TD 010 Crankshaft Find

Did you compaire the dimentions with the stock cox crank?

The reason is that a heli powered by a .010 is verry unlikely even with the current state of technology.
When was the last producton run of 0.010 parts? Back then the lmh heli was barely able to fly on a engine 4 times bigger.

A free flight heli might be possible but does not need a diferent crank design.

100 of them would imply a comercial production run possible for a small car?

what do you guys think?

cmulder wrote:Did you compaire the dimentions with the stock cox crank?

The reason is that a heli powered by a .010 is verry unlikely even with the current state of technology.
When was the last producton run of 0.010 parts?   Back then the lmh heli was barely able to fly on a engine 4 times bigger.

A free flight heli might be possible but does not need a diferent crank design.

100 of them would imply a comercial production run possible for a small car?

what do you guys think?

Yes - they are 010 cranks. I cannot speak to what the project was or when it was for that matter only that this is what the bag was labeled. If I had to guess, it was a project started by someone and never finished as I have never seen an 010 powered helicopter. No idea to the approach of have a larger diameter on the main bearing surface.

Even if the journal bearing diameter on the crank is larger, I do not think it serves to allow higher radial load on it..the tiny dimensions and thin nose wall of the crankcase would not allow a meaningful increase of shaft diameter that would allow any useful radial load increase..I suppose in a heli application the larger dia prop mounted on the shaft direct would impose higher radial low in an occasional imbalance of the prop, but again, the crankcase- restricted max shaft diameter could only mean a few hundredths of an inch advantage that is just a few% in terms of journal diameter growth and proportional radial load bearing capability increase.

If somone went trought the whole proces of having these made then there is reason to believe there is a set of matching cases "out there"
Could you trace the previous owners and find out the history?
Also these are more rare as as the stock items so check if there people who like to buy some of them in the state they are now.

Again, I cannot speak to what the person / company doing this project was thinking as to the design, but the guy we bought them from had no idea about where they came from other than that they were in a group of RC parts that were probably 60's / 70's era.

If the era is right there were a ton of different small shops around back then that would tweak and make their own designs around existing engine lines.

I agree Matt , good to hear from you and that you can maybe make some of these available , I don't need any but would probably take a couple off ur hands LOL Just make sure there indexed correctly and I am sure U will .

Arriving this week!

Some time maybe 30 years ago, I believe DARPA was experimenting with then small R/C drones for possible battlefield use. They were experimenting with helicopters and ornithopters as well as planes using small Cox engines. It was documented in one of the Army publications when I was still a reservist.

It is possible that they contracted with Cox to provide specially modified engines needing extra heavy duty components to meet their MILSPEC requirements.

US Gov infamous for initiating then cancelling contracts could have left a supplier with an odd cache of parts, or, these were left over stocked parts they had no need for. A bidder at DRMO (Defense Reutilization Marketing Office) picked them up as a lot bundled with other stuff considered now surplus.

That's an interesting theory! I also agree, anything is possible with the government.

I guess then I am becoming a Cox conspiracy theorist.

I do recall a few of the photos they showed in the article. Because battery systems did not attain to the power they have now with the Li-Po batteries, they were using Cox glow engines. (Remember the "Buy American Act" back then?) Exploring evasion techniques to eavesdrop on the battlefield enemy, they had some very small drones smaller than the Ace 20" Littlest Stick. In the article, they also mentioned about research into powered ornithopters, because inside a building, they could flap up against a wall, rebound and continue flying.

Of course with modern battery systems, no longer are glow engines considered. But I found the article fascinating, because this research had been ongoing since the 1960's.

Adding to Cox conspiracies, perhaps this led to the Quiet Zone QZ engine?

Conspiring minds want to know.

IIRC Dub Jett produced a 0.5cc Jett glow engine for a DARPA M-UAV project....I'm guessing if it matched his other engines for performance it would have been spectacular for its size....I seem to recall a photo of it in one of the US magazines in a Jett advert -and a bit of a spiel from Dub on the background. There was no indication at the time that there was any intention of going into production with it...and I don't recall mention of any performance details

ChrisM
'ffkiwi'

Chris, I do recall vaguely the same story you mention, from a while back, in addition to the other I mentioned.

I saw the small Jett at Toledo one year. He said absolutely no intention of production.

Greg-what did it look like-its years since I read the advert but I have a vague memory of a rear drum induction unit....??

Here is the engine Dub designed for testing.

1/2A Nut wrote:Here is the engine Dub designed for testing.

Interesting.....looks like a cast case....so they must've had a die made....and you don't usually do that for a 1-off......

ChrisM

ffkiwi wrote:Interesting.....looks like a cast case....so they must've had a die made....and you don't usually do that for a 1-off......

If he received US government research grant funding, it could have been lucrative enough to fund mold making for small quantities, which would normally not been done except for anticipating reasonable scale open market sales.

Also the displacement was .035 cu. in.

The case was likely investment cast at that size. If it was front intake .049 or 1cc there could have been a market, but I wouldn't expect cost to be that much lower than the larger engines. Once you get past the case casting, materials cost is an issue. The special alloys for piston and cylinders don't come in a variety of sizes. Using 18mm bar to make a 10mm piston costs no less than a 17mm piston. Bushing material for rod bearings has the same issue depending on alloy.

1/2A Nut wrote:Also the displacement was .035 cu. in.

Odd size really-works out at 0.574cc....mind you the Allbon/DC Dart was .033 or 0.55cc

ChrisM