My new ride

Looks great Ken!

That looks beautifully built Ken.

I like those flying wings. I would like to build a fierce arrow in future. This looks like a much easier build.

Any chance of a plan?

Theo

Theo,

Here's a link to the Fierce Arrow plan:

http://www.outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=5845

This is a very clean built Ken. Will the next step be its big brother, the Twin Terror?

Lieven

Theo, the plane was given to me in a already started state with no plans. It had many issues as far as straight was concerned. I broke the wings loose and re glued everything. This required a lot of additional work in terms of replacing sheeting and also fiber glassing in the entire engine crutch and fuse box. Barry Baxter has plans for this old design. http://www.controllineplans.com/frameset2.htm   Consolidated also made a 1/2A version of this plane called the Wowie. This plane uses no spar in the leading edge and the sheeting comes to a point so sharp it would seem it would cut you. It really contradicted all of my thoughts of how it was going to fly in terms of bleeding off speed from level to a maneuver. I must say for an old design it really flew impressively. The engine however was just brutally loud. I love the noise, this one was over the top. Many of the designs from the 50's were similar. I have a Half Fast waiting for some finishing touches. I like the Wild Bill Netzeband designs.

Phil is spot on with the orange polka dots though. This green just loses itself and these planes had used crazy paint schemes. I had this green covering and figured what would I ever do with it. This was also the first time I ever did a Monokote hinge which I think works beautifully. It really did grow on me . As for the Twin Terror, my friend Dan has a complete kit and we always talk of doing something with it using modern engines. I have completed many vintage models over the past year but never seem to have them done when it's time for show and tell at the vintage combat meet in New Jersey. Next on the completion list in order is the Walter Umland Manx cat which is 99% complete, The Sterling T-Square , Riley Wooten Sneaker, and the Half Fat which will all be using the correct engines. Ken

The engine and the aeroplane suit each other. Was the Rocket engine the forerunner to the Fox Combat series with the square venture?

Ian, the first versions of the Fox Rocket had red heads. These were more or less red to compete with the Mccoy red heads. They were inexpensive and shook like crazy. Those engines shared the case that the Fox Black Head combat special used. The head and fins resembled the Fox .35 stunt but it had a larger venturi and a 4 bolt backplate. The Rocket I have is a Rocket Combat Special III. This engine has needle bearings front and rear to support the crank. The backplates came stock with a drilled pressure fitting and the large square venturi that the .35X and .36X shared. I believe they were introduced in or around late 1959/1960.

A modern ball bearing .25 would give even more power than this old relic. The engine though was given to me to use for this purpose though. This engine is a bit of work to get going at first due to the ability that the crank pressure can flood the case. You must pinch off the pressure line and have the needle set correctly when released. This needle bearing version can be problematic due to the needles seizing on the crank. You absolutely have to be certain all old congealed oil is cleared out prior to running it.

That's really sharp looking. Thanks for the lesson on the Fox Rocket. I bet it's a handfull. Probably a good idea to let Shawn take it up first.
Rusty

Thanks for the info Ken.

Your plane is really great looking.

Hope we can see a video of it flying soon.

Theo

Thanks for the engine description. It is definitely one of those engines with its own character!

On another note, I had another wing I flew which was also new with a Fox .35. The engine cutout a few times and I pretty much new the plug was at fault. I swapped the plug out and noticed the threads were very tight. I figured it was carbon and castor goo and proceeded to screw it in. I forced a sizeable burr into the cylinder and wiped it out. I have the pictures of the liquid piston as I was wiping it off of the wing. The engine has no compression. It was one of the best Fox .35's I owned. On a 9x6 I was taching 14800 + on the ground. Those that would witness the engine were very surprised. Another one to find parts for. Ken

Bummer Ken, pretty soon parts will be harder to find!

I like the Wow! I was looking for that color green when I was building the Super Clown.

Ken Cook wrote:          On another note, I had another wing I flew which was also new with a Fox .35. The engine cutout a few times and I pretty much new the plug was at fault. I swapped the plug out and noticed the threads were very tight. I figured it was carbon and castor goo and proceeded to screw it in. I forced a sizeable burr into the cylinder and wiped it out. I have the pictures of the liquid piston as I was wiping it off of the wing. The engine has no compression. It was one of the best Fox .35's I owned. On a 9x6 I was taching 14800 + on the ground.  Those that would witness the engine were very surprised. Another one to find parts for. Ken

Oh man.. that sucks.. I've heard horror stories of plugs with bad threads.. Makes it worth the cost/time of having a 1/4-32 die.. and chasing the threads on all your plug stock.

A question on your "Wow's" crankcase-pressure set-up.. How large is the hole in your nipple/vent? Do you suppose there's excessive pressure? I noticed recently on a VooDoo mods sheet, the recommendation to fill the tank vent with solder, and drill a #70 (.028" dia.) hole. You could probably accomplish the same thing with JB weld and a piece of waxed music-wire.. or common pin. When the epoxy sets-up.. pull out the pin with a pair of pliers. I know you know what I mean. Maybe the needle would be more agreeable.. having a regulator?

Roddie Fox needles are the biggest POS needles out there. The best advice I can give you is to throw them out. I use them until they break which isn't long and I replace them. Older ones do have some better quality but for the most part they're horrendous. When running pressure, you want the smallest hole you can make. I blacken a very small piece of music wire on a candle, next I do exactly what the Goldberg plans suggest. I do this on the nipple on the backplate. A Tiger needle will give you far better results. Personally, running crank pressure is a major pain and while it works, it works so so.

Running bladder is the way to do it and it doesn't let you down. Running crank pressure on these old engines are just a big pain in the neck and there just is no guarantee that it will work properly. Flying combat in the old days must of been really depressing. I've been to the combat vintage contests and it ends up being a flip fest for half the day. I want to flip and go fly. This particular engine won't run on suction without a restrictor in the venturi. Hard tanks are finicky with most Fox Combat engines. As soon as the head pressure in the tank lowers, the engine goes over lean. Setting it off richer only results in the engine choking out on it's own fuel. Crank pressure will resolve some of this to a degree. Higher nitro also will help due to getting better needling but it will also start breaking parts. Ken

I lived the frustrating life of hard tanks for a decade in the past when I did not know any other way.
Pen bladder and pacifiers were around but no internet so unless some kind competitor schooled us young uns on the "trick", we never got to do other than what was recommended on the plans; Perfect #6 or what ever.

Along came chicken hoppers and uniflo and we had a little better success but still a serious pain.

Then wife n kids so off to have a career or two then back to modeling in late 50s age.

OH yea!...boy the internet is sure a friend...met all you great folks here and other sites


Aha...lets try this bladder pressure stuff!
.. too simple if you adapt ANY fine thread needle to your set up

I will never ever order any hard tank as long as there is a good way to fit a surgical tubing bladder...in fact you can very easily adjust pressure by different sizes of tubing

no need for regulators, funky tank locations or most other grief...once you learn the start and set sequence---- I can not see any reason (other than competing in a nostalgia OTS type event that demands period accuracy) to use any other fuel delivery system.

Jest sayin

High pressure fan Fred

To sum it up Fred, you don't get a "Stunt" run using bladder. While we like the rpm's, the stunt fellows aren't so keen on that. The engine is only demanding the power when needed unlike having it run full bore until the end of the run. Equally as well, running bladder requires running smaller than typical props. In the northeast bladders don't fare the cold well as they lose their ability to collapse unlike a tank . They quickly develop a aneurysm I like your thinking however. Ken

Ken I had not really thought in terms of a "stunt" run but agree a bladder will never give you the 4-2-4 break of desire...on the other hand a strong Brodak 40 or other newer "modern" and usually smaller engines have very successfully been pressed into stunt duty at a wet 2 stroke and leaned out in the air.

Many have mastered setting up uniflo of other hard tank designs and are happy with them and I applaud the effort but always secretly wonder if many would have a easier time with a bladder....( for the more modern engines that don't really do well at 4-2-4)

Admittedly I never really flew stunt so perhaps I am way wrong

With all aspects of aeromodelling, it is "Horses for Courses" and "tanks for the memory".

You wouldn't enter a cart horse in the Epsom Derby and use a thorough bred race horse to plough a field. There are breeds though happy to pull a small cart and quite capable of jumping fences.

I would apply this when discussing tanks.

There is a huge variety in aeromodelling. We have RC, control line, free flight ........ then there are sub divisions of each. Control line has speed, team racing, stunt, combat, sport and carrier models (There are probably more!).

There is no one engine suitable for all classes and engines vary in size and performance. It is easy to assume the notion that one tank fits all but a throttle engine has different requirements to a non-throttled, a free flighter is unlikley to fly upside down, nether is a speed model or a team racer. A stunt model has its own requirements and so does RC 3D flying.

The tank must match the engine and there is a multitude of variables. The location of the tank in relation to the engine being one of the biggest issues. Then there is the "engine tuning" - matching the propeller to the engine and balancing all variables to suit the model. I have seen raising the height of a uniflo tank behind an engine by 1/32" make a huge difference. The patience a person needs for all this tweaking is beyond me and I am more likely to adopt the "it will do attitude".

It would appear to me that the surgical tubing approach could be a a good all rounder for a model that you are quite happy to have buzzing at maxumum revs but not necessarily constant speed. I cannot see it being used where a fast "pit stop" is required.

Many years since I used surgical tubing. I was popular because I supplied it - my mother was a nurse and collected tubing for me that was no longer sterile. It was used on free flight models for the (at the time) 10 second engine run with almost vertical take off and screaming tuned Super Tigre engines.

I tried it with diesel fuel and it didn't last long. I would also be a little wary of over using it and keep replacing it. I once left a coil of it on top of the garden shed one summer (not that we get much of a summer here!) and it perished.

Everyone has there own opinions on tanks (as well as engines) - it is the nature of the hobby and you find what you are comfortable with.

I like building tanks in much the same way as I like building engines.

I can only fly electric where I live!