For all those beginners out there don't be misled by sigrun's heavy use of the dictionary as an indication of his knowledge of engines. It is common knowledge that comparing engines strictly by the numbers doesn't tell the full story on how they perform in comparison to one another. I invite you to do a search here on RCU and look at the posts for both engines. You will actually find more people who have had problems with the FX than the TT. Is the TT a copy of the SF? Well I would say it is indeed related since Thunder Tigers main engineer came from none other than OS! The truth in the matter is that OS engines are machined to tighter tolerances than TT and many other brands. This basically results in a slightly faster break-in and a little nicer final finish on the parts. Once broken in these two engines are all but interchangeable. Either of these two engines will pull an LT-40 around quite nicely.
This past summer I helped a flying buddy of mine get his nephew set up flying on a used LT-40 that came with a TT .40 Pro (not the .46) and he couldn't believe the power the engine had. Would you like to take a guess at what engine he had on his personal plane at the time? Thats right, a .46 FX. He also has an evolution (which gave him fits for a long time - even after a couple trips for warranty repair) that he says pulls harder than his FX.
sigrun, maybe it is your misplaced pride that prompted you to jump on the TT. Your argument is an overgeneralization of the three OS engines you have mentioned. The general consensus at the club I fly at is the AX is a superior engine to the FX in terms of power. When this engine first came out people on these groups were comparing the AX to the FX and looking at the numbers. Seeing that they aren't much different one early consensus was that the AX was an attempt to cut costs by OS and not an improvement in performance. Now that some of these engines have gotten into the air and people have gotten some experience with them the AX is turning out to be ahead of the FX (and yes the TT too) when it comes to power. There again, the numbers don't tell the full story.
ORIGINAL: sigrun
ORIGINAL: FlyerBry
If you have had experience with a TT .46 Pro of your own then yours must have been a lemon or broken in wrong! I have 2 and they have both been complete gems. These are every bit as powerful as an OS .46 FX.
Did you know there's a standard phrase used by psychologists which aptly describes your current state of fantasy? It's termed misplaced owner pride.
Even Thunder Tiger themselves haven't the audacity to make such an blatantly errant & outrageous statement in their usual exaggerated advertising blurb, inarguably a sin from which no manufacturer is sacrosanct. And I quote them; (peak) "power output 1.43 at 16,000". Take a guess what it is for the FX & AX? For the SF?
Like I said, inclusive of an identical peak power performance specification, it's a fine carbon copy of the SF. Not altogether a bad thing some might say, but as powerful as the FX be it on paper or in the air it's not. For you to opine otherwise against what amounts to the the undeniable empirical evidence and the math says all we need to know. Thanks for making a noise.