Recent engine acquisitions

My recent engine acquisitions, A Norvel .40 Big Mig R/C and a Cox .049 Medallion.



I wanted a reasonably powerful yet light engine for my Goldberg Falcon III (Falcon 56 Mark III). It is a tad heavier because of the light ply fuselage sides and slightly beefier construction over the original one, so my Enya .35-V TV would be slightly underpowered at my 4,300 ft (1,311 m) location. My MDS Pro .46 is heavy, although it would work.

I picked up the Norvel at half the cost of new, it still has plenty of compression. The Medallion was for under $30 shipping included. It is stiff from congealed Castor, so I'll have to gently heat it, disassemble and clean. I was wondering how it might perform with a new Sure Start cylinder and Cox OEM exhaust throttle muffler. I have an extra Norvel extended clunk tank that would make a compact package to use on one of my .049 RC planes.

Just just won tonight a near NOS K&B .35 Stallion:


It has casting imperfections, which seemed to be the norm 60 - 70 years ago, cost $30 shipping included.

Also just won a Cox .049 Dragonfly with white fuel tank:


It was also $30 shipping included. A departure from traditional black, I don't know if these were used on a Cox RTF R/C plane or not. I liked the fuel capacity of the R/C Bee. This one has a touch more, which makes it nice for longer R/C flights.

If the Medallion cleans up good and the original piston cylinder still has good compression, you're rolling a set of loaded dice on switching to a Sure Start top end. Otherwise, it would only be worth it from your perspective if you've got good two port non SPI sure start top end if you have to have muffler. IMHO.

Your carb body looks a little chalky and will probably benefit from a careful coating of West System epoxy. I know zero about the big engine.

ticomareado wrote:If the Medallion cleans up good and the original piston cylinder still has good compression, you're rolling a set of loaded dice on switching to a Sure Start top end. Otherwise, it would only be worth it from your perspective if you've got good two port non SPI sure start top end if you have to have muffler. IMHO.

Are you sure about the Sure Start cylinder? I just pulled the head off of mine, one I purchased from the Estes surplus engine sales outlet back in 2004. It has dual ports with dual boost ports. It appears to be the same as the one sold by Cox International, new parts salvaged from unsold engines:

Cox Engines CA, Cox .049 Cylinder and Piston

Cox International wrote:This item is derived from disassembling brand new, never-run, engines and may show minor traces of having been mounted and/or minor tool marks.

Cox part # 1472

Features:
Non sub-induction
Dual bypass ports
Dual boost ports - extra power
Slit exhaust to lessen burn risk
Brand new Original Cox item

It is a development from the QZ days, where the designers were attempting to come up with a solution to muffling without significant power loss. Power loss was due to SPI inducing exhaust gases back into the cylinder since muffler cut off the fresh air stream. My late 1970's R/C Bee muffled with such a cylinder had more power than the Babe Bee with single bypass unmuffled.

Peter Chinn's 1967 test of the Cox .049 QZ showed 0.065 HP at 15,000 RPM.

Sceptre Flight Model Engine Tests, Cox 049 QZ

According to Peter Chinn's 1966 engine test of the .049 Medallion with R/C throttle, peak HP of 0.064 occurred at 12,500 RPM. According to H.R. Warring's 1961 engine test, the Cox Golden Bee's peak HP was 0.0625 at 14,000 RPM. Looking in the exhaust port, my Medallion has a single bypass port like the Golden Bee.

Sceptre Flight Model Engine Tests, Cox Medallion 049 RC
Sceptre Flight Model Engine Tests, Cox Babe Bee & Golden Bee

As you may see, there is much room for improvement for the muffled Medallion. Here is where I see the bottleneck is, the single port SPI cylinder in muffled condition:

Peter Chinn wrote:Since the Medallion features sub-piston supplementary air induction (i.e. the piston skirt clears the bottom edge of the exhaust port as TDC is approached and thereby opens the crankcase to atmospheric pressure) there is a rather bigger drop in maximum power output in the throttle equipped version than would normally be the case. This is because when the collector housing is fitted, residual exhaust gas, rather than fresh air, finds its way into the crankcase. One would expect this to be particuarly noticeable at high speeds and, in fact, this was exactly borne out by our tests on all the Medallion models when comparisons were made with and without the Throttle Control fitted.

If it were unmuffled, I'd go instead with a Tee Dee cylinder with SPI and a throttle ring. My Medallion has a single bypass cylinder with SPI like the Babe Bee or Golden Bee. There is a lot of room for improvement, and AFAIK, no one has yet to do a test with the dual bypass non-SPI cylinder, so I think it is worth giving a shot.

Would you not agree?  

Your carb body looks a little chalky and will probably benefit from a careful coating of West System epoxy. I know zero about the big engine.

The photos don't really do it justice. It is actually better than it appears, with a coating of dust, like it laid exposed on a tool bench or basement shelf for a long time. I was able to wipe portions off with my finger. The plastic is bright red underneath, which tells me it has not seen much daylight after being stored from running.

So, regarding the non-SPI dual port cylinder, I think it worthwhile to at least try. After all, if trials using the non-SPI cylinder proves promising, may set a precedence and new direction for using the Cox .049 Medallion for muffled flights. Are there any others out there who might want to give it a shot?
Would you not agree?

Kari
Great score !!!! You're quite the treasure finder !!!
Regarding the muffler you pictured, it is a Tatone "MUFF-L-IT" #300 muffler for Cox 1/2A Engines.
I'm guessing late 1960's to maybe late 1980's ? vintage . No date on the instructions on back of the package.
The small aluminum ring is the spacer sealer ring to seal the muffler to the cylinder. Unfortunately it takes two spacer rings to mount the muffler properly.
The rings are kind of unique but I stumbled ( as usual) on a suitable substitute after the first muffler I found only had one ring also.
While looking thru a box of spare small car parts, I found a small blue steel spring O-ring that fit perfectly. You might go to your local auto or hardware outlet and look thru their O-ring assortment.
FWIW, Steve...……….

This is on its way to me now.

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?3094462-1959-Cox-Olympic-15-In-Original-Box-Possible-Looks-To-Be-NIB-165-00-FREE-SHIPPED%21%21

Never seen one with the cardboard sleeve intact.

GallopingGhostler wrote:

Also just won a Cox .049 Dragonfly with white fuel tank:


It was also $30 shipping included. A departure from traditional black, I don't know if these were used on a Cox RTF R/C plane or not. I liked the fuel capacity of the R/C Bee. This one has a touch more, which makes it nice for longer R/C flights.

With the white tank its a Ranger V engine used in the RTF planes. Harder to find than the Dragonfly. Nice find.

Jason_WI wrote:This is on its way to me now.

RCGroups: 1959 Cox Olympic 15 In Original Box NIB $165.00 Free Shipped!!



Never seen one with the cardboard sleeve intact.

Nice, you don't see those often, first I've seen of a ball bearing crank on an earlier Cox, plus in the spirit of Red, White (silver aluminum) and Blue. (OT) May be this is what some were thinking of color wise for the next Cox International special engine?

Jason_WI wrote:

GallopingGhostler wrote:Also just won a Cox .049 Dragonfly with white fuel tank. It was also $30 shipping included. A departure from traditional black, I don't know if these were used on a Cox RTF R/C plane or not. I liked the fuel capacity of the R/C Bee. This one has a touch more, which makes it nice for longer R/C flights.

With the white tank its a Ranger V engine used in the RTF planes. Harder to find than the Dragonfly. Nice find.

Thanks for clarifying, Jason. I didn't know that the Ranger version was a rarer find. In the RTF's, was the cylinder mounted vertical as shown, or was it to the side pancake style like the Dragonfly?

Here's a new one for me. It is an older model QZ, with "Thimble Drome" engravings on the tank. Looks like it is a genuine article since the narrow cylinder has no SPI. It came with a firewall and landing gear, looks like they are from a red-and-white PT-19. The propeller is a Thimble Drome 6x3.



The exhaust adjusting thing is missing and the crankcase feels like it is quite worn, but I think I have suitable replacements handy. It does turn freely and has a very healthy "popping" compression. I found this one for sale here in Finland on the local model aviation forum.

Nice catch Kari. Chances are the engine mounted on the original COX stock firewall may have run for a limited time i.e. till the first crash of the COX plane meaning there may be only small hours runtime on it.

Yes, I have to agree, indeed a fine catch for Kari.

Got a new acquisition on the way, a steel fin OS Max .099 Pet R/C. I bought an NOS Pet muffler a few months back, thinking it would fit my 1966 OS Max .10R/C engines. The exhaust opening is sized differently. So, what does one do? I waited until a suitable engine shows up, of course. I prefer the R/C version, as the R/C choke throttle, similar in design to the Sure Start choke tube throttle can be removed reverting it to a CL engine. Now in the mail, should arrive soon. It should look good on a vintage RC plane.

I like the vintage look of the steel fin PET. And a nice prop too.

I have the later ally version of the PET, with the C/L venturi only. I got it in its original box, with the instruction sheet, muffler etc. The engine is covered in sticky castor, stuck solid but otherwise it looks flawless.

Come to think of it, I posted a pic of my PET in the very first post of this thread about two and a half years ago

Kari, then I guess we made it back to the same place in two and a half years. According to Sceptre Flight, you have the newest and most powerful version, on par with the 1966 OS Max .10. Judging by the seller's photos, I gather mine must be the 1959 Pet, 0.138 HP at 15,000 RPM on 12% nitro according to the May 1959 Model Aircraft article (author not stated). Yours from Peter Chinn's April 1972 Aeromodeller article lists it at 0.15 HP at 15,000 RPM on 15% nitro.

I am stoked, mine is more powerful than the earlier version but still is early enough to suit a late 1950's RC aircraft. I'll know more when it arrives.

Enya Open Rocker .40 I picked up this week. Nice little jem of an engine.

Cool!

Envy time Jason............I don't got one of them.

Bob

Just like the real open rocker planes of WW1 and postwar, you bring an oil can with you and you put a dab on each bearing surface prior to flight.

GallopingGhostler wrote:Just like the real open rocker planes of WW1 and postwar, you bring an oil can with you and you put a dab on each bearing surface prior to flight.

Exactly, and if you were to chase a new record in duration flight, you need to oil them during the flight



Here’s the same Curtiss Robin being refueled in-flight:



More about the Key brothers’ record flights here:

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/curtiss-robin-j-1-deluxe

KariFS wrote:

GallopingGhostler wrote:Just like the real open rocker planes of WW1 and postwar, you bring an oil can with you and you put a dab on each bearing surface prior to flight.

Exactly, and if you were to chase a new record in duration flight, you need to oil them during the flight

The picture of the Robin reminds me of a very famous Aussie aviation legend. Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith was on a flight in his Fokker Tri-motor "Southern Cross".  A broken exhaust on the centre engine somehow managed to come off and hit the prop of the starboard engine, shattering it.  The engine was shut down.  Requiring extra power from the remaining engines meant that they soon noticed the port engine leaving a trail of oil smoke, followed closely by a drop in oil pressure.  Amazingly, the navigator climbed out on the strut with a vacuum flask that he'd emptied his coffee from, filling it with oil from the now useless shut down engine, climbing back through the plane and out to the opposite ailing engine, pouring the oil into the oil tank while still running, IN FLIGHT OVER THE OCEAN.  This took five trips, but replenished the oil enough to regain oil pressure and keep the engine running long enough to return to land. Brave men indeed.

Rod.

The complete story is here.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/charles-kingsford-smiths-southern-cross-flight-across-tasman-how-bill-taylor-saved-the-day/news-story/18349a262454eb3f323d1a66e3b9d18f

Oldenginerod wrote:The picture of the Robin reminds me of a very famous Aussie aviation legend. Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith was on a flight in his Fokker Tri-motor "Southern Cross".  A broken exhaust on the centre engine somehow managed to come off and hit the prop of the starboard engine, shattering it.  The engine was shut down.  Requiring extra power from the remaining engines meant that they soon noticed the port engine leaving a trail of oil smoke, followed closely by a drop in oil pressure.

Amazingly, the navigator climbed out on the strut with a vacuum flask that he'd emptied his coffee from, filling it with oil from the now useless shut down engine, climbing back through the plane and out to the opposite ailing engine, pouring the oil into the oil tank while still running, IN FLIGHT OVER THE OCEAN.  This took five trips, but replenished the oil enough to regain oil pressure and keep the engine running long enough to return to land.  Brave men indeed.

The complete story is here.
The Australian: Charles Kingsford-Smith's Southern Cross Flight across Tasman - How Bill Taylor Saved the Day

An interesting story indeed, but with a sense of tragedy a bit later:

The Australian wrote:On June 19, Taylor flew Kingsford Smith to Melbourne to address the Federal Cabinet in support of his proposed bi-weekly mail service between Australia and New Zealand. As weeks passed with no decision, Kingsford Smith grew impatient and left Sydney by sea for the US to arrange finance for the Sikorskys he planned to use. But as his ship neared San Francisco, word came that his proposal had been rejected on the grounds of expense. Undefeated, Kingsford Smith shipped his other plane, Lady Southern Cross, from America to England. And on November 6, 1935, with Tommy Pethybridge as his co-pilot, Smithy took off from Kent in an attempt to break the England-Australia speed record. It was a classic Kingsford Smith response. Two days later, they were lost at sea off the coast of Burma.

Further search lead to: Check Six: Famous Missing Kingsfords-Smith

Check Six wrote:In May of 1937, some 18 months after disappearance,  the plane's starboard landing gear strut, still with its inflated tire, was picked up by Burmese fishermen on the shore of Aye Island - off the south coast of Burma, about 140 miles south-east of Rangoon.  That piece is now on display at the Powerhouse Museum of Sydney, Australia.

Based on this evidence, an Australian engineer, and friend of Smith’s, T.F. "Jack" Hodder, went to Aye Island in January of 1938.  There, he found additional pieces of wreckage he believed were from the Lady Southern Cross. He also noted a swath of broken tree tops on the island’s 480 foot tall peak which indicated, to him, that the plane could have struck the island, and crashed into the relatively shallow water just off the southern shore of the island.

However, no further evidence or trace of the plane was found.

Another website clarified that the Lockheed Company verified the part as belonging to the Southern Cross that they sold to him. It is an eerie reminder of the wing flap found near Madagascar from the Malaysia Flight 370 that disappeared into the South Indian Ocean in 2014.

In the same year, Amelia Earhart with Fred Noonan as navigator disappeared over the Pacific. Air travel still had a sense of treacherousness that for the Australian Federal Board to turn down the Australia to New Zealand route citing costs, I wonder if the news of the entire loss of cargo coupled with possibility of the lives of aircrew, save Bill Taylor's heroic actions was still fresh in their minds.

Air freight as new as it was must have been expensive enough that it was a service mostly for the rich.

crankbndr wrote:

getback wrote:Must have been a lot better metal than the China stuff we use now , engines now wouldn't last long enough to run a full tank of fuel out least the stuff I work with wouldn't

Experience sounds similar to those who trek the remote parts of the world on a Russian built Ural sidecar motorcycle.