ORIGINAL: sigrun

FlyerBry I don't know whether your launching upon such a pointlessly futile and 'crushingly' personal vendetta is down to your sense of injured pride due my rebuttal or simply an inability on your part to comprehend, be it due a lack of the the basic ability to deduce or reason called logic? But again you post only superfluous noise extraneous to either the subject or objective of the thread, the facts, or what was actually written by me. And your ad hominem slur that an ability to communicate either necessitates constant reference to the dictionary or is motivated by a desire to impress is most indicative of the weakness in your own 'argument', but perhaps more so of a pompous and insecure ego of your own?

Reading your post I am at odds to find what your argument actually is, as other than constantly and unnecessarily reaffirming and proving your personal owner pride in TT, (ie: unnecessary as it's accepted prima facie per se) you keep changing your point of debate.

Let's look at a few examples.

You might want to look up a dictionary yourself to understand what my previous referral to the frame of reference known as "the undeniable empiricial evidence" meant. However what is agreed as "common knowledge" is that the FX is inarguably more powerful than the Pro. I reiterate that apart from the empirical evidence supported by taching the engines, this is further publically acknowledged by TT. I suggest you take up your dissatisfaction and personal affront at the status quo with them, because at the present time, your obtuse argument is wasted in convincing anyone other than the unintentionlly irrational or yourself.

Assuming that this nonsense even contained an element of truth, what would it actually be indicative of?
A. The FX is more popular? = True. B. The FX sold in far larger numbers = true. C. The FX at one stage had a peeling liner problem = true. D. The FX is frequently recommended as a first engine to beginners who don't know how to tune? = true. E. All of the above?

I'll tell you what it's not indicative of. Power of the FX vs power of the Pro.

If it's an acknowledged copy (thank you) of OS's FX predecessor, quite separate from the confirmation provided in TT's published power output statement and empirical testing, take an intelligent and informed guess what that reaffirms in relation to power output vs the FX?

So what's your beef? Are you hurt through somehow identifying with TT or feeling some sort of lesser being because of your predeliction for TT's 46Pro, which is acknowledged ispso facto by asssociation with the SF design a fine engine? That goes hand in hand with the an undenaible public domain acknowledgement of the power variance. I am almost as perplexed as I am bemused? How does attacking the messenger of that fact or either of OS's' contemporary engines help?

And you go on to say;

Well surprise,..surprise,..Gomer! When was it ever a point of contention, or indeed inquiry of this thread, that they wouldn't? Talk about grasping at proverbial floating straws as one stuggles to gain a place in the proverbial sinking lifeboat!

The venerable anecdotal evidence. Hardly what one would denote a meaningful analysis conducted under anything faintly resembling controlled or objective conditions.

And now you start arguing from the position of a frame of reference related to a completely different engine!

Pardon my now raucous laughter. I've no owner pride misplaced or otherwise in either D. any of the above, or; E. all of the above. Perhaps best you analyse and address your own distorted reflection.

As it is I'm still unaware I had "jump(ed) on the TT". If you could kindly point out where I've done so other than in your own imagination? Quite to the contrary, my comments about both OS's SF and TT's Pro were complimentary. Predominently indicative of nothing other than an endorsement of their fine design accompanied by objective statement reference their relative power to one another and vs the FX/AX.

You're grasping at that straw again. Contextually relevant generalisations, but you exaggerate to say overgeneralisation. Where relevant to the discussion I've presented quite specific supportive evidence, something you appear not to either appreciate, or understandably enough, can emulate in anything resembling a rationally justifiable defense of your own claim.

Huh? Now who's exaggerating? Acknowledging the minor spec., and empirically observable increase, how is this truly relevant to the discussion at hand - let alone useful? Even OS only spec. 1.62ps claimed vs 1.63ps claimed? Wow! A whopping .01 of a ps gain! Talk about pissin' into the wind!

If you want to use illustration by example, the 50SX is a much more powerful engine, but the AX is essentially still very similar internally in terms internal design, torque, power & peak curves to the FX. Be it on paper or in action it offers nowhere near the characteristic peak output variance that existed and still exists between it or the FX and the SF, TT Pro, nor their sister and acknowledged powerhouse the 50SX.

In the final analysis two completely relevant facts remain.

The TT.46Pro is definitively less powerful than the O.S. Max .46FX. (proven)

The optimum most efficient prop for a TT .46Pro powered LT-40 combo in the training role flight envelope will prove to be either an 11x5 or 11.5x5. (supported by empirical trial and understood easily enough by anyone sufficiently erudite to understand applicable propellor theory, aerodynamics & interpret engine torque and power performance curves.

There it is. Should you wish to continue denying the former or accepting of the latter is by now fine by me. You can only lead a horse to water.