1959 Fox Rocket .09

I didn't get a backplate with any of them. On my list of things to make along with the gasket. I think losing them after removing from an aeroplane - undoing the bolts to remove the engine and then not reassembling for storage - must have been a common event.

The engine is not powerful but was a reliable and easy starter.

http://sceptreflight.net/Model%20Engine%20Tests/Fox%20Rocket%2009%20(2).html

Yeah I see a lot with missing backplates. You have enough now....please let me win one.  

I owned one of these.

"Warranty void if plier marks are seen on the engine"

That's a engine I don't have (not really 1/2a) but would probably like to, if I came across one cheap enough, they're kind of neat. Are you guys referring to the backplate that's recessed into case?

The engine came with a stamped steel backplate and cork gasket that sealed off the fuel tank. It wasn't the best system as the radial mounting bolts provided the sealing force. Also, the tank was pretty small compared to a Cox 0.049. And lastly, the fuel line was a short piece of black neoprene that stuck through a drilled hole in the tank section of the crankcase; not nearly as elegant as the Cox reedies.

Thanks for reminding me, I vaguely remember that.

BTW I'm a member of your Yahoo group. Recent format changes make it somewhat clunky to navigate compared to two months ago.

yep, it sure does, ten years ago it was a pretty decent web site. I've thought about moving it, but i just dont have that kind of time.

Mark Boesen wrote:yep, it sure does, ten years ago it was a pretty decent web site. I've thought about moving it, but i just don't have that kind of time.

Mark, you have a great collection of members and information over there. I always read your regular e-mail updates. Then if I see something interesting I'll log in to read about it. Even though you don't see me posting, I am a lurker.

Rusty

The problem is I've accumulated over 4000 photos of plastic RTF and 1/2a engines and in the last couple years started updating the photos with info, now yahoo in their infinite wisdom decided to redo their groups and in the process made it very hard to navigate and the photo info is now posted in the photo itself, making it hard to read...maybe Yahoo will redo it again in 3-4 more years, lol.

You know, looking again at the Fox 0.09, one has to admit that it DID look unique.
Back then none of us really thought much about power output, rather it was a struggle to get these things started, never mind making a successful flight.
And I remember being seduced by the position of the needle valve located safely behind the cylinder and the promise of "one flip starts".
One final comment (certainly reinforced by the picture of the group of Fox 0.09's earlier in this thread) was that the finish of the main engine casting was far rougher than the renditions of the engine in the ad that I saw in MAN back in 1959/60.
Still wish I had kept this engine for sentimental reasons.

Fox engines in general had a rougher finish versus others. I remember my impressions of a Fox .25RC I had purchased in the late 1980's. Compared with the Japanese engines, its finish was unpolished, resembled akin to the lead soldiers I used to cast from my father's molds. There were swirl marks in the metal from the aluminum casting process, head edges were rough whereas the Japanese offerings were turned on a lathe with crankcase and head bead blasted, etc.

I've got the similarly sideported engine to the Rocket .09, the A.C. Gilbert .11 Thunderhead. I believe it has a tad more power, but still compared with say an Enya .09, its power is more akin to the engines of the 1940's, from what I gather. The A.C. Gilbert .074 Thunderhead has the power of an .049 reedy.

My 1959 Berkeley Impulse single channel RC trainer/pylon racer kit plans show a Fox .09 Rocket in the nose. It is a 46" span kit, showing a tube (valve) receiver and rubber band powered escapement, with articulated rudder and elevator. (Rudder left or right gives a touch up elevator to prevent loss of altitude during turns.) Still debating whether to put the Gilbert .11 or Enya .09-III TV in the nose. The Enya of course is much more powerful.  

I finally got a complete Fox 09. I now have a pattern for the backplate and gasket. The screws are a hotchpotch but that is easily resolved.



One of those previously pictured has a broken lug on the crankcase. I also managed to find a brand new crankcase, I also have some spare heads so hopefully I will end up with eight pristine Fox Rocket 09s with backplates!

Ian, do you have experience with the Fox .049's? Those can remarkably surprise you for an old engine. I had one that just recently sent the piston into orbit. I'm in search of another piston. They do turn up and needle well. I didn't expect that from that engine. Ken

Ken Cook wrote:           Ian, do you have experience with the Fox .049's? Those can remarkably surprise you for an old engine. I had one that just recently sent the piston into orbit. I'm in search of another piston. They do turn up and needle well. I didn't expect that from that engine. Ken

I know the 09s aren't good performers but I enjoy restoring engines and don't like to see them incomplete. When I got the first one, I didn't realise it should have had a backplate and that the rear mount was actually a tank. Fox engines are quite rare in the UK and, engines like this one with a special glow head, aren't popular with anyone wanting a running engine.

I have run three of these and they were all first flick starters. I have slowly collected spare working heads (some new!) and I will modify the duff ones for glow plugs. Having so many makes it worthwhile for me to make a mould to press matchiing backplates.

The Fox Rocket 09 is one of the friendliest and ugliest engines I have ever owned. It has that vintage look about it.

I only have one Fox 049. The Fox 049 FAI. I gave it a good clean and ran it up. I spent ages trying to start it until I realised I was using my zero nitro fuel. It started easily on 20% nitro but it has become another on my list to restore to pristine. I am a little nervous as it has another special glow head. Fox engines and spares are not easy to find in the UK and postage from the USA makes small purchases expensive.



I do like the Fox engines they are the American PAWs. They may not be the best engines in the world but they have engendered a loyality and a fondness in memory. I have a permanent search for Fox engines - if they are not advertised to the USA, I get them for a song.

Only ever seen the one Fox 049. Nearly every Fox engine I come across here is pre 1975. I have a multitude of engines that have been bought by modellers, never used and sold on as surplus to requirements but I don't see it with Fox engines. They don't seem to have a distributor over here or any participating dealerships.

I placed an order with Fox last February and it is still pending. Sad but from the correspondence I have received they are concentrating on other manufacturing priorities. Sign of the times.

My first example of the Fox .09 sideport was complete and nearly new. Despite it''s apparent excellent condition, performance is very disappointing. Makes for a great display engine. My second example has had the rear fuel tank hacked from the crankcase in an effort to lighten the engine. It is really knocked about but still runs ok, so could be a flyer and would probably suit an old-time free flighter, which isn't my cup-of-tea. Strange how people tend to be really loyal to such an anaemic engine whilst being critical of something such as the Gilbert. I've found my Gilberts 11s far superior runners to the Fox. I certainly haven't experienced the same "one flip" starting of the Fox which others mention.
I have one Fox .049 but have done too little testing to comment on its performance.

Rod.

What a strange design, that Rocket .09.. having an integral tank that small.. Maybe these were popular with the free-flight flyers? I looked at Mark Boesen's photo showing the engine, box and literature, to see if a wrench/tool might have been provided for removing the rear inner cover. It looks like there are slots similar to the rear covers on Cox Tee Dee/Medallion engines. Have you ever removed one of the covers Ian?

Here the 1st ad for the Rocket .09 from the April 59 MAN.  The engine was designed for beginners so easy starts and low price were mandatory.

Fox used a lot of 09 parts to make his Hustler .10.  A new case and crank were made just for the .10.  The NVA came from the .07.  The prop nut-washer-thrust washer, piston-cylinder, screw in rear cover, and glow head came from the 09.  The heads look different, but that is just a change in machining.  The .09 came with a special wrench that could remove the rear cover and glowhead, and prop.
The .049 was descended from the .07 Duke made for Comet RTFs.  The whole story and lots of pictures are on Mark's forum and on the RC Group's vintage glow engines forum.  I flew lots of flights one the original in a Goldberg Jr Falcon.  Then another summer and a half with the new shiny version in a Goldberg Skylane.  The guts in both versions are the same.  They swing 6-4 props with authority.

roddie wrote:What a strange design, that Rocket .09.. having an integral tank that small.. Maybe these were popular with the free-flight flyers? I looked at Mark Boesen's photo showing the engine, box and literature, to see if a wrench/tool might have been provided for removing the rear inner cover. It looks like there are slots similar to the rear covers on Cox Tee Dee/Medallion engines. Have you ever removed one of the covers Ian?

I have - I did it on the one with the broken lug. Plenty of heat needed though. You have to be careful though as it is deeply recessed and if you slip it would be easy to damage the crankcase. I used a flat to bar, machined fit the slots exactly, and that was place in the end of a slotted round bar that had a T bar through it. When I find it, I will take a picture of it.

ian1954 wrote:

roddie wrote:What a strange design, that Rocket .09.. having an integral tank that small.. Maybe these were popular with the free-flight flyers? I looked at Mark Boesen's photo showing the engine, box and literature, to see if a wrench/tool might have been provided for removing the rear inner cover. It looks like there are slots similar to the rear covers on Cox Tee Dee/Medallion engines. Have you ever removed one of the covers Ian?

I have - I did it on the one with the broken lug. Plenty of heat needed though. You have to be careful though as it is deeply recessed and if you slip it would be easy to damage the crankcase. I used a flat to bar, machined fit the slots exactly, and that was place in the end of a slotted round bar that had a T bar through it. When I find it, I will take a picture of it.

That sounds like it would work well. Supplied tools leave little to be desired. While they do work.. you can damage your engine if not careful. I suppose it's a lot cheaper for an engine manufacturer to provide a stamped steel combination tool.. if they give you anything extra at all.