The Aerodrome Home Page
Aces of WWI
Aircraft of WWI
Books and Film
The Aerodrome Forum
Help
Links to Other Sites
Medals and Decorations
Search The Aerodrome
Today in History


The Aerodrome Forum


Go Back   The Aerodrome Forum > WWI Aviation > Flying Models

Flying Models Topics related to flying WWI aircraft models

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 3 July 2005, 06:34 PM   #1
Roundel
Scout Pilot
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 338

Cox radial engine conversions

A company called Widecanyon (www.widecanyonengines.com) is offering five-cylinder radial engine conversions of three types of Cox .049 glow engines. I hasten to add that while all five cylinders are Cox products, one is operating and the other four are dummies. These engines might be useful for those building flying models of WWI radial- or rotary-powered planes.

According to the June 2005 issue of Model Aviation, Widecanyon is planning similar conversions of Cox .020 engines and is considering similar conversions in other configurations, including in-line. If marketed, the in-lines might be useful for models of such WWI planes as the BE2, DH-6, DH-9, and, of course, numerous Albatros, Pfalz, and other German designs.
Roundel is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 6 July 2005, 05:04 AM   #2
womenfly2
Forum Ace
 
womenfly2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,777

 
??????????????? Why?

Just mock one up yourself for less then 200 bucks!

Cool thought.
__________________
Thanks for reading,
KAP

"The L-4H Project"

Keri-Ann's Piper L-4 Build site
womenfly2 is offline  
Old 15 July 2005, 07:21 PM   #3
Herr Kessler
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Forgive me if I'm missing something, but why would you want the weight of four unproductive cylenders? Why not just model the additional cylenders out of balsa, ply or even plastic? Since I'm new to RC, could someone please tell me if there's something I'm not grasping here.

Thanks,
Herr Kessler
 
Old 15 July 2005, 08:23 PM   #4
Lucky Dog
Forum Ace
 
Lucky Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Columbus, IN USA
Posts: 819

 
Typical WW1 types do require a lot of nose weight to balance. It does seem to be a bit much though (possibly). From a detail stand point, a real cylinder (functional or no) is going to look a lot better than anything I could fabricate.
__________________
Cheers,
Mike Bealmear

www.bealmear.com/dawn_patrol
Lucky Dog is offline  
Old 18 July 2005, 11:40 AM   #5
charlier653
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

is it possible to make the " dummy " cyl live? maybe offset each of the four the thickness of the con rod.....

if this can be done, why not 7 or 9 cyl radial?
 
Old 19 July 2005, 10:34 AM   #6
TomVrille
Forum Ace
 
TomVrille's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 1,057

 
Let me begin by stating that I have no personal interest in the Cox engine mod because I prefer to work at 1/6 to 1/4 scale, generally inappropriate for an .049 powerplant. Moreover, I would be reluctant to use a 2-cycle engine in any WW1 warbird.

That said, there is one potential problem with the Cox mod for those whose tastes are different. Most of the aircraft that would be suitable for the dummy radial/rotary are partially or fully cowled. Use of the dummy engine dictates the minimum size of the cowl, and establishes the model scale, most likely somewhat different from any plans available for scratch building. Fully cowled installations tend to require larger prop sizes, which might lead to a requirement to gear drive an engine in the .049 class.

On the bright side, most of the uncowled WW1 engine installations are pushers, where the ability of Cox engines to run in either direction could be helpful.
__________________
"A surprise attack is much more demoralising than any other form, and generally results in the person attacked diving or pulling the machine into such a position that it forms a most satisfactory target for the few seconds necessary to deliver a decisive blow. " - R. S. Dallas
TomVrille is offline  
Old 19 July 2005, 07:44 PM   #7
Herr Kessler
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky Dog
Typical WW1 types do require a lot of nose weight to balance. It does seem to be a bit much though (possibly). From a detail stand point, a real cylinder (functional or no) is going to look a lot better than anything I could fabricate.
I forgot about the notorious tail-heaviness of GW aircraft. I'm still working up to building one, let alone flying one. Hopefully soon though. Anyway, I can see your reasoning for your first point. It does, at least, make some sense. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

Kess
 
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
cox, radial, engine, conversions


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
use for Rotec radial engine baldeagle Replica Aircraft 8 6 August 2006 12:43 PM
Continental 670 Radial Engine CORVUS Replica Aircraft 14 30 August 2005 04:58 PM
Ranger engine conversions olineb Replica Aircraft 2 21 February 2003 01:24 PM
Questions about auto engine conversions... Lufbery 2002 11 17 September 2002 10:58 AM
Rotary engine vs. standard radial Ed 2000 17 3 November 2000 06:07 AM


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1997 - 2023 The Aerodrome