.

GallopingGhostler wrote:Chris, a tach run demo of those 3 engines, Fox .09 Rocket, Fox .10 Hustler, and A.C. Gilbert .11 Thunderhead is an excellent idea, looking forward to what numbers you get from them.

I now have a functioning propeller tach. Similarly, I want to do similar with my Fox .09 Rocket, A.C. Gilbert .11, Cox .15 Sportsman, and Cox .049 Thermal Hopper in the near future at this 4,300 feet (1,311 m) elevation.

I'm far closer to sea level than your altitude....I'm thinking I will run two fuels 10% and 25%, and perhaps half a dozen props from 8x4 down to say 6x4....something like 8x4, 8x3, 7-1/2 x3-1/2, 7x4, 7x3, 6.5x3, 6x4. I did whip the backplate off to check inside after I unwrapped it-the gas passage is quite small only 5/32"...and the venturi not much bigger at 11/64"....I suspect that the induction system may well be quite limiting....but the shaft journal diameter is only 1/4"-so there is no spare material to make the gas passage any bigger-and 3/64" wall thickness is not a lot of strength to start with! I did note though-no big end wear and zero slop in the ball joint little end.....which is promising....the head however seems to have been tightened up by a torque wrench-and showed no inclination to move-so I hope the element is intact...once I find a prop the Hustler is especially happy on-I'd like to try out the alternative heads...which at this stage would seem to be the Fox 099 head, the Gilbert 11 and any permutation on a Cox 15 glowhead....of course there might be a lot of +/- head shimming required to get the best out of them...

....I'm tempted-if the 10 shows any promise-to grab a spare shaft from Mecoa, and see if anything useful could be done to the shaft port with a bit of reworking.... which makes comparison with the Gilbert 11 much more interesting if some of the reports on the latter are true..

ChrisM

Ken Cook wrote:            I found my Hustler .10 to be a terrific engine. I know Ron Cribbs had one many years ago and he quickly unbolted it from the nose. I didn't expect much in performance based on the Rocket .09. I like the Rocket .09 and one needs to remember, it's a entry level design and it does fit the bill. Whatever you do, don't toss out any burnt plugs. I've had very good success drilling and tapping the old heads for standard longs. The one thing that I couldn't do was to mill the top of the plug to lower it down into the combustion area. My friend does that for me. It really works well unlike most smaller engines which suffer from compression loss due to the thread and cavity area of the standard plugs.

Thanks, Ken for the inputs.

Along with what you said, I gather that matching power and prop thrust to the right airframes, they performed well. Bob @rsv1cox had very good success with a Testors .19 Black Head on a Sterling Nieuport 28 C/L, because although heavier, it has such a short nose that the heavier engine balanced well in that airframe.

I gather that the Fox .09 Rocket would do well in a DeBolt DMECO 26" All American.

Thanks for remembering George, and you hit the nail on the head.  A match made in heaven.  Some may disagree.  I flew that airplane combo for a long, long time and it never diasppointed.  Bet if I did a quick patch job on it today and flew it, it would still thrill.  Loved that airplane, never equalled even with my scratched P-38.  Bought three more kits, saved one NIB, built another (loft) and gave one away right here on the forum.  

Pictured with my new best friend.





Just thought, that airplane is at least 45 years old.  Last flown with a buddy of mine at NATC Patuxent River on a P3V compass rose test circle.  Perfect U/C flying site but unforgiving if you lawn darted it.

Edit....It was a .29 not a .19. Still George, you have amazing recall as evidenced many times here.

Ken Cook wrote:My Fox .09 is going on a Consolidated  Wow Wee.

Ken, not knowing what that plane is, found it on RC Groups.

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?1969851-Consolidated-WoW-EE-kit


Seems to be a really nice combat design, very clean looking and IMO definitely enough wing area for the lighter Fox .09 Rocket. Ought to be a blast to fly when done.

That looks like an awesome Half A flying wing! I really like the swept back leading edge - Looks great

Did somebody mention a P38? If so two Fox 0.099's could be installed with counter rotating props just like the original.

706jim wrote:Did somebody mention a P38? If so two Fox 0.099's could be installed with counter rotating props just like the original.

Funny you should mention that.....I have a rather nice profile scale P-38 plan by Ian Peacock...for two 09 engines....hmmmm.....now do I have a 7x4 3-blade pusher....

ChrisM

Ken Cook wrote:My Fox .09 is going on a Consolidated  Wow Wee.

I wish you would do a build thread on this Ken ,Joe sent me one of these kits appears to be pretty old and will need some of the wood replaced plus the die crush is very light making it hard to tell where the line is . With the box only being 5.5 X 12.5 " it looks bigger than it is still at 23" W/S though .

WoW a .35 size that sounds crazy , i guess you would have a lot less wood warp and cleaner cuts So . I found my Rocket .09 It was on the cleaning board benith some other stuff , It needs a needle and spring and a cleaning , has no pack plate .

She is a little rough and locked up tight , I don't know if I will fix a back plate for it or not need to get it turning over first and see what I have .

Eric, it also lacks a complete spray bar? Other than lacking a complete NVA, is it otherwise in good enough condition that once freed up, rest is in good order to be a runner?

I am glad you seen that I wasn't sure since never seen one before ? I don't know about its shape because its locked up tight ... I will need to get it loosened up to check the comp. anyway . I see Mecoa don't even offer a replacement DUH . OH well for now ! but i have one