1972 Testors McCoy .29 and .40

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

No, I haven't run them yet. They need freeing up after a long time in storage.

The deal breaker here is that engine is soooooo heavy it makes it almost useless. The engine itself though runs very well. Swapping out the piston liner of these Mccoy brick series .21 into the red head case makes a absolutely sweet running engine. Ken

I wonder how they fared in the FF arena?

I have a Testors 19 that I found on E-bay a few months ago. I havnt tried to start it yet or build a plane for it. I want to move up from the 1/2 A, but I wonder how this engine runs vs the size & weight.

Does anyone have any comments on this?

RK Flyer

I have to say that I appreciate Ken's comments on weight - they are a couple of ounces over the top but I always found that a model should suit an engine.

It is a bit of a glib comment but most models are designed for a particular engine. In some instances a model needs nose weight to balance it - why not just install a heavier engine.

A plane designed for a PAW 35 diesel will be tail heavy with a much lighter 35 glow engine.

In this instance the .29 and .40 share common crankcases etc. The .29 might struggle more but the PAW 15 and 19 are almost identical and we used to swap them around without have to rebalance and get more performance. (Wasn't always a good idea!).

However, I have never flown or tried one of these.

When you do fire them up, just make sure the neighbours are out.  They are loud.    
I only have the .19 in both C/L & R/C.  Really strong engine but not really sure how they compare.  I'm used to smooth & friendly Enyas in this size and the Testors McCoys seem really harsh by comparison.  Maybe it's just the noise that makes me think they're powerful, because I've only ever bench run them.  I know my .29 & .35 red heads are good strong runners and equally as loud & harsh.  The 21 series engine, while heavy, is a better running engine due to the ringed piston.  Kens comments about the liner/piston swap confirm that.
Interesting engine to look at, fun to run, but I certainly don't think I'd bother flying one.  There are other engines around that would be far more practical.

Rod.

I remember as a kid in the early seventies seeing advertisements for these things plastered all over the magazines, I think Testors spent a lot on advertising and remember years later reading in the now old magazines positive test reviews. But as I continued into the hobby by the early eighties I don't remember every really seeing many ever being used compared to the Fox .35 or K&B, Enya or O.S.?

I do remember all the adds within the mags as Mark stated. Those adds were two full color pages and sometimes 3. I remember one full page just being the Testor's logo. If one does get a chance to take one of these engines apart, you really wouldn't think that you were looking at a Testor's engine. The parts were of higher quality than what most remembered. Sometimes the rings were fit a little sloppy resulting in one that required a starter to get it going. I have a .40 new in the box and the box itself was quite different as it had wood grain. This wasn't a blister bubble like the other Mccoy engines were packaged in. I truly feel that Testor's was really going out of their way to recapture the public. While I'm not a fan of Testor's 1/2A's, I really enjoyed all of the products they produced. When I look back, they certainly were a big part in my childhood. Neat engines Ian keep them coming. Ken

I have a couple of the Series 21 cl .19's. I have only run one, the other is still NIB. The one ran very well.

I always intended to build a scale biplane where the weight would come in handy.

As to the ring fit, it has a dykes ring which is supposed to ride free going up and seal when going down (running). If the engine has been sitting for a long time make absolutely sure the ring is free before running it or it may wear out quickly.

They never got popular because Testors went belly up not long after they were released.  

George

gcb wrote:I have a couple of the Series 21 cl .19's. I have only run one, the other is still NIB. The one ran very well.

I always intended to build a scale biplane where the weight would come in handy.

As to the ring fit, it has a dykes ring which is supposed to ride free going up and seal when going down (running). If the engine has been sitting for a long time make absolutely sure the ring is free before running it or it may wear out quickly.

They never got popular because Testors went belly up not long after they were released.  

George

It is the ring on both of these that has stuck. Luckily a ringed engine is a lot easier to free than the "solid" piston variety. My various potions reach the ring quickly.

I had a .29 series 21 that I put in a .35 redhead case. It drops right in. Benefits are: lighter crankcase and Dykes ring. They run great and never wear out. If you hear someone talking about a McCoy hybrid this is what they are referring too. Series 21 innards in a redhead.

Jim Hayes

I would have to add something here, to suggest they will never wear out is quite a reach. The cases of the redheads were lacking as well. Many of these engines developed massive side to side play within the crank. While this really isn't a big deal for many bushed engines unless fuel is leaking badly, it wears the rod. I have some rods here that are so badly worn out they're almost worn through. The later Mccoy Lightning bolt case did come with a bronze bushing so ideally this is the case that you would want to use if you decided to switch internals from the series .21 engines. Ken

I was upstairs in what was suppose to be the hobby room looking for the balsa stripper I had found I didn't no I even had a few days ago and opened these ammo cans that had some of my flying stuff from years ago found more engines I didn't know I had ...macoy 29 .. torpedo 23..    I have never ran these that I remember????    FOX 35 container  " />   rough looking there    my old flying bees    there is still some fuel in that cox can      figure may as well put this In there too    

Here is my Testors .40 Black Head fitted with a YS muffler. Seems to have quite a bit of power for a Dykes ringed cross scavenged engine, at least from bench running. Back burner engine for a future CL plane of at least 50" wingspan and generous wing area.

getback wrote:I was upstairs in what was suppose to be the hobby room looking for the balsa stripper I had found I didn't no I even had a few days ago and opened these ammo cans that had some of my flying stuff from years ago found more engines I didn't know I had ...macoy 29 .. torpedo 23  

I believe that is a K&B greenhead 23 with most of the green gone. The McCoy I think is the "Super Stunt" version that was available in the early 1950's.

my old flying bees:

Hah! Bet you thought no one would notice that OK Cub .14 you stuck in with the Cox engines!

George

GallopingGhostler wrote:Here is my Testors .40 Black Head fitted with a YS muffler. Seems to have quite a bit of power for a Dykes ringed cross scavenged engine, at least from bench running. Back burner engine for a future CL plane of at least 50" wingspan and generous wing area.

Those Testors Series 21 engines were pretty good. I don't have the .40 but I have a couple of the .19's (one NIB). Before they could establish a good reputation, Testors went belly-up.

They also made an excellent .049.

George

gcb wrote:Those Testors Series 21 engines were pretty good. I don't have the .40 but I have a couple of the .19's (one NIB). Before they could establish a good reputation, Testors went belly-up. They also made an excellent .049. George

Testors was a day late and a dollar short. At the time they came out with the Series 21, the Schneurles already hit the scene. They were more powerful and modelers made a bee line for them. Had they come out with a Schneurle version Dykes ringed wonder, they might have continued in business. In spite of the merits of adding air cooling fins to the crankcase lower end, it made for a model engine that was much heavier than its counterparts.

The engines seem to enjoy popularity with the control line folks. The swapping of parts with some re-machining as required to improve the older McCoy Red Heads provides the best of both worlds. Its too bad that they didn't continue the Red Heads making them instead into Dykes ringed engines.

However, IMHO our poor economic trade policies that favored imports over domestic industry basically decimated our US based hbby industry. Otherwise, we might have seen continued healthy growth with our industries and continuation of US brand names.

Nonetheless we are here, and will still see old iron at the flying field through our efforts.

Well put George.

Unfortunately George, the Testor's series .21 engine would've never made a dent in the stabilization of that company. It was once again a ill fated attempt to recapture the public's attention. The engine bombed miserably and it was too heavy for control line use for the power it did produce. The bread and butter of Testor's was chemical and paint manufacturing. When this too became problematic they ventured into plastic manufacturing. Testor's had bailed some small companies out of bankruptcy which I feel did nothing more than taxi the company even further. It was a out of control tidal wave to begin with. The only reason for the Mccoy redhead success was due to the cost of those engines when they reduced them selling them in blister bubbles. It certainly wasn't due to high quality.  Essentially, you now had 2 engines for the price of one of the competitors.

To suggest that foreign trade caused the demise of the US based hobby manufacturers may not carry full merit. The competition however had done their homework and no US built engine at the time could compete with the OS MAX-S. It's not because they couldn't, it's because they chose not to. Everything about that engine was far superior to what was being offered here. You could essentially take one or ten out of the box and they all pretty much ran the same. This was unheard of. This wasn't the case with a Fox .35 stunt . The design was already approaching 20 years old.  They were a kit in themselves requiring the purchasing of several and fitting the best parts of the bunch. Duke was a penny pincher and change wasn't going to happen as it just cost too much. The Fox .35 is essentially a slag engine. The OS had bushed rod ends and high quality castings and superior machined parts. OS released the Wankel in the early 70's and 4 stroke technology around 74.  This  shows how technologically advanced the competition was over the antiquated engines that were being produced here. The writing was on the walls for those manufacturers who didn't get with the program. Ken

Slag engine? And here I thought you were a Fox fan!   

I agree the Japanese lineup is a tough crowd to beat. I have some, but still like my slag better.   

Ron, I love the Fox .35. I wouldn't have it any other way. One needs to do a side by side comparison to see the differences. Just in the castings alone you can see the quality. The Fox is  crude, but it works. The point is, the US Based companies were not improving the designs that they already had. The quality of the OS machining had the attention of the entire hobby. The US manufacturers were their own enemy. The rise of inflation in the US during the  70's prohibited new equipment and redesign.  If Duke built the Fox .35 like the OS MAX, I feel that would've seriously changed Fox forever. Instead, the same castings and tooling was used for another 40 more years. The reputation of Japanese products in the 1950's was extremely poor. Global marketing greatly enhanced Japanese products and they started turning out very high quality machinery in the late 60's-70's. The OS engine line was an example. My point to all of this is that Testor's engines were outdated before they even produced them and the manufacturers already providing engines here had their time in the sun. Without change they were destined to fold which they pretty much did. Ken

Ken Cook wrote:Ron, I love the Fox .35. I wouldn't have it any other way. One needs to do a side by side comparison to see the differences. Just in the castings alone you can see the quality. The Fox is  crude, but it works. The point is, the US Based companies were not improving the designs that they already had. The quality of the OS  machining had the attention of the entire hobby. The US manufacturers were their own enemy. The rise of inflation in the US during the  70's prohibited new equipment and redesign.  If Duke built the Fox .35 like the OS MAX, I feel that would've seriously changed Fox forever. Instead, the same castings and tooling was used for another 40 more years. The reputation of Japanese products in the 1950's was extremely poor. Global marketing greatly enhanced Japanese products and they started turning out very high quality machinery in the late 60's-70's. The OS engine line was an example. My point to all of this is that Testor's engines were outdated before they even produced them and the manufacturers already providing engines here had their time in the sun. Without change they were destined to fold which they pretty much did. Ken

Ken, you kind of hinted a key point that supports my viewpoint. US Trade Policy should have taken into account inflation and allowed enough profitability to permit sale of the Japanese products, but also allowed the US companies to compete. Fox Manufacturing could not survive alone and thus made parts for other industries, engine production was a side issue. If they could have afforded the new equipment, we might have seen a different result. Similar happened to our US radio control industry.

Regarding Testors engines being outdated, yes. The Series 21 was a poor marketing decision.

However, with all history aside, the beauty of these venerable engines now is that for CL stunt, they perform well with proper TLC and matching engine to airframe. Nothing is as exhiliarating as the smell of methyl and Castor and the sound of 4 cycling breaking into 2, or wet 2 cycling to dry 2 cycling during stunts. Yes, a modern Schneurle at 2/3rds their displacement will do the job, but these older engines are a load of fun.

I have a half dozen A.C. Gilbert Thunderheads, the .074 and .11. I consider it fun to bring out something unusual and above ordinary, and show reasonable flight with these somewhat weaker powered heavier historic engines.

Here's what a 1963 Gilbert .11 Thunderhead looks like in a 1959 Berkeley Impulse rudder only pylon racer build.