New Aero Products Fox 35 Crankshaft

The new Aero Products Crankshaft for the Fox 35 is excellent. I installed one into one of my Series 6 Fox 35’s this morning and flew it. The reduction in vibration was very noticeable and also an increase in power. The transition from four cycle to two cycle and back to four cycle was much smother. Currently this crankshaft is in testing stage until Randy Smith feels it’s durable. After that he will put these into production.
There is no doubt in my mind that Randy has come up with a winner here and will be well worth its money in any Fox 35.

Larry - any idea what it will cost?
Bob Z

Bob,

My guess is that it will not come cheap

>Bob,
>
> My guess is that it will not come cheap
>
>
>Steve

Steve:
First of all I personally think your comment is not very tactful. If you don't like Randy's prices simply don't do business with him. He gives a lot to our Hobby; with out people like him we wouldn’t have the products we do today. What is expensive to you may not be to someone else.

Anything quality when it comes to machine work is not cheep. Bottom line is it is twice in quality of the stock one, the engine will last longer, produce more power, have less vibration and any plane will benefit from not breaking a crankshaft while inverted or during a maneuver. If my reworks were the only ones suffering from broken crankshafts than I wouldn't recommend it but everyone including stock Fox 35's experience breakage. If anyone who reworks Fox 35’s says they aren't breaking crankshafts then they have only done a few motors or they aren't being truthful.

Larry,

Please accept my apologies for the earlier comment. It was out of turn, so to speak, and I regret ticking anyone off with it. Sometimes my sarcasm gets the better of me. Given the soft nature of the current Fox cranks, a better unit will be of benefit to alot of guys out there. Since I campaigned a Fox 35 in classic and advanced last year, I probably should not rip some part designed to help it....

I look forward to seeing how Randy's production cranks work in the field.

>Anything quality when it comes to machine work is not cheep.
>Bottom line is it is twice in quality of the stock one, the
>engine will last longer, produce more power, have less
>vibration and any plane will benefit from not breaking a
>crankshaft while inverted or during a maneuver.

I would just add that if you think it's going to be too expensive, look at the amount of machine work and then take it to a local machinist and ask for a quote. If you can get it for less that $500 you'll be doing awfully well. Same thing with the custom and semi-custom motors, spinners, etc. Look at a PA or a RO-Jett engine, take into account how many hours it would take to make, and $350 begins to looks like are getting your engine from a charitable organization. Never mind that your local average machine shop couldn't make a good enough cylinder/piston for ANY amount of money. You'd have to find a specialist aerospace shop, and even then the first 10 would be unacceptable.

Then look at the modeling budget for a serious season of stunt. A $350 dollar motor that lasts 6-7 years with no maintainence is in the petty cash realm. It's far less than fuel, for instance - $50 a year for engines versus probably $200 a year for fuel. And I don't practice a lot. It costs me probably $3000 a season in travel costs just to get to a few big contests.

I have no problem or issue with people wanting to save money. Heck, half my on-line life is spent promoting things (unmodified 20FPs for instance) that are dirt-cheap ways of getting superior performance. But I do have a problem with criticism of the custom manufacturers charging 10 cents on the dollar (at least the dollar you would spend to get someone to build it one-off) for specialist design and machining. It really unfair. You are getting a lot more than you pay for.

>
> I would just add that if you think it's going to be too
>expensive, look at the amount of machine work and then take
>it to a local machinist and ask for a quote. If you can get
>it for less that $500 you'll be doing awfully well. Same
>thing with the custom and semi-custom motors, spinners, etc.
>Look at a PA or a RO-Jett engine, take into account how many
>hours it would take to make, and $350 begins to looks like
>are getting your engine from a charitable organization.
>Never mind that your local average machine shop couldn't
>make a good enough cylinder/piston for ANY amount of money.
>You'd have to find a specialist aerospace shop, and even
>then the first 10 would be unacceptable.
>
> Then look at the modeling budget for a serious season
>of stunt. A $350 dollar motor that lasts 6-7 years with no
>maintainence is in the petty cash realm. It's far less than
>fuel, for instance - $50 a year for engines versus probably
>$200 a year for fuel. And I don't practice a lot. It costs
>me probably $3000 a season in travel costs just to get to a
>few big contests.
>
> I have no problem or issue with people wanting to save
>money. Heck, half my on-line life is spent promoting things
>(unmodified 20FPs for instance) that are dirt-cheap ways of
>getting superior performance. But I do have a problem with
>criticism of the custom manufacturers charging 10 cents on
>the dollar (at least the dollar you would spend to get
>someone to build it one-off) for specialist design and
>machining. It really unfair. You are getting a lot more
>than you pay for.
>
> Brett

Brett,

I seem to have been unclear in my earlier apology. I did not wish to impugn Randy Smith's pricing or products, it was simply an observation (albeit tactless in some eyes) that this particular Fox part would not be inexpensive. I don't make a habit of commenting about Randy products, because in point of fact I don't have any. I do have a number of Foxes, so I commented about this part. For those that want this part, more power to them. I would submit that somewhere along the way a trick Fox 35 has to reach the point of diminishing returns (in terms of cost, power, etc) vs a RO Jett 35, Brodak 40, or the RM 40 Ted seemed so pleased with in his Nobler. But obviously, enough people want to stay with the Fox to make it worth Randy's while to make cranks. I would also submit that the comment about it costing me 500 bucks to get a crank made is not really relevant-of course it would be a mint to have ONE made. But the unit cost of 500 cranks would be a bit different.... None of the cottage manufacturers are making just one of anything. The economy of scale means they are not entirely giving this stuff away at their prices-profit is involved. Maybe they are not getting rich enough to go buy a Learjet, but they make money. That being said, I have no problem with costs in general for stunt. I just go to regional contests, and still probably spend far more in travel/lodging, etc than airplane stuff. I get that point loud and clear. I just hope that I am making clear that a commentary on the cost of a single part is not an ad hominum attack on the maker of the parts, or the people who use them. I welcome discussion or education on why my complaining about costs is shortsighted, or just plain wrong, but I do not want to be viewed as on record ripping people when I am not.

Steve:

Thank-you for the apology
I read once that it only takes a good man to accept an apology but a great man to offer one.

I would submit that
>somewhere along the way a trick Fox 35 has to reach the
>point of diminishing returns (in terms of cost, power, etc)
>vs a RO Jett 35, Brodak 40, or the RM 40 Ted seemed so
>pleased with in his Nobler. >Steve

Ron B.
F4Fguy

That would be at the time of purchase of the base engine.Larry,I'm sure your reworks are excellent,otherwise RSM wouldn't market them.On the other hand,no amount of rework is going to make anything but a better sow's ear out of this outdated,poorly manufactured one.There just isn't a silk purse in there.
Sorry to dump on the sacred FOX cow,but that's the way I see it.
Incidentally that failure rate is 3.1%,which if applicable to the entire population,is huge.

Right on Ron. It seems inconceivable that Fox hasn't come up with a new Fox .40 or .45 stunt engine, with ABC or AAC and not like the overweight .40 of the 70's.

> Incidentally that failure rate is 3.1%,which if
>applicable to the entire population,is huge.
>
>Ron B.

Ron:

During that time Fox had a bad run of crankshafts in which I sent back almost 1/2 of what I got for over a year after the problem was found in the field. They where under a 21 in hardness. I keep very good records on any problems on motors and during that year I shipped 136 motors. Of that 136, 23 had soft crankshafts that broke that I didn't catch. Also I've gone to milling the cranks instead of grinding them. Like I said if I was the only one that was having this problem I would look at how I was doing it. Which I still did. Just last year I know of a person that had purchased 4 rework motors other then mine and all four broke before the first gallon of fuel went threw them. I know this because he sent them to me to fix. Talking to Randy he verifies that it is a problem for him too. If Randy can't solve it no one can. The problem with giving numbers and test data out is it’s hard to see the whole picture without spending hours typing it in for you. I had offered to give freely any test data I have but at this point I feel I must retract that and keep it privet so it don't have interpretations like this.

Larry,
I have two of your re-worked fox35's, should I be worried about this? I also have dozens of plain old foxes too - I've never heard of the crankshaft breaking. Is this a new development with fox? So far all my foxes seem to run just fine. I'm just concerned and wondering what I should be looking for - if anything at all, while I'm running them.

If it is a quality product it will be well worth the cost!! My question is why doesn't Fox make any effort to improve the Fox 35. For example, the crankshaft...can't they make one that is balanced more precisely and doesn’t vibrate like a paint shaker. I just can’t believe they haven’t made any attempt to correct the shortcomings of the 35 over the years. With the exception of the improvements to the case.

It’s just frustrating you have to pay in excess of 70 bucks to correct the flaws from the factory.

>If it is a quality product it will be well worth the cost!!
>My question is why doesn't Fox make any effort to improve
>the Fox 35. For example, the crankshaft...can't they make
>one that is balanced more precisely and doesn’t vibrate like
>a paint shaker. I just can’t believe they haven’t made any
>attempt to correct the shortcomings of the 35 over the
>years. With the exception of the improvements to the case.
>
>It’s just frustrating you have to pay in excess of 70 bucks
>to correct the flaws from the factory.

One reason is because there are many people/potential customers who are absolutely convinced that they are superior to current engines, and that the flaws are in fact advantages. Not me, of course.

You know Brett it's a shame because the Fox 35 could be a really nice engine if Fox would do a few things to improve it. But in my opinion it's crazy to buy a product then turn around and pay again for someone to fix it. I'm not really talking about tuning, but I expect the crank to be balanced! Maybe this was acceptable in the 50's but we have come to expect better quality as consumers. I looking forward to seeing Randys crank replacement.

As a comparison you can buy an OS engine for almost the same cost and almost zero vibes!

>As a comparison you can buy an OS engine for almost the same
>cost and almost zero vibes!

True on the OS with two drawbacks, the Fox 35 is a stronger motor then the OSLA 25, and the LA40 and LA46 are 2 ounces heaver.

McCoy 40:

If it doesn't break in the first gallon of fuel it most likely won't. I've gone to milling everything instead of grinding. This has really reduced breakage. Out of 1208 (just shipped that number yesterday) I have had 38-crankshafts break that I know of, that's 0.03%. To me that's unacceptable for crankshafts. I wouldn't let it worry you.

I've had one crankshaft let go. This happened during a tuneup right before a Fox racing event, which perhaps qualifies for Fox abuse. Mine snapped off right at the undercut on the shaft, next to the counterweight (or what passes for such on a Fox35). It appeared to actually cleave off --a nice smooth break (with the crankpin at TDC) until roughly halfway through, then the break appears jagged, as I guess the prop and front part exited the engine!

Well all was not lost. At least the prop and crank went flying into Fred's Fox Race wing cutting a nice gash! Heck anything is fair during Fox racing .

Larry- why do they break? to soft of a material?

The Fox is a stronger than the 25LA but not by much. If you can keep the weight down to below 32oz the 25LA is better than the Fox. I have 25LA on a Ring, Streak, Skyray, Shoestring and the motors have performed without any trouble.

Also, how can I buy one of your Fox 35's? Your reputation certainly is terrific and I would like to get one from you.

John:
My engines are sold exclusively threw RSM Distribution.
Bob Smiley was running the OSLA 25 on his Excalibur and changed to a L&J Fox 35. He was very impressed at the difference in performance. He said the model flew a lot better even with a tank height problem.

Several things cause the breakage, mainly material and hardness, also shaft extensions, heavy props and spinner combinations and low oil content (less than 26%)

So, let me state my original question: How much will it cost? Since some are already out, quotes must surely (don't call me Shirley!) be in process. Or, at least Randy should be able to provide a ball park figure. $25? $50? $75? $1.50?
Bob Z

Gentlemen,

I have to comment on Steve's post...no where, no how and no way did I take his post as a negative jab against anyone. I took it as meaning his opinion is the crank would cost a lot more than a stock one and no pun intended. I have the highest regard for you guys and no offense meant here either...I just wanted it understood that not everyone was offended.

Thanks,
Bill Pritchett

>So, let me state my original question: How much will it
>cost? Since some are already out, quotes must surely (don't
>call me Shirley!) be in process. Or, at least Randy should
>be able to provide a ball park figure. $25? $50? $75? $1.50?
>Bob Z

Bob this is from the post on the main Forum.

>As I did not break a single Fox 35 crankshaft in all of
>2003, I figure that through simple attrition I may have
>eliminated all my limp-wrister cranks. But I cannot be sure.
>
>So. What are these guys gonna cost?
>
>Dan
Dan:
The Price is really unknown at this time since Randy has only made 6 for testing purposes. I would say around $40 to $45.

Could it be cheaper if people could just send him a fox crankshaft to be reworked at his specifications?
fernando

No, the Fox crankshaft can be weighted the same but it would be almost imposable to re-machine it to be true on center. Currently I am adding the weight it needs put I have to date never seen a Fox crankshaft that did not have run out on it. Randy is also using a higher quality metal and nitrating them for hardness.

>I have to date never seen a Fox crankshaft that did not have run out on it.

Larry,

"run-out" Could you describe what this condition is?

Thanks,
Chris

The cranks are not straight. A very common problem.

>>I have to date never seen a Fox crankshaft that did not have run out on it.
>
>Larry,
>
>"run-out" Could you describe what this condition is?

The front stud is not machined on center. Also when the threads are cut the stud is bent after. I have found the studs to be .015 to .050 off center.
Larry

Okay guy's now that the discussion has seemed to be started about Fox 35 stunt engines and improveing them and I am basically a newcomer to using them for stunt (I always used them for super slow combat)I have 8 of the 40th anniversary engines and would like to put at least 4 of them into use for stunt models.
Could I get suggestions on what to do with them as far as changing parts and making sure I get a good 4-2-4 break and getting good pulling power,I considered using ABC liner/piston assemblies and hemi kits on them which brings up another question as to who makes the best hemi kits and ABC liner/piston assemblies.
I do infact have 2 brand new Fox 35's that have never been run just minor work done to them including lapping the piston liners in of which one of them the liner looks like it is slightly oval at the top and to my mind needs replacing anyway, I really don't want to have to spend too much but if I end up putting $100 into each and they turn out to be really good motors (after all I have had these motors for several years and the original cost has been absorbed so anything I do will be no different to me than buying new motors) that would be fine also does anyone know if a tongue muffler is available for them as I dont like the idea of all the added wieght of a standard Fox muffler on the front because older stunt model designs were not designed to have the extra wieght of a muffler up front meaning I would need to add tail wieght to the rear of the model and that changes the designed wing loading.
The comments I have read about improvements Fox should have done I am questioning as they are still making the motor and selling quite alot of them 50 years on the same basic design motor must be some kind of record.

Larry could you tell me if the new crankshafts you are planning on selling will be timed for stunt or will any modifications be nescary to retime them.

!!!! Every day is a gift that should be used wisely!!!!

Well, even the Model A and the VW Beetle reached their ends. The tongue mufflers are available from Leonard, Brodaks and RSM and I'm sure others. Place each engine in a good sturdy test stand, mount a dial indicator and turn the crank over slowly and watch for any "wobble" or run out. Herein lies a lot of the vibration in a typical Fox .35 stunt engine. The unbalanced or almost balanced crank is the other vibration and the heavy piston is another part. So, if the crank is balanced, true and the piston is aluminum, it will run very smooth for a two stroke single cylinder engine, which all vibrate due to the reciprocating action.
As to chrome cylinder liners/aluminum pistons, of course they are sold by Fox along with the hemi head (their version) and the stuffer back plate. So does Brodak and I'm not sure about Leonard or Tom Dixon. L&J engines are among the best modified Fox .35s out there and are available from RSM. In Stunt News other advertise engine services and a search on here will show more. You get what you pay for, so go with the best and they are almost always the most expensive. Others may tell you to sell the engines and get a Double Star .40 which is a Rox clone and a good engine. Some will disagree based on variables. Some like Chevy, some Like Ford, we all like Ferraris. Ha.

Guys, this whole discussion started in the Product Reviews section and, except for the very first post, has drifted far beyond the Product Review cncept. So I am going to switch the whole thing over to the main forum where it will serve a better use and you can take it from there.

Thanks Ty for the kind words. This I would bet you already know so this is for those that don't.
Balancing a single piston motor is mis-leading but everyone tends to understand the term better. What we are really doing is getting the motor to vibrate more evenly in all directions.

Richard;
The Crankshafts are timed the same as the stock one. I will e-mail you rework suggestions on the Fox 35. These are instructions on how I rework a Fox 35 that are available to anyone who asks. As some people have pointed out I don't advertise my reworks, this keeps the amount of motors I work on down to a manageable amount so I have time for my hobby. This year I have done 154 motors. So anyone who wants this information can have it. I have no problem giving it out. I rework the motors to give a little back to the Hobby that has given me so much. It takes about 5 hours to rework one and I charge $25.00 a motor so one can see it's for the love of it and not the money.

.015to .050 off center?!?!?!?! My god that is the world! I will have to work up the gumption to set up the lathe and check some. If they are just bent from the threading operation you should be able to straighten them back? with out breaking them?

>.015to .050 off center?!?!?!?! My god that is the world! I
>will have to work up the gumption to set up the lathe and
>check some. If they are just bent from the threading
>operation you should be able to straighten them back? with
>out breaking them?

OPPS, I'm not giving Fox enough Credit here, .0015 to .050. I didn't make a mistake about the .050. I have that one holding down the Delivery Confirmation Receipts down on my desk. I reworked that crank before I checked it so I own it now. I jig the cranks up on my mill before I start reworking them and check them with a dial indicator and straighten them prior to reworking them. Still it doesn't take much to create a lot of vibration. I've also found that they will settle back towards their original position after running. I’ve tried stress relieving them, which also hardens them. The problem there is any time you harden metal it shrinks. Four of the ten I did this to all lost front bushings within four gallons of fuel.

I try to run every engine I do before I send it out and I run every new motor before it goes to RSM, I check for excessive vibration and I have never had one this smooth. I don't have the vibration equipment available to me that I did for the first several years so it's all by feel now, but after 1200 engines (that's over 17 years) I have a pretty good feel. I never knew how much vibration the poorly made cranks caused until I ran this crank of Randy's. The older cranks where a lot better (the ones with a small counter weight) and some were pretty dead on, but I couldn't add weight to them and that really makes a difference.

Sorry I haven’t been more attentive to this post and for the mistake, I have a lot of data from testing I’ve done over the last 17 years. Some can find flaws in it or question the heck out of it. Posting it here I think causes more problems for me then help for you. It’s a baseline that makes me feel confident about changes. If someone wants to know of any specific testing I’ve done I would happy to give them results. A very large part of this data is hand written. This is due to field testing and reports received from people who have test flown engines for me, also I didn't start using a computer for this until 1996, so it could take a couple days to get it to you.

Larry,
How about putting your enormous skills to work on something new. Does this mean a $200 fox?

>Larry,
>How about putting your enormous skills to work on something
>new. Does this mean a $200 fox?
>
>D

Your confidence means a lot. Thanks Dennis. If Foxes go to $200 I’ll quit doing them and fly AERO Tiger 36’s only.

I do OSLA 40's and 46's, for $55.00 + S&H. OS LA’s include a ST needle valve assy. And aluminum back plate. RC versions are $13.00 more.

RSM and I have decided to keep the current series 6 for $139.95 and offer it also with the Aero Products Crankshaft at for $170.00.
I will also upgrade any L&J Fox 35 with the Aero Products Crankshaft for $43.00 + S&H.
Any Fox 35's received after the 1rst of January will cost $40.00 to rework + parts.

If it’s a current L&J engine I never charge labor to refresh it or fix it.

Also if an L&J 35 ever breaks a crankshaft I will replace it for free even if it’s 17 years old.

ANY first time PAMPA members, or if you buy a gift subscription for someone until March 15th 2004, L&J will rework your Fox 35 or LA 40 & 46 at no charge on Labor and Shipping and 20% off on parts.

Any one who takes this offer will be verified with Shareen Fancher. They should make sure to put it on the application.

I've also found that they will
>settle back towards their original position after running.
>IÂ’ve tried stress relieving them, which also hardens them.
>The problem there is any time you harden metal it shrinks.
>Four of the ten I did this to all lost front bushings within
>four gallons of fuel.

Maybe cast cranks aren't such a bad idea after all....

Expalin the advanatages of a cast crankshaft over the current one and also a forged steel/CNC as the Aero Products.

I find it interesting that Randy thinks that the Fox .35 engine is worth spending the R&D time building a special crank for it. The market must be there or he wouldn't be doing it.

What of the wiggly front bushing? I thought the longevity of foxes was limited by the slop wearing into the crank/crankcase fit. Put your finger on a prop blade of an old fox and push. ABC cylinder new crank etc. well the crankcase is still a fossil and there's no easy way to tune in a fixed venturi hole. I'm reminded of Harley engines that can be built entirely from after market parts or small block chevys for that matter. But where's the bang for the buck with all these fox mods. If I sought a nostalgia trip to youthful castor fumes, I'd pick up a golden oldie for cheap. (I do and I have). Modern engines can be made winners without big time make overs. Even Magnums. FPs and LAs pepper the result sheets in contests. Do they not? Members in my club, I confess, often run engines that we call (LHA). Left the H-ll Alone.

If you get one before it gets sloppy, it most likely will not happen with the new crank. The stock cranks are cut so crudely they are almost serrated! That is why the bushing wears out. Pull out a stock crank and drad your finger nail from front to back, it's pretty bad. Some people mirror polish these and it helps for a quicker break in period, since half the break in period of the fox seems to be the crank. (Of course, hand lapping the piston a little never hurts either)

As far as not understanding hopping up the old classic, well...if you have to ask, you will never understand!

If you can relate to the guy(s) who buy a 2000.00 dollar rust bucket camaro/mustang/whatever, sinks another 7000.00 into it, plus 5 years of blood sweat and tears, and one ex-wife later sells it for 3500.00 in gray primer just hours away from finishing the project...then you might begin to understand, heh.

Ouch, reality bites!

Dear Eric

I bought my '75 vette in Phoenix in 1987. Not a rust bucket by any means, still had the frame paint, although the body had been MACOed aplenty. Removing the layers of enamel, getting to the gell coat with a mild stripper, and having a talented guy in Philly, PA where I live, do the finishing and lacquer, gave me beautiful paint for 15 years. (Time to paint again, alas.) The mechanicals were redone, including those bitchy rear bearings, brakes (you know if you own a vette of that era). The mods were as follows (when the engine turned out to have a bad crank -- run out of oil by the previous owner?) a four hundred small block (with stock pistons and rods and a crower street cam), aluminum corvette heads (early 90s) and a shift kitted 700 R4 trans. Plus mucho this and that. I cruise at 100 easily and get over twenty to the gallon. As a bonus my quarter mile times are better then all but a few cars listed in the back of Road and Track. Last year I drove the car to the Nats, which was no biggy since my wife and I vacation all the time in this FUNCTIONAL piece. Very little in the way of big name after market miracle parts. No prayed over small block talked up by the guys who hang around and sing in the chorus.

It helps to have a best friend who builds SVRA race cars and Hot Rods, someone who has done it all his life. A man who is an engineer, fabricator, and something of a genius. We laugh a lot as he makes "junk" parts work and beat big name blow up small blocks. He even trumped the former owner of Aston Martin (before Ford) who built cheaters at the factory.

I think the analogy holds. Do you choose to dream or drive, dream or fly? If you choose to drive (or fly) and you have truly knowledgeable, experienced and generous friends-- one often finds that simple solutions can be made to work as well or better than anything else.

We fly cheap and fly often.

Especially when you consider he probably had to order 100 at a minimum in order to make them cost effective, for him to sell.

DE:
From my dealings with Randy on this I feel that maybe he’s having some fun and we are all benefiting from it. I do know that he's frustrated with some of the posts because he really is trying to do something good here. As for the Fox's being in demand Just give Bart a call and he will tell you how many hours I spend on motors and I refuse to advertise so I can have Hobby time.

I really DO NOT understand why all the negative comments, here is a guy that is known to be a good engine man and a model engine that is something of a legend and here he is improveing on the engine so it can be better utilized and run better as for the comment about the crankcase wearing on the Fox 35 it stands to reason to me, that if the shaft is NOT running true and straight it WILL wear out the caseing from the shaft just not running true and straight there must be a good reason why Fox has kept this engine in production for 50 some years now and it is good stunt engine with enough power etc., to pull a reasonable sized stunter through the pattern in comparison to a modern engine it is relatively light and yes I may be new to the world of stunt flying as I havent flown a stunt model in something like 20 years, but even back then the fox was considered one of the best stunt engines as it had such a good 4-2-4 run, yes it always vibrated more than most like, but here is someone that knows what he is doing and he seems to have cured alot of the vibration problem less vibration less wear, if it wasnt for people like this we would still be flying rubber powered models, why do we have to have so much negative comments about this subject.
As for the preverble rust bucket cars people see and buy, sink a ton of money into and they still end up with a rust bucket believe me when you start talking about old cars I do know what I am talking about,I used to be an autobody repair tech prior to being disabled because of the trade I chose to follow as a misguided teen and amount of people that would bring these junkers to me expecting a silk purse back is just unreal, personally I would rather put that money into something really worthwhile, I never have understood throwing good money after bad when after just a few years down the road more money has to be spent on an unreliable piece of out of date machinery.
Coming back to the Fox 35 I have had several and vibration or not they always ran when I wanted them to maybe I am just a lucky one but too many people I have noticed have praised this engine even with the vibration.
Come on guys lets give credit where credit is due and get back to the discussion about model engines and away from cars this isn't a forum for cars it is supposed to be a forum to give and get help developing the model flying skills, models and engines we all use to improve the standard of model flying and building, so please lets not put down someone for trying to aid and help the progress of model engines and trying to improve on them.
I am sure I am about to upset some of you by this post but the truth is out there and perfection can only be achieved by innovation and developement.
Lets face it if you don't want to use a Fox 35 you dont have to, no one is twisting anyones arm.
Personally I plan on having Larry rework a couple of my 35's and if he deems it nescary to replace the shaft to improve them then he will have my permission to do so,at least I know I will be getting good reliable motors that should last once the vibration is reduced substantially.
I may be new so to speak to stunt flying to most of you but I have been flying models for 42 years and have seen so much improvement because of engine reworks that have later been taken up by the manufacturer and built into the newer engines P.A.W. is a classic example I cannot remember which one of the brothers it was that used to fly 1/2a combat in England but when we showed him what we did with the P.A.W. 1.49 to get it to a good reliable little diesel combat engine all of a sudden those changes were introduced in later engines.....INNOVATION....INNOVATION!!!!!! dont put it down try applauding it instead.

This is for anyone I may have upset by my previous post I am sorry if I have in anyway upset anyone by my views but I truly believe them,

I guess it could have been possible to miss interpret my post, but I was defending Randy, not putting him down by my car analogy. Heh, funny how things can be taken when your mind is already set.

If you really want to laugh, I have one of those ridiculously expensive black ABC Foxes with the gold anodized hemi head etc. in my ARF NOBLER! So don't put me in with the sane crowd, non of us are very rational when it comes to performance from our toys, or about how much we admit to spending on them. I say go get'em Randy, I may have to order one myself to try.

DE:
From my dealings with Randy on this I feel that maybe he’s having some fun and we are all benefiting from it. **I do know that he's frustrated with some of the posts** because he really is trying to do something good here. As for the Fox's being in demand Just give Bart a call and he will tell you how many hours I spend on motors and I refuse to advertise so I can have Hobby time.

Larry

Larry,

Please pass along to Randy the tip that if he intends to make production and marketing decisions based upon two or three goofs--none of whom would recognize a strong Fox 35 if it cleanly sliced off their gonads, losing only 100 revs in the process--that I have some equally goofy input which has not yet been shared with anyone in the world of CL.

Free, so the price is right. And it is also worth the same, just like the posts to which Randy objects.

Dan:
I'm sure Randy will get a chuckle from this one just like I did. He's way to smart to make decisions from comments made on this forum. I think you will agree, everyone has a right to an opinion.

Dan, this next Para is not directed at you:
I just have a real beef with the guy (guys) that make remarks and when you ask them to explain they never have the respect for anyone to back up their comments. That's the reason I've backed off on new posts. I have a lot of things I would put up here, and alot of information I'd like to share; I just don't feel like dealing with those guys. I also know for a fact it's why a lot of the really knowledgeable people just read and never write. There are a lot more people with the knowledge level of Brett Buck, Ted Fancher and Paul Walker in this hobby that read this forum, and thanks guys for sharing the things you do here with us.

I could really use a couple of Randyized Fox crankshafts. I have a couple of special engines they would do well on.

DE:
Give him a call or drop him an e-mail. The more people that get on order the more crankshafts he can make on the first run.

Larry, I wouldn't worry some people are just plain........"Cranky"

I just received the Fox you reworked for me and had to peek inside.....Nice work! Been too cold to fire it up but I'm sure it will be a sweetheart. My only beef is that I missed the Christmas Deal! Just kidding... judging from the work you did I have to believe it's a labor of love 'cause I wouldn't do all of that for what you charge.

Thanks and Happy Hollidays

PS - Doesn't that crank on my Avater look familiar?

Thanks Dick, and you are right it is a love. To me it's like building a really nice plane with a really bad kit.

Larry

P.S. I'm not like most engine guy's, Here's my theory "look inside my motors and copy them if you want".

>Expalin the advanatages of a cast crankshaft over the
>current one and also a forged steel/CNC as the Aero
>Products.
>
>Larry

There would be less clean up required of an investment cast crank than a forged one. CNC machined would be the best but also the most expensive.

>>Expalin the advanatages of a cast crankshaft over the
>>current one and also a forged steel/CNC as the Aero
>>Products.
>>
>>Larry
>
>There would be less clean up required of an investment cast
>crank than a forged one. CNC machined would be the best but
>also the most expensive.

Valid Point, my concern there would be the loss of strength caused by casting. From my experience you would have to heat harden it which would cause it to shrink. In order to get back the tolerances it would have to be oversize after hardening then machining would require grinding so the expense would go back up. Granted the casting processes are much better then they were 10 years ago but with the problems that the Fox crankshaft has with such low mass at the counter weight and shaft junction, the problem might still be there in the casting process.

I also don't know if the cost to set up a mold would be worth it.

I rework a lot of OS LA engines and OS had a cast crankshaft in them until this year, They have changed that process away from the cast crankshaft. So I would think it was to reduce costs.

Then again I may be totally wrong on all of this.

Larry,
Thanks for the answer. Your foxes of mine are doing fine and are well worth the money I spent. There 7 years old now.
I've never had a fox cranckshaft break, actually I've never had a crank shaft break at all.