Without trying to be rude, for I am not, I had already presumed from the spreadsheet that "engineering" was a factor. Nor am I trying to avoid providing you with an answer. It just seems to me that not having a "target" makes a selection or comparison difficult if not impossible. Whether that targer be in price, weight, usable rpm, thrust, propeller size, r whatever. There needs to be a goal rather than a blanket information to fill the cells of a spreadsheet.

Unfortunately I'm not currently aware of any publically available information that accurately defines any of the parameters you require other than prices and weights, and the vast majority of those can be had directly from the manufacturer. Just make sure that the manufacturer includes all the required parts to run the engine other than an ignition battery, switch, and propeller. Muffler and propeller weights have such dramatic weight differences that they can significantly skew the final ready to run weights of an engine, as can the ignition battery.

Performance criteria can also be significantly skewed, especially in rpm line items, by selecting a propeller that's lighter as well as less rigid than another and less efficient, thereby generating higher rpm at lower thrust levels. A perfect example would be comparing the rpm differences between say a Zinger 22-8 and a Mejzlik 22-8. Though both may be in a similar rpm range, the Mejzlik would provide greater performance.

Another factor would be in carb tuning where there is considerable room for performance gains and losses due to the experience level and ability of the engine owner to correctly set the needles for the propeller, atmospheric conditions, muffler choice, and oil ratios used. You can take any one given engine and make what appear to be minor changes to an area and end up with dramatic changes in the apparent performance of the engine. I don't know of anybody that has compiled an engine data sheet that denotes true rpm/thrust/propeller charts for us to make comparisons with. For an accurate graph it would have to be developed by knowledgable people in a controlled and well monitored enviornment.

Although I admit that I don't want to expend the time, expense, and effort required to make determinations on a tremendous number of engines, without a what, where, and why it becomes even more difficult to perfrom the tasks requested. As for the mention on engines not listed that may be better choices, there just is not that much empirical data for any of the engine types to be explained in depth. A good "for instance" is the line of Taurus engines. I just paced an order for one of the 52cc engines because I know they are of better construction than many, generally turn higher rpm and thrust numbers than many, and run smoother due to their internal design. Their failure rate for design and construction reasons are virtually non-existant, but they are also a bit more expensive so many would quickly turn away because they are not "cheap". I "know" this to be true, but substantiating this for everyone would require that I spend all my free time performing numerous tests and I would not get any flying done. Where's my benefit in that?

Do I and others appear to be reluctant to get into this? It's not becaue I don't want to, it just seems to me to be a very large expenditure of time for little return or gain. Nothing rude or personal I assure you. There are just too many factor involved that would effect the comparison chart, and some of those would include design parameters of the aircraft itself. Front or rear engine, desired flight envelope, Cp, Cl, and Cg, to name just a select few.