McCoy .35 square case.

Hi fella's, I have an old McCoy .35 with the square case and black head. Can anyone tell me anything about it? Was it a good engine, what size ship it fits, prop, fuel/oil mix, anything would be appreciated. I also have the original McCoy 29, 35, 40 mounting yemplate and the original data sheet for a McCoy 19 (the old one with the built on tank). If anyone would like a scanned copy of either, just email me. [email protected]

I don't claim to be an expert on the McCoys, but I have started collecting the Red Heads and I have a copy of the Engine Collector's Journal #103 which is an issue dedicated to the McCoys. The ones you are describing are the Series 21 engines and they first came out in 1971 and were the last engines made with the McCoy name. Actually Testors made them. They do have aluminum fins on the cylinder. And they use a dykes pattern Ring. The ring seals best under the pressure of firing and for this reason can be hard to start by hand.

These engines are kind of heavy compared to the earlier Red Heads. I am pretty sure they also have the same iron/steel piston/liner. So I would think that it would be a good idea to use an all castor oil fuel at about 20+ percent with about 5-10 percent nitro. Fox Super Fuel or Sig 25 percent all castor at 5 or 10 percent nitro ought to work well. We have one guy who flew with one for a number of years and it seemed to have plently of power.

If you like, send me an email with your address and I will copy the journal and send it to you.

They are quite heavy for their displacement, from 19 through 40. I think that some of the internals, as a previous poster said, interchange with the Redheads. I have a few but have only run the 19 version.

They withstand crash damage well. For what it is worth, they are challenged aesthetically, at least in the eyes of some. There are a few True Believers out there. I think that the guy that used to write the "Sport Flying" column in Stunt News was fond of them.

Currell,

Noticed you seem to be the resident McCoy expert. I am still looking for one of those early Red Head 35s with the round venturi no flats. I am not the serious collector; so I am not looking for a NIB, just one that I can clean up and have a nice representative example. Can you tell me what is a fair price. Thanks.

As an McCoy Collector I happen to like the McCoy Series 21. I have one in my All American, JR Nobler, Toutor, and Have Several more. I run McCoys in my BI-SLOBS and there great. To answer your Question about a NIB McCoy 35 with the rounded venturi? About $70 on E-Bay $125 or Higher. I saw one go for $250.

Scott

I am not the serious collector; so
>I am not looking for a NIB, just one that I can clean up and
>have a nice representative example. Can you tell me what is
>a fair price.

FYI these engines run well, and are easy to find. The number that sticks in my head is that something like 100,000 Red Heads got made. I have three, all for flying. One was bought NIB by my dad circa 1964 and resides in the front of the Goldberg Buster he started for it at that time. I finished it out and flew it in college, mid '70s. Now refinished and ready for some more easy sport flying. This engine is just barely broken in!

The second I got for $10 at a Cloudbusters' Club swap meet. Well broken in, but still in its prime. Started it recently and it is a *sweetheart* on GMA 5/29. This one goes in my Ukey 35 this Winter.

Finally, I picked one up at Toledo last April for $29, never been run. Not NIB mind you. No box, and it had been bolted down. But it's never had a fire in it and is fitted well with good compression. A long break in and it should be another good "runner"

I purchased tongue mufflers from Leonard for these, at $20 each (Big Art manufactures these). So they are all legal for flying at the local fields.

The bottom line is that these are easy to come by and reasonably priced. Club swap meets and collectos should yield plenty of examples. There were dozens in Toledo. They are a real option for sport and fun flying. Randy Ryan swears by them. So don't just put your Red Head on the shelf and admire it, build a period model and enjoy *flying* it!

Chalk up another $0.02

>I am not the serious collector; so
>>I am not looking for a NIB, just one that I can clean up and
>>have a nice representative example. Can you tell me what is
>>a fair price.
>
>
>FYI these engines run well, and are easy to find. The
>number that sticks in my head is that something like 100,000
>Red Heads got made. I have three, all for flying. One was
>bought NIB by my dad circa 1964 and resides in the front of
>the Goldberg Buster he started for it at that time. I
>finished it out and flew it in college, mid '70s. Now
>refinished and ready for some more easy sport flying. This
>engine is just barely broken in!
>
>The second I got for $10 at a Cloudbusters' Club swap meet.
>Well broken in, but still in its prime. Started it recently
>and it is a *sweetheart* on GMA 5/29. This one goes in my
>Ukey 35 this Winter.
>
>Finally, I picked one up at Toledo last April for $29, never
>been run. Not NIB mind you. No box, and it had been bolted
>down. But it's never had a fire in it and is fitted well
>with good compression. A long break in and it should be
>another good "runner"
>
>I purchased tongue mufflers from Leonard for these, at $20
>each (Big Art manufactures these). So they are all legal
>for flying at the local fields.
>
>The bottom line is that these are easy to come by and
>reasonably priced. Club swap meets and collectos should
>yield plenty of examples. There were dozens in Toledo.
>They are a real option for sport and fun flying. Randy Ryan
>swears by them. So don't just put your Red Head on the
>shelf and admire it, build a period model and enjoy *flying*
>it!
>
>Chalk up another $0.02
>
>Andy

They built over 100,000 just of the .35s alone- one reason it is the most commonly found size. The .40 is the scarcest and good examples are priced far above equal condition .35s. If you get a good one, it is a nice Stunt motor. The Series 21 stuff is not favoured nearly as much- probably because of the weight. The original design concept was done by Bill Netzeband- then Testors farmed out the final design (mostly the cosmetics) to a firm that tried to zoot it up appearence wise...
Not a happy acheivement.
I still think the case and prop drive washer are die cast Zamak (a zinc based alloy used in some cheap firearms) rather than aluminum and that this helps account for a lot of the weight- Zamak is as heavy as steel is.

J.

Of all the Series 21 McCoys I have seen in the past, the had a very good 4-2 run but are on the "heavy" side. Good power, and a little bit harder hand starting due to Dykes ring.
Bill

Glenn,
I have two of the .19's. One is NIB, the other I have not run in a long time. One caution is to ensure that the ring is not stuck before you run it.
MECOA now owns the Series 21. They may have some parts if needed.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Glenn:These are good collectables,but it stops right about there.As to the Dykes ring,they were fine if you got a good one and there probably were at least twelve good ones produced.The problem was Testors Q.C.,or lack thereof.The one 40 I have ran pretty well after I tried four different NEW pistons to get one with a decent ring groove.Dykes rings depend on very close fits to the "leg" of the ring in the piston to control twist in the ring and for initial sealing.This does'nt lend itself to low cost, low precision machining coupled with haphazard Q.C..This being said,they had decent power and a good 2-4 break.Life however was still rather limited since the front(sintered iron) bearing had the same Q.C.problems as the piston.It was also relatively short and subject to rapid wear.

There were no aluminum fins.The cylinder was integral with the fins and was separate from the case.the "aluminum" appearance was from a protective plating(cad?).Incidentally,another area to watch if you plan to run one is the case/cylinder gasket this is a soft gasket and subject to failure.I'd recommend replacing all the bolts with allen heads,and torquing very carefully to ensure EVEN gasket compression.

Lastly, as to what ship it fits,it was originally intended as the anchor for the USS Saratoga but it was rejected by the Navy as being too heavy.

The Series 21 McCoy can be made into a good stunt engine but if you are going to put the effort in, you might want to get a Series 21 McCoy 40. First, contact Frank Bowman and get a new ring. He machines them and they are the best. Next, I replace the plastic insert with a brass or alum tube, about .250 or .260 inside diameter, about 1 1/4 " long. Adjust the i.d. to suit your needs after test flying. With these modifications you will should have a good stunt engine. Use at least 25% oil, mostly castor to save that sintered iron front bearing.
Now comes the hard part. The engine is very heavy. On my OTS Barnstormer, I did all of the above, and also sawed, filed and dremmeled almost 2 oz from the outside of the crankcase. This is hard work, but worth it if you want a lighter engine. I've had great success with this McCoy 40/Barnstormer but am not looking forward to cutting another case, even though I have need of several more McCoy 40's and 35's.

John: I'm not a McCoy expert at all. The only ones that I know are the Redhead series, and the last of the Wen Mac 1/2A's, called Testor McCoys, with a screw on glow head. All of the racing ones before, the Sportsman series, etc, etc, endless variations...I have scant knowledge.

What I have said before, both here and at Flightlines, is that these engines (the .35) can slightly outperform a Fox Stunt, and 4-2-4 right with a Fox, too, and I haven't even mentioned the 40s. I have had some on Ringmaster sized engines that had so much power, that I had to run an 11-5 to tame it. Or you could go with even less pitch. They are easy to work on since the sleeve can only go in one way, and they tend to be slightly more economical than a Fox. The NVA is much superior. They may run a tiny bit smoother vs a Fox; haven't really thought about it. At any rate, a smooth running Schneurle they are not. What you have to do is run at least 25% oil, majority castor, and many will say go to 29%. Aesthetically, many prefer the flashy looks of the McCoy over the Fox, with the latter being an acquired taste for many (rugged good looks, etc). The McCoy is especially sharp looking with the original gold Testor's plug playing against the "chrome" case, black fins, and red head.

At $5.95 at one point for the 35, the best retail motor bargain ever? Babe Bee at $3.95 not bad either, true...

The big problem with the Shiny Case 40: the front lugs have an open "C" configuration, open to the end. So the resulting "tabs" left break easily. The Lightning Bolt dark case 40 has oval, "racetrack" looking lug holes, and the front ones are completely captured by the lug mounts. They can't break. In fact, I think it was a good design feature for interchangeability with other brands, or where you're trying to fit your McCoy where Brand X was drilled out for.

The early mid 50s ones without the flats on the venturi sides are fairly rare, but most people (not all) do not know of their collectibilty, or even notice the difference. As a result, you often can get quoted a "standard" Redhead price for one. But, as the previous post said, there are ebay exceptions, where eagle eyed collectors may spot a non flat-sided one.

Someplace, in one of the old mags, McCoy actually lists production numbers. I recall that it was way over 100,000 just for one year! Don't recall if this were all Redheads, or just 35s, though. Anyway, they sold a "ton" of them over an extended period, and there are many, many 19/29/35/40s out there in shiny case/center plug/offset plug/Lightning Bolt/Redhead RC/Blue Head Bolt RC form. And many are NIB.

In fact, I have NIB Bolt 19 for sale on ebay right now (Shameless Commerce).

Currell,

Thanks for your input. Right now, I have all but the 1957 35. Got an email today from Bob Jones and he has one of the round venturi ones I am going to buy from him. I also have all of the 29s, all but the first shiny case 40 with the recessed web in the exhaust stack and all but the first shiny case 19. I also have about 6 or 7 "runners".

Had a 19 on a Jr Flite Streak back as a kid and it really ran well. I think I paid something like $5.95 for it back then brand new. Now, I just like them. Hanging around on this forum for a while, it seems like most have just not had very good luck with them. I don't really know what's up on that, but I think proper break in is just a important with a red head as it is with a Fox. I also noticed that you seem to be one of the few that likes them and seem to know quite a bit about them. I've gotten a few off of ebay, too, but haven't seen any of the 1957 ones there yet. I got burned a couple of times becasue there must be ones out there that have been put together from parts. I've got so if I think I see one of the McCoys I might be looking for on ebay, I send a question about the back plate knock out marks, etc. Many of the sellers, of course, don't know what you're talking about and I send a picture.

Right now, I am running a 1961 35 on a Flite Streak and use an old Top Flite 9 x 6 Super M. I launch it right at the 4-2 break with a GRW uniflow tank and lap times run in the 4.6 to 4.8 second range on 58 foot lines. A little fast, but really a very steady runner. Doesn't seem to vibrate nearly as much as a stock Fox. Might use a different prop to slow it down, but the way I am trying to learn right now, I like the line tension I get the way it is.

I do have issue 103 of the Engine Collectors Journal which the issue with the special McCoy update in it and it lists all of the McCoys with identifying marks, plug locations, etc with a lot of pictures. If anyone here wants a copy, let me know and I will send it for the price of copying and shipping...probably about 3-5 bucks.

Thanks for the discussion.

John: I have two Redhead 35s with "mistake" heads.

One is on the exhaust side like the 2nd gen Redheads, but, instead of being a bit to the rear (backplate) side, it is slightly forward.

The other one is really interesting. It is on the bypass side!

In 1999, I did a test, switching all the heads, and keeping everything else as constant as I could.

Result: plug position didn't matter, at least for ground tached rpms. The one on the bypass side was maybe 200 rpm down vs the other three, but that was it. They all started the same, too.

And, re the bypass side location head...I may not have tightened it down as well as the others.

John, keep looking for round venturi side versions. Look in the piles of engines marked "model airplane engines" on ebay. I have seen the most interesting motors that way, lurking in the background of a fuzzy picture, often. Fox Sandcasts, O & Rs, etc.

"Now, I just like them. Hanging around on this forum for a while, it seems like most have just not had very good luck with them. I don't really know what's up on that, but I think proper break in is just a important with a red head as it is with a Fox."

I can tell you exactly why- it's called "non-existant" quality control. Testors never test ran any of the engines they made, they just assembled them out of bins of parts. The result was 1 good one and 5-6 lousy ones as a conservative average.
A toad motor is still a toad motor no matter what break-in is used. The first .35 I had I only used Fox Superfuel in from new. It was almost impossible to start, and would get so hot when you finally did get it to run that after a few runs the head turned dark brown.
Other than the .40 (properly set up) I have little affection for them. I am however, a big fan of the older Duromatic "real" McCoys. I had a .29 Super Stunt and a .19 that were both one-flip starters. Even on a test stand- using proper fuel- they ran so cool you could put your finger on the head and not get burned.

J.

Disagree, Jake. Those earlier engines you mentioned just don't have the power.

Note, that in a recent Stunt News, a guy has an article on modifying those earlier McCoys to run better. Was he using Fox parts? Can't recall...

Your ratio is way off, too. I'd say three good ones for every bad. Now, I would agree that this is not acceptable, too.

They are the full equal of a Fox, run wise. Currell

>Disagree, Jake. Those earlier engines you mentioned just
>don't have the power.
>
>Note, that in a recent Stunt News, a guy has an article on
>modifying those earlier McCoys to run better. Was he using
>Fox parts? Can't recall...
>
>Your ratio is way off, too. I'd say three good ones for
>every bad. Now, I would agree that this is not acceptable,
>too.
>
>They are the full equal of a Fox, run wise. Currell

Since when? The Super Stunts were more powerful than the later Testors engines- no question about it- better made as well.
The Rear Rotors are again a horse of a different color- the ,19 and .29 will leave equal size later Redheads in the dirt face down. The .29 will easily fly a Chief and not break a sweat- even the .19 will too if it is built light enough. I was being charitable on the ratio- I actually think it is a hair higher than that.

Not according to the article. And I find it hard, indeed, to believe that McCoy would follow up with a weaker engine.

Jake, you had some Early Bad Childhood Experiences with these (Redhead) motors, and you never got over it. Deal with it. Listen to what others are trying to tell you re the Redheads.

Too bad these motors were a bit in front of the Peter Chinn series. Still, you can ferret out old engine test results out of the early 50s mags.

>Not according to the article. And I find it hard, indeed, to
>believe that McCoy would follow up with a weaker engine.
>
>Jake, you had some Early Bad Childhood Experiences with
>these (Redhead) motors, and you never got over it. Deal with
>it. Listen to what others are trying to tell you re the
>Redheads.
>
>Too bad these motors were a bit in front of the Peter Chinn
>series. Still, you can ferret out old engine test results
>out of the early 50s mags.
>
>Currell

You can run 'em and try 'em yourself. Dick McCoy designed the "Redhead" series for Testors on contract after he had sold out his company to them. They were interested in a cheap motor that would be competitive (price wise) with Fox- not performance. Look at all the competition results for the late '50s Nats- look at Combat- you will find GH Torps and Johnsons dominated along with Fox coming up after '58 or so. In speed, it was the RR McCoys and Torps and Doolings (followed by Fox).
I have four McCoy .29s currently- two RI Sportsmen and two rear rotors. The Rear Rotors will blow the doors off of ANY .35 Testors Redhead- no question about it. The .29s are sweethearts- eay starting and running- FAR better than the later cheaper Testors "stuff"...

I'm not talking about rear rotor engines.

>I'm not talking about rear rotor engines.
>
>Currell

I'm not either.
The FI Super Stunts will leave the later Redheads behind also. Look at the area of the bypass alone on both.
The BEST FI McCoys I have ever owned or used were the Super Stunt series- the later Testors stuff was: S-A-D...
I take most any such article I read with a grain of salt- unless I can try it myself, it doesn't mean much to me.

You can't judge a stunt engine on bypass size. You know that, Jake, and shame on you for trying to pull one on me. We're not talking Dooling 61s here.

Control Line Hell for Jake...all planes with McCoy Redheads. When you go to your reward, Jake (translation: Hell)... no Foxes, Nelsons. No OSes, even. Your fate will be to fly a very tailheavy Ringmaster, with a 6 Sigma screamin' Redhead 35 and a 9-7.....forever....

We're talking 4 second laps, Jake, even on 60 foot eyelet to eyelet...

If you are ever up in Michigan, I will invite you to a flying session with nothing but Redheads, my own mini-version of Hades (hey, it's the best I can do).

Cougar (Bolt 40) (Even you would like this one)

Shoestring (35)

TF Hurricane (35)

Nobler (your choice of a 40 or 35)

Scratch twin with Redhead 19s, or Series 21s.

Some Hollow Log Scientifics with Testors McCoy 1/2s (do these count?)

And other fine running Redheads waiting in the wings to be mounted. 50 planes in the basement and garage, my friend. And I may have to stick some in the storage facility, where the cherished '53 Imperial lies (remember the pic I sent?).

You're not biased vs. all Redheads, right? You like Rita Hayworth. And Molly Gringwald. It's OK not to like Carrot Top.

Seriously...the much reviled Redheads, Fox 15 baffles, OK Cub .049s...take a second look, or buy a second motor, guys. Increase the sample size, and live a little. Currell

Dude, History has spoken it's judgement. The Testors "McCoy Redheads" were the model airplane motor world equivalent of (to use a motorcycle example) the Ralph Rodgers Indian vertical twins and singles. It was a case of a decent design up against a horribly flawed execution. These bikes sank Indian- if Testors hadn't had the paint business going they'd have zorked in also.
You're trying to compare motors that cost two to three times as much (in the same time frame) and tell me that the later stuff must be better just because it was designed later- you of all people here should know better. This is like comparing a '53 Hudson Hornet to a '57 (last of the "line" and telling me the quality and all is better on the later car).
You can't blame their failure on a "decline in C/L" either, because Testors offered the Bluehead R/C versions right at the time R/C was coming up gaining popularity and guess what? People bought Tigres, Maxes and Enyas, followed by Fox. Why ?- because the word quickly got around that they were light years better than the Testors "McCoys" were- that is why.

Two old Flying buddies had Series 21 .40s, both flew Sterling Yaks. Hard starting, but ran soooo-nice. They transplanted them into Sig Profile Biplanes, and I flew both of them. That terrible tail-heaviness was gone, but they were both a little fast for Bipes. My Spad had McCoy Redhead in it, and theirs turned my head. I would have opted for one of those Testors .40s, but Chris & Sam got the last two! Always wanted another of those Bipes, have scratched a few since, but now that I have a Testors .19, might just try that.

Mike: I have a Sig Fokker with a GMA Fox Hemi Stuffer ABC on it.

Also a half completed Sig Spad, which will come out very light. Don't know what motor to put on it. An OS 25 FP would work, however.

Currell, I love those Bipes! Wish more guys were flying 'em, they're a HOOT to watch. I jus located a Spad last night, and Fokker D Vll plans also. Like your engine idea, just might use my Magnum .25 my son gave me. (Fokker) The Spad is going to get the Testors.

"Jake, you had some Early Bad Childhood Experiences with these (Redhead) motors, and you never got over it. Deal with it. Listen to what others are trying to tell you re the Redheads."

Yeah, and I found out a long time ago that the stuff that BLEEPed 40 years ago still BLEEPs today. Unlike fine wine or cheese, age hasn't enhanced old model airplane motors- they are just as lousy now (or good) as when they first rolled out the factory door...

Jake

There's a Pony In There Somewhere, jake, and I apologize to Mr Reagan for using "his" quote. Currell

>There's a Pony In There Somewhere, jake, and I apologize to
>Mr Reagan for using "his" quote. Currell

I like llamas better- lot's more useful and they will guard your property. I am no fan of Mr. Reagan either BTW...

I remember the Mccoy sportsman series. The ones out before the red head. It was those motors that taught me that 30 weight oil didn't just go into your car. The rings were too big and too soft. They wore out really fast and I always ended up giving a squirt of oil then a prime to get the p.o.s. running. Sorry but other then the rear roters the McCoy line was a loser for me.
As a teenager we bought McCoy 35's as our 'summer' motors because if we were really lucky thats how long it would last on a Ringmaster or Flite Streak, which wasn't bad I guess for $5.95

> I remember the Mccoy sportsman series. The ones out before
>the red head. It was those motors that taught me that 30
>weight oil didn't just go into your car. The rings were too
>big and too soft. They wore out really fast and I always
>ended up giving a squirt of oil then a prime to get the
>p.o.s. running. Sorry but other then the rear roters the
>McCoy line was a loser for me.
> As a teenager we bought McCoy 35's as our 'summer' motors
>because if we were really lucky thats how long it would last
>on a Ringmaster or Flite Streak, which wasn't bad I guess
>for $5.95

You missed the point that they came in a choice of ringed or lapped versions. George Aldrich told me that he always liked the lapped ones better- no surprise, MUCH easier to fit. Even the worst of the Duromatic McCoys is light years ahead of the average Testors Redhead.

My UNCLE worked for Dick McCoy in the late 50's and I have to say the engines that came out were not a work of art, but a business idea to FLOOD THE MARKET. Make an engine that last a year. Christmas to Christmas. When the engine parts were made there was very little quality control, reaching in a barrel putting the engine together and test run, shipped, the same day.
ALSO did you know there were several suppliers of engine parts? My Uncle left just before the Lighting bolts came out. I like the McCoy’s. The one’s that I run in my planes work for me.
I even have a McFox 29. McCoy case, and Fox insides. Dick and Duke made a few but never hit the Market.

Scott (got a lot of McCoy’s)Riese

>My UNCLE worked for Dick McCoy in the late 50's and I have
>to say the engines that came out were not a work of art, but
>a business idea to FLOOD THE MARKET. Make an engine that
>last a year. Christmas to Christmas. When the engine parts
>were made there was very little quality control, reaching in
>a barrel putting the engine together and test run, shipped,
>the same day.
>ALSO did you know there were several suppliers of engine
>parts? My Uncle left just before the Lighting bolts came
>out. I like the McCoy’s. The one’s that I run in my planes
>work for me.
>I even have a McFox 29. McCoy case, and Fox insides. Dick
>and Duke made a few but never hit the Market.
>
>Scott (got a lot of McCoy’s)Riese

Interestingly enough, the pistons came from the same casting firm that made them for Hi Johnson. GMA was not a great fan of Johnsons either if I understood what he told me correctly- he considered the pistons fragile if they were pushed to hard. GMA used to build .60 "McTigres"- a McCoy .60 with ST internals- they would really rock.

I would love to get a McTiger some day. Have you read the Johnson break in procedures? Run engine until it seizes? I have the pamphlet. The Johnson engines had a lot harder piston than the McCoy’s. I wonder why?

Scott(do you know?)Riese

It has a LOT to do with the heat treat. The first batch of Fox schnuerle "Combat Specials" had a problem with the cranks- they broke in half a lot...
GMA's McTigres were works of art- George also built the fastest Tigre .29 in the world (I think he held a world speed record with it at one time)- he told me it was lapped, and the only part of the piston that actually sealed was 1/16" just at the crown of the piston and then only at the very top of the stroke. The rest of the time is just sorta "rattled around"...
BTW, I HAVEN't forgotten you on the "DS" tape- I'll get it to you ASAP.

>It has a LOT to do with the heat treat. The first batch of
>Fox schnuerle "Combat Specials" had a problem with the
>cranks- they broke in half a lot...
>GMA's McTigres were works of art- George also built the
>fastest Tigre .29 in the world (I think he held a world
>speed record with it at one time)- he told me it was lapped,
>and the only part of the piston that actually sealed was
>1/16" just at the crown of the piston and then only at the
>very top of the stroke. The rest of the time is just sorta
>"rattled around"...
>BTW, I HAVEN't forgotten you on the "DS" tape- I'll get it
>to you ASAP.
>
>J

Jake KOOL I need some DS right about now.."Drop the Bomb"

>I would love to get a McTiger some day. Have you read the
>Johnson break in procedures? Run engine until it seizes? I
>have the pamphlet. The Johnson engines had a lot harder
>piston than the McCoy’s. I wonder why?
>
>Scott(do you know?)Riese

Scott, I kinda remember that because we also used to do that on Enya motors also. Thay were made of some of the hardest metal ever put into a motor and literally took gallons of fuel to break in. As youngsters we figured we'll break them in fast and they'll be fast, so we would run them on a plane till they seized ,let them cool and do it again. Suprisingly I still have 2 of those motors and they will still run with the best of the era and yes, they will start in a few flips.Fuel was always the cheapest that we could get, Cub, Testors, Francisco, et al .39c a pint or.85c a quart was a lot of cash to kids with no allowances.

Aeromodeller and/or Model Aircraft did tests on the Red Head 35 or 40 by Peter Chinn or Ron Warring. Hope this precise advice is of some help! Sorry my mags are very disorganised at the moment.

My dad started me with Foxes and it always seemed the McCoy guys flew faster but had harder times starting. I didn't think too much of McCoys back then (late 50s & 60s). Just a few years ago I got curious about the McCoys and ended up buying a few...35RH, 40RH, 29SS, 36SS and 35 series 21. I'm getting 1-2 flip starts with good runs and liking them a lot now and wondering why I remember bad stuff about them.

What I am getting on the bench after fully breaking in is a tad better power with the lapped 36SS over the 35RH. Its a small test batch but all 5 of the 35RHs run indentical rpms and the 2 36SS run exactly the same too...I run them without venturi inserts. Both 36SS run a consistant 400 rpms faster than the 35RHs. The 35RHs run 300 rpms faster than the 1/2 doz Fox 35s. All of my Foxs run identical rpms too, 4 stock and 2 hemis. Fuel has been Sig 5% & 10% nitro w/25% castor. Fox Superfuel just got too expensive...2x what I pay for Sig.

Purely by luck, found one test yesterday. Aeromodeller May 1960. Ron Warring. McCoy 35 Redhead. 0.455bhp@12000rpm. Weight 7.25oz.

Ian R: I have most of the McCoy .35/.40 Redhead tests done in Model Airplane News by Peter Chinn. If anyone would like me to summarize the HP, torque, and general results here, I will do so.

Interestingly, the weakest .35 that Chinn tested was the last one, the "Bolt" version, that we generally like over the shiny case versions. What happened here was "(bad) luck of the draw", with a sample size of only two, or maybe it was just a single motor. He happened to get a weak one that was under 0.4 HP.

Usually, though, you can expect HP around .45, just as the Aeromodeller found.

If there were any timing changes from the earliest "round side" venturi models of the mid 50s, through the Bolt models of the late '60s, they are minor. And, the plug location changes didn't seem to affect ground tach results. So, an early one is just about as likely to be a particularly strong one as a late one.

Hi Currell,

If you could, please post the summary on the Red Heads. As I mentioned earlier, I am running an older shiny case 35 on a Flite Streak I built from scratch. At 28 ounces, it's not the lightest, but with an also old 9 x 6 Top Flite Super M, that old McCoy makes enough power, running right at the 2-4 break, for 4.6 to 4.8 second lap times on 58 foot lines; and it will turn and climb a wingover without missing a beat. I have one of the later shiny case models that I am planning on putting on a Magicain that I have run on a test stand. With the same 9 x 6, it runs a solid 10,200 rpm in a solid 4-cycle. They both are very easy to start. Would be interesting to see the test results.

FYI. Came across another McCoy test today at our Brit. SAM AGM. McCoy 29 Redhead FI. Model Aircraft. 8/60. Chinn. Approx [email protected]. 16.5% nitro.

I will post those Chinn results soon. Currell