Wanted: Metal backplate for Black Widow or Golden bee. Ventless

GermanBeez wrote:matt had one:
http://www.exmodelengines.com/product.php?productid=17783&cat=269&page=3
i've never seen just the back plates on ebay...i guess you'd have to buy a pre 1983 black widow like
mine.
here's one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Cox-049-black-Widow-Model-Airplane-gas-Engine-/230659058306?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35b459ea82
not the original cylinder and spinner, but otherwise its nice.

A pre-'83 with slit exhaust. But if the price doesn't go up much it will be worth it. Thanks GB.

EDIT: That one sold, but here's an even better one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Cox-049-Model-Airplane-Engine-/110730402571?_trksid=p4340.m185&_trkparms=algo%3DSIC.OPJS%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUA%26otn%3D5%26pmod%3D230659058306%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D2093532360931340903.

The guy may not know what he has. Unfortunately I have to wait until payday in 2 weeks to buy any cool stuff.

oh boy, i know how that sucks...

I still have one or two refurbished ones that are not up on the website.

If your still interested, send me an email sales@exmodelengines.com

Matt

May I ask why you dislike the plastic backs? They have always worked fine for me.

many associate the plastic back plate with the *st*s era of cox, low quality, and cheapy production.

Oops, double post.

microflitedude wrote:May I ask why you dislike the plastic backs? They have always worked fine for me.

Three I've bought at different times had problems. One with a spraybar that had something blocking it so it wouldn't seat all the way. Another brand new one was clogged and had zero flow through the fuel nipple. On my first 1993 BW the recess where the crankcase screw tightens cracked. I found it when the new engine wouldn't run after a crash. I had never opened it, so if it was over torqued, it was at the factory. Other than that, they work great.

GermanBeez wrote:many associate the plastic back plate with the *st*s era of cox, low quality, and cheapy production.

And then there's that.

Yeah they do, I personally like the metal backplates more then the plastic but I wouldn't replace a plastic one with a metal one if the engine was originally made with the plastic one. Like on my 1990 Black Widow, it came with a plastic backplate, its keeping its plastic backplate. Now if you are talking about a project engine, I would use metal unless you want to cut down on weight.

RknRusty wrote:

microflitedude wrote:May I ask why you dislike the plastic backs? They have always worked fine for me.

Three I've bought at different times had problems. One with a spraybar that had something blocking it so it wouldn't seat all the way. Another brand new one was clogged and had zero flow through the fuel nipple. On my first 1993 BW the recess where the crankcase screw tightens cracked. I found it when the new engine wouldn't run after a crash. I had never opened it, so if it was over torqued, it was at the factory. Other than that, they work great.

GermanBeez wrote:many associate the plastic back plate with the *st*s era of cox, low quality, and cheapy production.

And then there's that.

the plastic do not survive worth the @#%& in a crash. just about every time I would crash or make a hard landing, a lug would break off or it would crack around the screws like you said.

I found that with a pee wee the lugs break off way too easily and they are metal

Too many mixed opinions!

I went into a WOT dive from about 50' the other week and it didn't put a scratch on the motor.

Some of the older metal backplates become brittle with age, and are prone to breaking. Overall, they are a little stronger in my opinion.

The plastic ones tend to break more if you tighten the lugs down too much, especially if there is a crash.

Matt

nitroairplane wrote:I found that wiu a pee wee the lugs break off way too easily and they are metal

over my years i believe i broke three 020 plates, but in those days you could just send for a new backplate. the fuel filler tubes and the lugs on the 020 plate break off really easy.

If you fly RC/UC using engines like TD .049's TD .020's with sepeate fuel tanks yeilds much better results. Black Widows on UC don't have enough capacity 8cc, thats less than 1/2Oz. For glider motor fine. Even sure starts are easier to set up. Where do I put fuel tank?? Hey you are a model builder make room. Even a pen bladder will work and location is not a problem. Tanked engines are prone to leak even if you are careful. I like PeeWee's but are fragile. TD .020 great little engine and in my book was the best of the series. The TD .09 another great engine as the TD .049. Babe Bee with small tank is almost useless unless you like a very short flight. I like all Cox engines and use what you have but a good 1 oz. tank will give you good flying time.
Dan

dankar04 wrote: If you fly RC/UC using engines like TD .049's TD .020's with sepeate fuel tanks yeilds much better results. Black Widows on UC don't have enough capacity 8cc, thats less than 1/2Oz. For glider motor fine. Even sure starts are easier to set up. Where do I put fuel tank?? Hey you are a model builder make room. Even a pen bladder will work and location is not a problem. Tanked engines are prone to leak even if you are careful. I like PeeWee's but are fragile. TD .020 great little engine and in my book was the best of the series. The TD .09 another great engine as the TD .049. Babe Bee with small tank is almost useless unless you like a very short flight. I like all Cox engines and use what you have but a good 1 oz. tank will give you good flying time.
Dan

I too am a massive fan of the tee dee .020 but I prefer the .010

microflitedude wrote:Too many mixed opinions!

I went into a WOT dive from about 50' the other week and it didn't put a scratch on the motor.

You must have been flying a "pusher".

SuperDave

SuperDave wrote:

microflitedude wrote:Too many mixed opinions!

I went into a WOT dive from about 50' the other week and it didn't put a scratch on the motor.

You must have been flying a "pusher".

SuperDave

Or a jet.

i have in my bag of junk old metal back plates both with or with out fuel nips if interested email me here ..gazza

SuperDave wrote:

microflitedude wrote:Too many mixed opinions!

I went into a WOT dive from about 50' the other week and it didn't put a scratch on the motor.

You must have been flying a "pusher".

SuperDave

Nope. Super cub. In fact, the only damage was the cowl shook loose a little and the wing folding...

These things are awesome. My friend was telling me how their efficiency was oh so low and the weren't good for much.

microflitedude wrote:

SuperDave wrote:

microflitedude wrote:Too many mixed opinions!

I went into a WOT dive from about 50' the other week and it didn't put a scratch on the motor.

You must have been flying a "pusher".

SuperDave

Nope. Super cub. In fact, the only damage was the cowl shook loose a little and the wing folding...

These things are awesome. My friend was telling me how their efficiency was oh so low and the weren't good for much.

Your friend is very wrong

ekitten2 wrote:i have in my bag of junk old metal back plates both with or with out fuel nips if interested email me here ..gazza

Hi ekitten. I actually got what I needed a couple of days ago, but thanks anyway. I would have closed the thread but people were having fun hijacking it, so I left it open.

nitroairplane wrote:

Your friend is very wrong

Yep. He's got lots of fuel planes, but I've never seen him fly anything but electrics.

microflitedude wrote:

nitroairplane wrote:

Your friend is very wrong

Yep. He's got lots of fuel planes, but I've never seen him fly anything but electrics.

Yep I have a few like that I go over for dinner and he has Pitts biplanes in his workshop hanging from the ceiling then I said oh I never knew you flew rc he said why dont we fly one day and then the next week we went to the field and he brough of all planes the parkzone cub and mustang?
I mean why when you have a lovely pitts.