Of all the crazy things that I have bought............

Well, once you remove the engine from the firewall you will be able to see if there possibility was another engine installed originally that required an external tank. When that engine failed, it was replaced by the BB and the tank was left inside the fuse. It does show like it has been run. Maybe they just used the Bee tank and plugged one nipple with the tube left on the old tank. But, no I don’t think the BB would draw fuel from the aux tank!

My guess is it’s an idea that a young lad conjured up.

Could have been worse and drilled a hole in the tank!

It "could" work if you had exhaust pressure running to the sealed auxiliary tank. That's a pretty big tank. Not sure I'd want to be spinning long enough to run that out

When I saw the engine on the first post a few days ago, I figured the only way that would work is if the person drilled out the backplate and inserted a tube into the backplate that went down to the bottom outside of the tank.

The Tubular Mark

Yes, this one is going to be fun to fix-up.

Thinking that I will graft in pieces on the wing to repair then sand down and use the last of my lustrekote yellow to paint. Same on the fuselage and paint Corsair blue, then add tail feathers. But, I'm keeping that weird tank and fuel line. One of a kind.

Trying to nail down what it is. Looks like a Musciano Scientific hollow log Little Mercury or a L'il Bipe minus the top wing.

Bob

I'll go agains the odds here on teh tank question. I will say that it will run well. Reason I say that is I had read before online somewhere of what you have pictured. The way was to hook it up as it currently is. You then fill the tank(s) through the fuel nipple that is not hooked up. Once the original 5cc tank was full, the excess fuel would follow the line and continue filling the auxillary tank. The reason I remember reading to do it this way was to eliminate any air / bubbles in the fuel so as not to cause erratic running. I will try to find the article later this evening.

I think this was the thread I was reffering to earlier. These guys were the Cox and 1/2a gurus I started reading about, so I would take things they talk about as true. Anyways, the link is below, and what I was talking about starts on post #5 by ptulmer. Hope you enjoy the little read.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/1-2-1-8-airplanes-70/2921662-can-i-install-larger-fuel-tank-cox-049-a.html

And don't worry, combatpigg never had any issues with drilling holes in Cox tanks to run external tanks. These guys were classic! And some of teh stuff they flew was nuts for speed!

Guru may be a bit strong.

Nobody suggested he purchase a cheap horseshoe backplate for an extended run time. And the fix suggested for his head coming loose was to crank it down harder, all he needed to do was replace the work hardened head shim.

There are more Cox experts here than anywhere else I have seen. I am not one of them!

A lot of times people relate experiences or fixes they did back in the day, right or wrong. Problem with that is a first time reader takes that as gospel and runs with it.

The Kavan extenders were a good idea, but are a pain to seal and cause more problems than they help.

I would like to see that vent tube aux tank work in real life. In theory it could work I suppose, but it would be very problematic in a control line setup. Vibration causes foaming and fuel sloshes around. I just don’t think there is enough vacuum present to draw fuel from the internal tank and keep drawing it from the fill tube across 4” of fuel line from an auxiliary tank. You will get bubbles regardless.