Cox Engines Forum
You are not logged in! Please login or register! Guests are limited to posting in the "General Questions (Guest Posting Allowed)" section only. Becoming a member is fast, easy and FREE!


"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Babe_b10
Log in

I forgot my password

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» 2019 CEF Run What Ya Brung Unlimited Speed Contest Build Log
by Ken Cook Today at 3:22 pm

» How's the weather?
by Cribbs74 Today at 3:11 pm

» Flying a pattern at the Triple Tree contest.
by RknRusty Today at 12:01 pm

» How many engines?
by fredvon4 Today at 8:57 am

» Flying the twins
by getback Today at 8:32 am

» Some of my Cox engines
by getback Today at 8:29 am

» 2019 World-Widw Ringmaster Fly-a-Thon---October 5th & 6th !!
by Kim Yesterday at 8:41 am

» Roll Call! Cars Are The Stars
by Kim Yesterday at 6:57 am

» LWS 3 with a Pee Wee
by dirk gently Yesterday at 3:38 am

» JEROBEE electric to TeeDee conversion
by OVERLORD Yesterday at 2:00 am

Cox Engine of The Month
May-2019
Tee Bee's

"This RR1 was restored for all the right reasons"


PAST WINNERS
Speed Contest 2019
CEF Traveling Engine

Win This Engine!
The Traveling Prop
Gallery


"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Empty
World of Aviation

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys

Go down

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Empty "Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys

Post  rsv1cox on Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:28 am

I have read so much about the "Lightning Bolt" McCoy's that I thought I would disassemble and compare one with a standard McCoy. Both shown here are 19’s.

The Lightning Bolt McCoy's have longer beam mounts and reinforcing structures extending toward the front of the engine.

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Pbucket

Also on the exhaust port side there is a vertical reinforcement on the case plus a much more robust reinforcement inside the exhaust port possibility for dual use (RC/CL) with an exhaust restrictor.

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Pbucket

The cylinder on the Lightning Bolt engine has a "birdcage" on both ports while the standard McCoy's ports are a continuous opening. I could see no apparent difference in the pistons or connecting rods.

The crankshaft on the lightning Bolt has been lightened.

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Pbucket

The cylinder head has a metaltic gasket instead of a composition gasket, but this may be common. I can't tell if the head is high compression compared to the standard head. Outwardly they appear the same.

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Pbucket

Comments and corrections are invited.
rsv1cox
rsv1cox
Top Poster
Top Poster

Posts : 4033
Join date : 2014-08-18
Location : West Virginia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Empty Re: "Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys

Post  Ken Cook on Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:01 am

Depending on the year the engine was made, the plug position on the head was changed. Some say it makes a difference, I say it really doesn't. The lightning bolt case also featured a bronze bushing in the case. Essentially the changes to the case lugs were to umbrella the use of other engines. The lightning bolt has the slotted holes and these would interchange with K&B's etc. All in all a sales tactic. Duke Fox recognized this early on which is why the stunt .35 was designed to have the same footprint as the O&R engines. He made his engines fit the same bolt pattern to put a damper on O&R engine sales.  The gated or as you stated birdcage cylinders are used for ringed pistons. Mccoy or Duro-Matic probably had a oversupply of these and I've seen them in several Mccoy's non ringed of course. I also found the gated cylinders to be the ones that always wore out for me. I'm told a Testor's series .21 .35 piston (Aluminum) dyke's ring piston fits into that .35 gated cylinder making it a hybrid. I can't comment if that's true on the .19's. I had a few hybrids and I wasn't overly enamoured with their performance. Most of your period models of the time called for a .19-.35 to fly the model. While I've seen the smaller mills used, it fit the beginner and the models flew better with the larger. The .19 is really a oddball size. The .19 was also the topic of discussion in one of Model Airplane News magazines Jan. 1968 in which the clearly stated that inferior materials were used to reduce cost and that the engine literally wore itself in the test article. The company was contacted in regards to this matter and they responded that they were well aware of it. The testing party was reassigned a revamped .19 in which the piston was hard chromed which put a end to the problem. For as much exposure as I have to these engines, I'm starting to think this is a bit mythological.  I've yet to come across one of these. This was known as the Mccoy Custom R/C. These had the gated cylinder. I also found the .19 to have a highly annoying exhaust note and it really is louder than the .35.

In addition, the article suggests no difference between the redhead control line version or the blue head r/c version. their findings were as followed. Of the two test  engines received, the trouble was in no way related to excessively lean runs or due to inadequate lubrication. At this juncture we moved to communicate our findings to the Duromatic Products company.

I personally had a brand new right out of the box .19 do what was claimed above right in front of me. This has also been true for some of my .35's as well. I personally believe that the year the engines were made are very crucial to their longevity. Some of us had good results, others bad. I experienced more bad than good but I do have some good runners currently and I intend on keeping them that way. Ken
Ken Cook
Ken Cook
Top Poster
Top Poster

Posts : 3480
Join date : 2012-03-27
Location : pennsylvania

View user profile

Back to top Go down

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Empty Re: "Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys

Post  rsv1cox on Thu Jun 18, 2015 10:49 am

Thanks Ken, all good information for me to absorb.  

I would guess there is no way to accurately date these engines to separate the bad from the good.  Both have good compression with a nice "pop."  Not much encouragement though as to what I will find when I run them together using the same props and fuel.  I will tach each of them and would hope to find the Lightning engine to be the better performer.  

Gated vs. birdcage seems to be a better description of the cylinder porting.  

Thanks again - Bob

BTW, I always considered the .29 sized engine to be the "oddball." Seems like either the 19 on the low side or the 35 on the high side could fill it's shoes nicely.
rsv1cox
rsv1cox
Top Poster
Top Poster

Posts : 4033
Join date : 2014-08-18
Location : West Virginia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Empty Re: "Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys

Post  Ken Cook on Thu Jun 18, 2015 11:20 am

I won't disagree about the .29 being a weird size, it certainly doesn't seem to pop up as much as the .35's. I really enjoy my Mccoy .29. Mine seems to run harder than the .35's. I use Rev Up 9x6's . It doesn't have any issues with running on the lean side. I use it for Sterling profiles, Yak-9's and Mustangs. It's like a pocket on a T-shirt those two together.
Ken Cook
Ken Cook
Top Poster
Top Poster

Posts : 3480
Join date : 2012-03-27
Location : pennsylvania

View user profile

Back to top Go down

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Empty Re: "Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys

Post  rsv1cox on Thu Jun 18, 2015 11:51 am

I just restored this McCoy 29. It has an interesting design on the front of the prop machine screw.

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Pbucket

I cleaned up the vintage Top Flight prop that came on it with 0000 steel wool and Howard Feed-N-Wax. It took all the crazed varnish off and left a nice satin shine.

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Pbucket

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Pbucket

Looked like this when I got it a couple of weeks ago..

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Pbucket
rsv1cox
rsv1cox
Top Poster
Top Poster

Posts : 4033
Join date : 2014-08-18
Location : West Virginia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Empty Re: "Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys

Post  Ken Cook on Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:52 pm

As usual, your cleanup is impeccable. I don't have experience with that series Mccoy engines. I found some of them to be a bit anemic for my style of flying. That being said, I recently had one on a test stand that somewhat blew me away. I was very impressed with the way it ran. My mccoy .29 I was making reference to is also a redhead series with no external differences other than the casted number depicting the size. I've had a bit of experience with what I refer to as the "Real Mccoy" no pun intended which is the rear rotor .29's and the Mccoy .60's. I have run both Mccoy .60 on spark and also glow. The glow version consumes fuel faster than you can pour it in. I never witnessed a engine that can use so much fuel not to mention it's ability to convert the fuel back into castor oil. What a mess it makes. The only other engine I witnessed making so much oily mess is the Graupner Wankel .30. We had an interesting experience this winter during our engine running. We had a lot of days dedicated to running due to the inclement weather. The Mccoy .60 decided that it wasn't going to be restrained to the test stand. It cut loose on a full out tear. It went about 25 feet in the air and stopped short of the grass by about 4 feet. It dinged up the cylinder head scratching the anodizing up. It didn't hurt the engine, it just cosmetically didn't do it justice. The test stand received new roll pins and nuts and all has been good. Ken
Ken Cook
Ken Cook
Top Poster
Top Poster

Posts : 3480
Join date : 2012-03-27
Location : pennsylvania

View user profile

Back to top Go down

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Empty Re: "Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys

Post  rsv1cox on Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:50 pm

That's a little scary, I have had a .049 become disassociated with it's mount once or twice, but anything larger, watch out. Smile

Yes, these cast McCoy's use a open ported cylinder liner that is free to move inside the casting.  When I removed the head I had to clean off the circle of rust at the top of the cylinder using 0000 steel wool and a light oil.

I thought I could just remove the piston but when pushing on the con rod the cylinder itself came up.  Amazing that it did as it was coated with caster goo.  I cleaned it up, again with fine steel wool and oil (I never sandblast the inside of cylinders) and replaced the piston from the bottom up.  

I had remembered that the liners exhaust port was higher than the intake, but still got it wrong when reinstalling it.  I had to remove the head again and spin it 180. Looks like I should do the same on that needle valve assembly, although it works in either direction it's easier to adjust without the sxhaust burning your fingers. Smile

I have read that age of these McCoys can be determined somewhat by the needle valve clip, early ones were made of brass/bronze, later steel.  I have both.  

I'm not sure my budget includes the early McCoy RR models.  But there are some nice ones on sale on ebay.
rsv1cox
rsv1cox
Top Poster
Top Poster

Posts : 4033
Join date : 2014-08-18
Location : West Virginia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Empty Re: "Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys

Post  gcb on Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:57 pm

I seem to remember another difference is that the crankcase on the Lightening Bolt one has a Bronze bearing while the standard one does not. This is from memory and may not be true.

George
gcb
gcb
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Posts : 908
Join date : 2011-08-11
Location : Port Ewen, NY

View user profile

Back to top Go down

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Empty Re: "Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys

Post  Ken Cook on Thu Jun 18, 2015 3:17 pm

Your correct George, in all of my pyscho babble I mentioned that above. I find it somewhat funny for them to offer that option due to the fact that I never had one last long enough to wear out a crankcase. All the other internals failed prior. I don't get overly worked up about crankcase play unless bad things like the conrod ends are wearing oblong or fuel is profusely running out the front. I've had many Fox .35's that have sooooo much play in them it's amazing they work. These are the best runners for a Bi-Slob.  Some of the newer Fox's I purchased were immediately returned due to excessive play in the crankshaft prior to even running in. Fox had no problem taking those back and sending me another. Ken
Ken Cook
Ken Cook
Top Poster
Top Poster

Posts : 3480
Join date : 2012-03-27
Location : pennsylvania

View user profile

Back to top Go down

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Empty Re: "Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys

Post  rsv1cox on Thu Jun 18, 2015 3:46 pm

Yes, it does much to my embarrassment I didn't take notice of it. The lightning model is brass the standard steel.

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Pbucket
rsv1cox
rsv1cox
Top Poster
Top Poster

Posts : 4033
Join date : 2014-08-18
Location : West Virginia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Empty Re: "Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys

Post  rsv1cox on Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:03 pm

[quote="Ken Cook"]Your correct George, in all of my pyscho babble I mentioned that above. I find it somewhat funny for them to offer that option due to the fact that I never had one last long enough to wear out a crankcase. All the other internals failed prior. I don't get overly worked up about crankcase play unless bad things like the conrod ends are wearing oblong or fuel is profusely running out the front. I've had many Fox .35's that have sooooo much play in them it's amazing they work. These are the best runners for a Bi-Slob.  Some of the newer Fox's I purchased were immediately returned due to excessive play in the crankshaft prior to even running in. Fox had no problem taking ]those back and sending me another. Ken[/quote}

I'm hopeing that these two are the exceptions Ken. Both are tight in all respects. I will run them a little sloppy rich at first then lean out for a max RPM run. As the blind man said - "We shall see." I have Traxx fuel 20% I think and 25/35 % Cox fuels.
rsv1cox
rsv1cox
Top Poster
Top Poster

Posts : 4033
Join date : 2014-08-18
Location : West Virginia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Empty Re: "Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys

Post  chevyiron420 on Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:26 pm

I would recommend a fuel with no less than 26% oil, or more, that is mostly castor!
chevyiron420
chevyiron420
Gold Member
Gold Member

Posts : 209
Join date : 2015-01-28
Age : 61
Location : Barney Georgia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

"Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys Empty Re: "Lightning Bolt" McCoys vs. "Standard" McCoys

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum