Alright. I am thinking of purchasing another engine. What is the difference between the OS FX and LA.

I know that the LA is cheaper than the FX and that the FX uses ball bearings, but I don't know HOW it uses ball bearings and what they do. Also, what else makes these two different.

Thanks.

btw, already have a FX, so no one needs to post and say how much they like theres

The difference is night and day. Get the FX, it is a whole heck of a long stronger than an LA motor and has a better carb to boot.

The difference is a cheap motor that is pretty reliable but pretty weak LA and a good all around motor FX. I wouldnt waste money on the LA.

haha the difference is dont even think about buying the LA i have one and its useless
get a os fx or even better a TT 46 pro its 40-50 bucks cheaper...same performance..
Felix

FX and it's son the AX use ball bearings to support the crankshaft, where the LA series uses bronze bushings. The ball bearings reduce friction, allowing the engine to spin faster and make more power. However, they are heavier than the same displacement LA engine. The LA engines are also smaller sizewise. The carbs are different, too, the LA uses an air bleed carb where the FX and AX use a two needle carb which is more efficent.

Andy

Oh, are you sure?[>:]
I've a lot of flies on .46 LA, and it's a very nice small engine: light, good starter, reliable. I never experienced a dead stik landing, and is so relable in idle... A good characteristic for me, I fly watreplanes too. And I don't like to swim for recover a plane after flame-out landing. [sm=drowning.gif]
It's true, however: FX have lots more power, and probably they are also most durable because of bearings...

But I'm so happy with my LA. I love his coluor too! It matches so close my trainer scheme...

The better engines will always have two ball-bearings to support the crankshaft.

Look at these two pictures from the OS 46 FX and LA manuals, and you can see where the ball-bearings go (Or, in the case of the LA, "Don't go"):

OK, so we've covered a few basics like bushing vs BB and the power difference. Probably what's more important though, is matching the engine to the airframe. The 46LA for example is about 4ozs lighter than the FX, putting it in the weight range of the average 30 sized engine.

A couple of examples:

I put an Irvine 39 in my LT-40 ARF. This engine is about 2 ozs heavier than my 46LA, but still a fair bit lighter then the FX. With a Fults nose gear, a 2" GP alu spinner and an APC 11x5 prop, the plane balances correctly with the battery in line with the wing LE. Power is 'adequate'. The 46LA although not as powerful would also do the job, but the battery would probably need to be placed under the tank to balance (not a problem as the tank is on a shelf).
Replacing the Irvine with an OS 46FX required me to move the battery to the rear of the cabin in line with the wing TE. If I had needed to, I could've also lightened the front end by substituting the Fults gear for a standard nose leg, plonked a plastic spinner on and used a wood prop.

I have a Brightstar with a 46LA installed. This plane is specified as requiring a 30-40 sized engine which is probably why the LA suits it. Sure, it could benefit from the extra power of the FX, but I'm using the standard nose gear and a plastic spinner so I don't have the option of removing excess weight from the nose to compensate. Even with the receiver and battery moved back, this plane would probably need weight on the tail to balance correctly with the FX, raising the wing loading further and offsetting the benefit of the extra power.

So there ya go, the LA is a decent reliable engine that works well in the right application. The secret is having a number of engines on hand to choose from and selecting the right one for the airframe....

Another example. Tower Fun-51 with 46LA is perfect. The idle adjustment is my only complaint about the 46LA. I have to tweak it several times during a day of flying. Other than that it's very simple to start with a chicken stick (one flip usually) and even though it's no power house it has more than enough power (not unlimitted vertical) for the plane with 11x5.

Alright, thanks all. I ended up deciding not to buy it for various reasons: among them that I did not want to get a somewhat cheaper engine for less results.

I have been very pleased with my .46FX but I also know someone who had a .46LA. I talked to him a bit about it, and he told me to just get a different engine: it wasn't worth the price gap.

MinnFlyer, thanks for the picture, they were helpful.

I always find the 46LA bashing interesting. I have one that I bought used for $40, and it's a terrific little engine. It runs great, starts easily, and has sufficient power to pull my 40 size Super Sportster Biplane around very well. With the 46LA the plane is quite fast, and has decent vertical.

I DO agree with tigger though; it would depend on the intended purpose. I wouldn't put one on a 40 size aerobatic plane, at least not one you were going to use to try 3D, but for a sport plane like a Kaos, or 4*, or Sportster, I think the engine would make an excellent choice.
Dennis-

The intended plane was a fourstar, (.40) and I could get this engine at at about $45. I am however, not planning on getting another plane for a while, (I know, the famous last words ) so I want this engine to be able to do more than the norm. The same reason I wouldn't get a .40 size engine for a trainer, but a .46, which will keep it interesting for a longer period of time.

Anyway. I have lots of time, I won't be flying this plane until at least early fall, as I want to get very familer (I have already been flying a year with it, but I am only just getting off the student part) with the controls at the trainer level before I go higher.

Another quick question:

What are the normal engine brands that people buy from?

I hear that O.S. is overrated, but I have had nothing but good times with my O.S. I hear the Thunder Tiger is good, but I don't know. And when you go to get engines, there are all sorts off brands. Which one are the "safe" brands?

Exp.: Toro, Honda and John Derre are "safe" brands in Lawnmowers, they have been around for a long time and people like there products and come back for more.

There is nothing wrong with the La. It is just as reliable as any other OS. Problem is it is not a poer engine an is most often installed on the wrong kind of plane. To make things worse, the wrong plane at altitude. You put one on a Something Extra or Fazer and they'll be fine but if your looking for this to be a speedter or power a havey trainer, forget it.

Another important difference between the two types: Bushed engines are more tolerant of moisture, no after-run oil, damp storage conditions, ect. The bushings will not rust. Great beginner engines.

I have an LA .40 that was given to me by someone who proclaimed it "junk". It's what's powering my 6 lb. Spacewalker II from Seagull models- very scale performance, easy starting, quiet.
I also own two Evo .45's, An older ST. .61, a real old ST. (40 ?)- (never looked into it much, it runs good though) a 15 yr. old Irvine .40 (SWEET!) O.S. FP .25- it's 20 years old, and still going strong, a 2002 Magnum .52 FS, (nice engine, especially for the price) a couple of Norvels, and several Cox products.
I have owned several KB sporsters, (one .28, two .45's and a .65) and they were O.K. as long as you ran a lot of castor in the fuel, but I sold them all before I wore them out. (I know I know, I've heard it all about those things, but truth is, they never did anything but run, and smoked more than any other engine I've owned
One "Leo" that was junk from day one.
One .25 Fox- junk, hard starting, junk muffler, junk carb, did I say it wasn't a real good engine?
One Fox .50 Heli, Yes I said Fox and Heli in the same sentence. It was, uh, "O.K." but nothing more.
I had an Enya .40 once, but it vibrated badly, and never did seem to break in. We planted it on a rock in the middle of the field, and it was done.

I have several older engines that I run once in awhile, but don't fly- McCoy CL Black head .35, a McCoy .29, and a 60's Gilbert .074 (junky quality, but interesting dual pipes)

The Evo's are good engines, and so far no problems. (they aren't the veterans that my others are, but time will tell.) The bushed O.S. are sweet EZ handlers, and make adequate power. The ST's are powerhouses (for their day), and like to be bumped backwards for best starting. The Irvine makes really good power, and is ultra reliable, but is just a bit heavy. The 4 stroke Magnum is an easy starter, quiet, turns a big prop, and gets descent fuel milage, and I have never had any of the problems some have claimed with them. The norvels are good little engines with a fair carb and muffler. The Cox engines are, well, Cox engines, and aquired ability, but once learned, good performers. The others are old, and used for their novelty factor.
I hope I haven't left any out, but I'm sure I have.
Bottom line is I never had a popular brand that wasn't a good engine, 'cept the couple sighted above.

Jetts