Conference vmszoo::rc

    Well,I'll put in my two bits for FOX, at least the one model I know.
    
    I have a Fox 19 BB RC. This little sucker has 2 BB on the crank,
    SChneulre port, ABC piston. 
    
    I found it to be very powerful. I usually have to fly at 1/3 throttle
    otherwise my nerves got to hell. It also starts  very easily. I've
    got it set now where I just fuel up, prime, close throttle, flip
    one or twice and off we go.
    
    one nice other feature is that the head can be positioned for
    either left, rear or right exhaust..
    
    Price is ok, about $45 from mail order.
    
    Also, yuo can get your engine service directly form FOX. turnaroun
    is about 10 day door to door. price of repair will never exceed 
    60% of list. I had the oppportunity make use of this. I got a new
    engine for $35 plus shipping.
    
    md 

Marc,

I'm glad to hear of yer' success/satisfaction with the Fox .19BB.  I wish I
could bring myself to like Foxes `cause I'd really prefer to "buy American"
wherever I could, radios, engines, etc.

Fact is, back in my old U-control days, Fox engines were ALL I owned/flew.
From what I hear, the old classic Fox .35 is still a viable commodity in stunt
and the .36X is still an engine to be reckoned with in combat/racing circles.

But, somehow, ol' Duke never seemed to find the formula for R/C engines, 
at least in the larger sizes (.60 and up) that I'm interested in.  In the
early days of propo-R/C, the Fox .59 was an adequate engine...it wasn't 
"classic," but it did alright and, for a time, it was one of the few engines
(if not the only one) designed specifically for R/C.  In my opinion, Duke hasn't
made a good .60 or larger engine since the old .59 of the early `60's.
    

Fox's main shortcoming has ALWAYS been his carburetor.  Whatever possessed Duke
to think a 3 or 4 jet carburetor was necessary totally escapes me.  I watched
friends fight, fuss and fume endlessly, trying to adjust that abortion of a carb
on Eagle .60's (and others, remember the .78?) to their absolute wit's end with
no success.  To compound matters, Fox used that flanged, square carb mounting 
plate so you couldn't even substitute a good carb for the stock Fox.  Conse-
quently, every Fox I ever knew of locally wound up in the scrap drawer, at the
local club junk auction or were impressed into service as boat anchors. The real
pity was that they ran like scalded dogs...if you could just get them to respond
to that bas***dly carb.

Now, Fox has released (or did it escape?) the Eagle III (I think) and what an 
abomination that thing appears to be!  Duke's principles may be quite sound, 
from a purely theoretical point of view, but does the engine HAVE to look like 
it was assembled from odd-and-end pieces of scrap boiler plate and still com-
ponents stolen from Lil' Abner's scrap pile?  C'mon Duke, I'm dyin' to "Buy 
American" but give me something that performs like the foreign competition and
"looks" well thought-out and engineered in the bargain...neatness DOES count
fer' somethin' ya' know.

In this part of the country, Fox has become (unfortunately) little more than a
joke...if a guy is having trouble with his engine and it's discovered it's a
Fox, everyone just shakes their heads, knowingly-pitiably, and recommends the
poor guy go out and buy a "real" engine.  The common slur is that the only thing
worse than a Byron Pipe-Dream is a Pipe-Dream with a Fox Eagle III .60 in it
and, yes - Byron actually sent flyers around to all the clubs advertising just 
such a combo; "one per club and proof of club office held required approval of
sale."  That one still evokes peels of laughter when the subject is mentioned.

Please don't misunderstand, Marc, I'm not trying to run yer' engine down...on
the contrary, I sincerely hope Fox has seen the light and is, at last, ready to
produce engines that will appeal to the R/C masses in the categories of appear-
ance, performance, reliability and longevity.  Seriously, if Duke's finally got 
his s**t together, I'll start buying/flying Fox tomorrow but he's got a horren-
dous PR task ahead of him in the west...Fox still leaves a real bad taste in the
mouthes of most modelers hereabouts.

I truly hope I haven't ruffled too many feathers as that was NOT my purpose.  I
really am hopeful that, maybe, I've provoked some input(s) that will change my
attitude toward Fox and persuade me to give `em another try.

Adios, Al

    re .-1 Nolo contendre. Duke FOX builds ugly engines.. I also own
    a HP 40 of unknown vintage. Now that sucker is nice looking & well
    built. Can't say anything 'bout performance. It's stil NIB til I
    get the experience to put on my mean machine ( a SCAT CAT) (blame
    Tom S. for both)..
    
    As I said, I can only talk about the one engine I know. AS for other
    FOXes (ie .40 or .60): No comment til I try one. Based on some of
    the reviews I've read, I would recommend trying out the 40 BB RC
    Delux. They are factory tested & adjusted. Supposed to run right
    out of the box.
    
    md

RE Fox:

I have had two of the Fox .45 BB schurnle engines. Both of mine
run VERY well and have PLENTY of power. The .45s run so well that i've
been thinking about getting an Eagle .60 for my next project
(an Aeromaster) but after reading some of the previous notes i'm not so
sure. If anybody out there has used this engine then please speak up!

About the funny carb mounting, at one time you could get adapters that
bolted onto the flange to let you use the carb of your choice but I haven't
seen them lately.

GES

    
    The EAGLE III is a powerful engine as muffled engines go. I
    have seen two run and they have had no problems. I myself don't
    like the split crank case but that's my choise. Yes the still
    semm the carb adaptors. The newer designs the 40BB are using
    the more traditional design.
    
    					Tom

    Well I've owned a FOX 19 BB (for ball bearing) and its worked great.
    
    I hear the FOX 40s are also very good.  Planning to get one for
    my new plane..  
    
    These engines have quite a bit of power. I've usually had to run
    my at les than full power 'cause the plane went to fast for my fingers
    
    md

    Re: .263, Eric,
    
    That's typical Fox for ya'.  Damned if'n I can figger ol' Duke out;
    from the late 40's, Fox produced the finest .35 U-Control stunt
    engine money (my first [one circa '54] cost $14.95) could buy.  The
    Fox .35 is _still_ considered one of the engines of choice for stunt
    and several Fox combat engines, i.e. the .36X, have set the pace
    over the years as well in the U-Control world.
    
    But, do you think Duke can build a reasonably designed, friendly
    to operate R/C engine?  Apparently no, not if his life depended on it.
    His R/C engines have always had the look of a boiler-makers nightmare
    and, while powerful, Fox simply cannot (or refuses to) build a simple,
    efficienet carburetor!  Then, to compound the sin further, he builds
    the crankcase flange and carb neck areas SQUARE so that a simple, 
    reliable carb cannot be readily/easily substituted for the "joke" that 
    comes on the engine stock. 
    
    What's more, as you discovered, Duke assumes that anyone purchasing
    one of his engines is an experienced engine-man (as he well needs
    to be with a Fox engine - wake up Duke) and expects him to be able 
    to sort out all the prblems he's _sure_ to encounter by himself. Duke
    overlooks the fact that, by-and-large, due to reasonable prices, most 
    of his customers are the inexperienced, perhaps first-time modeler
    or, much worse, a kid who couldn't afford more.  I'm constantly
    offended that a new modeler in one of these descriptions succumbed
    to Fox's glitzy red-white-and-blue advertising and wound up with
    a turkey that frustrates him and keeps him on the ground fiddling
    with a balky engine.
    
    Yeah, I'd Like to buy American but, unless things were to change
    drastically (which isn't likely based on Dukes long, disappointing
    track-record with R/C engines) I'm forced to say that a Fox engine 
    would probably be at the absolute bottom of my list, were I to rate 
    engines by order of which I was most likely to shell my hard earned
    cash for.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Re: .268, Eric,
    
    Seems like I once saw (or heard) that an square-to-round adapter
    was available to adapt a normal [sensible] round-based carb to Fox's 
    [idiotic] square-flanged crankcase.  Howsomever, it's been ages
    since I saw/heard about these and I suspect they're no longer
    available.  Most likely they couldn't sell many owing to [perhaps]
    low sales of Fox engines and or user-frustration caused resistance
    to putting anymore money into their boiler-plate turkeys.
    
    I know there are a few Fox supporter/defenders out there and my
    intention is not to flip their hot-switches.  I congratulate them
    for obtaining satisfactory performance from their Fox engines; my
    point of irritation is that satisfactory performance is NOT a given
    with a Fox and too many unsuspecting, frequently new/inexperienced
    modelers have been sucked-in and driven to distraction by the Duke's
    sorry idea of what an engine should be, completely ignoring the
    tremendous success most other mfgr's are having with much less exotic
    approaches.                                               
    
    BTW, before I forget, congratulations to all on what sounds like
    a very enjoyable, completely successful fly-in yesterday.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Rotsa' Ruck, John.  But, then, you know my preference for O.S. engines
    and my feelings/opinions about Fox R/C engines.  PULEEEEEZE, do me as
    favor: if you have trouble with the Fox (and I truly hope you don't),
    please sell/trade/trash the damn thing and put a good, reliable engine
    up front BEFORE engine problems cause you to trash another prefectly
    good airplane.  The extra bucks a good engine costs is MORE than offset
    by the savings in torn up equipment, not to mention the pleasure of
    continuous, reliable flying.
    
    Reputation of the Fox .36, you ask?  Fox made the best U-control
    engines in the business for years and the .36X was a good racing
    engine.  However, as I've said herein before, as much as I'd love to
    buy American, I've neither heard nor do I have anything good to say about
    Fox R/C engines.  They ARE powerful but reliability, mostly due to
    Dukes ridiculous carburetors, has always been a problem with those
    engines I've been forced to become involved with.
    
    Anymore, if someone asks my help and has a Fox engine, I apologize
    profusely but tell him that, unless he puts almost any other engine on
    his plane, I can't get involved with it...it's simply too frustrating,
    both for me and for the person I'm trying to help.  This attitude is
    shared by all of my flying buddies; it's not just a personal prejudice.
    
    I'm truly sorry if I've dampened your spirits on this but I feel I just
    have to say something when this subject arises.  I honestly hope I'm
    wrong in this case but I sure wish you could unload the Fox and get
    yer'self into a good, reliable O.S., Super Tigre, Enya, ad nauseum .40
    engine.  I'd bet money you'll be better off and much happier in the 
    long run.

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

John,

As you know I fly Foxes and love them. They are a pain to set up, but once
you get used to them they're great. I've never had reliability problems with
the .40. The .50 is another story, but I think I've got that licked too. (Don't
let the little wand on the WD40 can get too far into the carb, on any engine, as
it may get bit off causing no end of grief.)

Let me know when you get ready to run it. I'll be glad to lend you a hand.

Randy

    Re: -.1, John,
    
    Glad to hear it, amigo.  I hate to keep Fox bashing but the long and
    short of it is that Dukes ridiculous carburetors require much more
    patience/knowledge skill with engines than most fledglings have had
    time to accumulate.  Also, most experienced modelers have written Fox
    off and refuse to take the time necessary to "tinker" a Fox engine into
    acceptable running form.
    
    The single most important item a novice requires is reliability from
    ALL his equipment so he can concentrate on LEARNING!  My experience to
    date is that a Fox engine is, perhaps, the worst possible choice where
    this requisite exists.  I'm sorry, buy-American and Fox fans, but
    that's the way I feel and I'm being as honest as I can about it.  
    
    Do yer'self a favor, John, install the O.S. and save the Fox for fooling
    with later when you have more experience and/or flying skill and can
    better afford to risk the inevitable deadsticks.  Better yet, sell or trade
    the (*&^*&% thing and put the bucks into something worthwhile.   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    I have just added the new carburetor (single needle valve) to my fox
    45.  It works wonderful.  The old carb problems are gone.  My fox
    engines are more powerful than my OS.  I intend to only buy fox in the
    future.
    
    

    Good Luck!