Engine Recommendation for LT-40
02-12-2005 | 12:46 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Seattle, WA,
Engine Recommendation for LT-40
Have not bought an engine in 30 years, so the technology and brands have no doubt changed. Looking for recommendation for a good quality .40 two stroke for an LT-40. I'm sure there are plenty out there, but would like to hear about a few favorites.
02-12-2005 | 01:49 AM
#3
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Birmingham, UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
ORIGINAL: newbtoRC
well one that is cheap and works is a os 40 la. I have one and runs great
well one that is cheap and works is a os 40 la. I have one and runs great
But a Super Tigre GS-45 ABC will give you bags more power, Bearings instead of bushes, and a good motor for future Airplanes...
The OS 40 la is bloody Gutless if you ask me...
Cheers
Matt
02-12-2005 | 06:41 AM
#6
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
The LA series that OS puts out is borderline on power, and chances are you'll want a bit more power for the second plane. I'd suggest a Thunder Tiger 46 Pro (ball bearing, ABC engine), it's less expensive than most, but good power and reliable running.
Good luck, have fun, and welcome to RCU!
Dennis-
Good luck, have fun, and welcome to RCU!
Dennis-
02-12-2005 | 06:55 AM
#7
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: BRADFORD,
MA
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
if you can get your hands on an OS46fx grap it, with a 11x5 apc prop its no slouch but the replacement motor i believe is the [link=http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXFMD5&P=0]OS46ax[/link] i perfure the OS brand engines,but thunder tiger engines are nice also i have one on my V1 raptor 30 and it performs great.
02-12-2005 | 10:41 AM
#9
Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , IA
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
Mine will probably get a K&B Sportster .45.. A nice torquey little motor. If I didn't have it, I'd get a SuperTigre .51, which is probably too much power but can be recycled into a future project I have waiting.
02-12-2005 | 11:30 AM
#11
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Seattle, WA,
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
Thanks for all the great replys. Still listening if others have ideas.
My Dad and brother and I built many large control line models in the mid to late 60's. We still have a large collection of Cox, McCoy, K&B, Enya, and others. No mufflers, of course, and any open field was fair game for flying. Engines were always started by hand, no matter the size or risk (lots of injuries). That was before those pesky safety, noise, and common sense rules got invented.
The engines of old were temperamental and always required a substantial break-in period. Are break-ins still required?
Also, the model manufacturer recommends a .40 max. Several here are recommending engines in the .40-.50 range. Why?
My Dad and brother and I built many large control line models in the mid to late 60's. We still have a large collection of Cox, McCoy, K&B, Enya, and others. No mufflers, of course, and any open field was fair game for flying. Engines were always started by hand, no matter the size or risk (lots of injuries). That was before those pesky safety, noise, and common sense rules got invented.
The engines of old were temperamental and always required a substantial break-in period. Are break-ins still required?
Also, the model manufacturer recommends a .40 max. Several here are recommending engines in the .40-.50 range. Why?
02-12-2005 | 02:48 PM
#12
Senior Member
My Feedback: (6)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: El Dorado SpringsMissouri
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
I have a Thunder Tiger .40 GP, its a ABC type engine. I now prefer the Ringed type engines because of there breakin is almost non existent. break in for ABC engines takes for ever and then they are not really good for just tooling around. taxi is touf to almost imposible because the engine is made for wide open throtle running (a.k.a. racing and speed freaks).
So for a trainer which will probably spend a lot of time at idle to mid throtle and some high speed, id say a ringed engine is what u would want.
I do own a lt-40 and u know my engine and let me tell you I have spent more good flying days cranking on that damned little engine than I have flying. Aeroblender, some people (on this site and in some clubs) are just full of it and really do not know there arse from a controle horn. they will tell you its all fine and the ABC is good, but while there talking and talking and your cranking to no avail guys like me are flying. Wana know why?? we got the RINGED engines and threw those ABC peices of crap away. No trainer should ever come with a ABC engine. there crap for any thing short of high speed racing flying and most of those guys wont even give a ABC engine a second glance. that will tell you some thing right there!!!!!
I am now looking for my own ringed .40-.50 sized engine and might consider thunder tiger but the most reliable engines at my clubs flying field ar the O.S. engines. In fact I think I am the only one with a .40 sized engine that was NOT from O.S. that tells ya some thin else!!!! LOL, well good luck and happy flying!!
P.S. ABC Engines= teh Suxxors!!!!
So for a trainer which will probably spend a lot of time at idle to mid throtle and some high speed, id say a ringed engine is what u would want.
I do own a lt-40 and u know my engine and let me tell you I have spent more good flying days cranking on that damned little engine than I have flying. Aeroblender, some people (on this site and in some clubs) are just full of it and really do not know there arse from a controle horn. they will tell you its all fine and the ABC is good, but while there talking and talking and your cranking to no avail guys like me are flying. Wana know why?? we got the RINGED engines and threw those ABC peices of crap away. No trainer should ever come with a ABC engine. there crap for any thing short of high speed racing flying and most of those guys wont even give a ABC engine a second glance. that will tell you some thing right there!!!!!
I am now looking for my own ringed .40-.50 sized engine and might consider thunder tiger but the most reliable engines at my clubs flying field ar the O.S. engines. In fact I think I am the only one with a .40 sized engine that was NOT from O.S. that tells ya some thin else!!!! LOL, well good luck and happy flying!!
P.S. ABC Engines= teh Suxxors!!!!
02-12-2005 | 07:55 PM
#14
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
Sarge,
You get your first plane and engine, hear a couple guys at the local field say they don't like ABC engines, and suddenly you're an expert.
Sorry, but the break in on an ABC engine is typically one or two tanks of fuel. The break in on a ringed engine, when done properly, is a couple of GALLONS of fuel.
Aerobender,
True ABC engines are aluminum (A) pistons in a chrome (C) plated brass (B) sleeve. But many advertised ABC engines actually have a nickel plated sleeve and should be sold as ABN's. These are state of the art engine technology, and are big sellers primarily BECAUSE they need little break in, which can often times be done in the air.
Here's why, ABC engines are constructed with a tapered cylinder wall (no ring) so that the piston gets very tight at top dead center when they're cold. As the engine heats up, the differing rates of expansion provide the proper clearance between piston and cylinder wall.
If the engine is run too rich, it stays too cool (and too tight) which wears away the cylinder wall resulting in lower compression (not a good thing).
So, the BEST way to break one in is with a series of short (about one minute) runs at just below peak rpm (which quickly gets the engine to opewrating temps), followed by a cool down period of a few minutes; then repeat. I'd run at least a tank through it on the ground like this, then set it for about 500 to 600 rpm below peak and go fly!
Manufacturers will give different break in methods, but the typical one recommended is to run the engine on the rich side for a tank or so, then set it to normal conditions for flight. Personally, I think you run the risk of wearing away too much cylinder wall this way, but....
Now, I recommended the Thunder Tiger 46 Pro because I've never heard anything bad about them. The same is true of the OS 46 FX (which was recently replaced by the AX). The AX isn't quite as good as the FX, but it's much more expensive than the Thunder Tiger.
There are a number of other good 46's out there, but I'd stay away from MDS (Multiple Dead Sticks, as the joke goes), or the OS 46 LA. I have a 46 LA and it's been a decent engine, but many have had problems with them.
46's are recommended mainly because they're powerful enough to be useful in sportier, more aerobatic second planes, but are not really overkill for a 40 size trainer. The LT-40 will handle the extra power without problems. (A friend in our club has one with an OS 70 four stroke, talk about overkill! )
Anyway, you're taking your time and being selective, so I'm sure you'll do fine with whatever you choose.
Dennis-
You get your first plane and engine, hear a couple guys at the local field say they don't like ABC engines, and suddenly you're an expert.
Sorry, but the break in on an ABC engine is typically one or two tanks of fuel. The break in on a ringed engine, when done properly, is a couple of GALLONS of fuel.
Aerobender,
True ABC engines are aluminum (A) pistons in a chrome (C) plated brass (B) sleeve. But many advertised ABC engines actually have a nickel plated sleeve and should be sold as ABN's. These are state of the art engine technology, and are big sellers primarily BECAUSE they need little break in, which can often times be done in the air.
Here's why, ABC engines are constructed with a tapered cylinder wall (no ring) so that the piston gets very tight at top dead center when they're cold. As the engine heats up, the differing rates of expansion provide the proper clearance between piston and cylinder wall.
If the engine is run too rich, it stays too cool (and too tight) which wears away the cylinder wall resulting in lower compression (not a good thing).
So, the BEST way to break one in is with a series of short (about one minute) runs at just below peak rpm (which quickly gets the engine to opewrating temps), followed by a cool down period of a few minutes; then repeat. I'd run at least a tank through it on the ground like this, then set it for about 500 to 600 rpm below peak and go fly!
Manufacturers will give different break in methods, but the typical one recommended is to run the engine on the rich side for a tank or so, then set it to normal conditions for flight. Personally, I think you run the risk of wearing away too much cylinder wall this way, but....
Now, I recommended the Thunder Tiger 46 Pro because I've never heard anything bad about them. The same is true of the OS 46 FX (which was recently replaced by the AX). The AX isn't quite as good as the FX, but it's much more expensive than the Thunder Tiger.
There are a number of other good 46's out there, but I'd stay away from MDS (Multiple Dead Sticks, as the joke goes), or the OS 46 LA. I have a 46 LA and it's been a decent engine, but many have had problems with them.
46's are recommended mainly because they're powerful enough to be useful in sportier, more aerobatic second planes, but are not really overkill for a 40 size trainer. The LT-40 will handle the extra power without problems. (A friend in our club has one with an OS 70 four stroke, talk about overkill!
) Anyway, you're taking your time and being selective, so I'm sure you'll do fine with whatever you choose.
Dennis-
02-12-2005 | 08:04 PM
#15
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
After reading Sarges post again I have to add something here.
There are thousands of people flying ABC engines that are having absolutely NO problems with them, including idle, taxiing, and low throttle flight.
Sarge came here a couple weeks back, bought some used equipment that's giving him trouble. Some guys in the club he belongs to have told him ABC's are junk, only good for racing, blah, blah blah, and suddenly this is gospel. He's wrong, read a few more threads and learn the truth.
Sarge,
Sorry to come off so harsh, but you really have no idea what you're talking about, so posting stuff like that will ruin your reputation here pretty quickly.
Dennis-
There are thousands of people flying ABC engines that are having absolutely NO problems with them, including idle, taxiing, and low throttle flight.
Sarge came here a couple weeks back, bought some used equipment that's giving him trouble. Some guys in the club he belongs to have told him ABC's are junk, only good for racing, blah, blah blah, and suddenly this is gospel. He's wrong, read a few more threads and learn the truth.
Sarge,
Sorry to come off so harsh, but you really have no idea what you're talking about, so posting stuff like that will ruin your reputation here pretty quickly.
Dennis-
02-12-2005 | 08:40 PM
#16
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Battle Ground, WA,
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
If money is a problem go with the LA, the .46, not the .40, more power and about the same cost. If you have another 20 bucks or so go with the other recomendations. I have flown my LT with the .32SX, the .46LA and the .46FX. Any will work but I like the LA46 the best for that plane.
02-13-2005 | 01:18 AM
#18
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Birmingham, UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
ORIGINAL: DBCherry
Sarge,
You get your first plane and engine, hear a couple guys at the local field say they don't like ABC engines, and suddenly you're an expert.
Sorry, but the break in on an ABC engine is typically one or two tanks of fuel. The break in on a ringed engine, when done properly, is a couple of GALLONS of fuel.
Aerobender,
True ABC engines are aluminum (A) pistons in a chrome (C) plated brass (B) sleeve. But many advertised ABC engines actually have a nickel plated sleeve and should be sold as ABN's. These are state of the art engine technology, and are big sellers primarily BECAUSE they need little break in, which can often times be done in the air.
Here's why, ABC engines are constructed with a tapered cylinder wall (no ring) so that the piston gets very tight at top dead center when they're cold. As the engine heats up, the differing rates of expansion provide the proper clearance between piston and cylinder wall.
If the engine is run too rich, it stays too cool (and too tight) which wears away the cylinder wall resulting in lower compression (not a good thing).
So, the BEST way to break one in is with a series of short (about one minute) runs at just below peak rpm (which quickly gets the engine to opewrating temps), followed by a cool down period of a few minutes; then repeat. I'd run at least a tank through it on the ground like this, then set it for about 500 to 600 rpm below peak and go fly!
Manufacturers will give different break in methods, but the typical one recommended is to run the engine on the rich side for a tank or so, then set it to normal conditions for flight. Personally, I think you run the risk of wearing away too much cylinder wall this way, but....
Now, I recommended the Thunder Tiger 46 Pro because I've never heard anything bad about them. The same is true of the OS 46 FX (which was recently replaced by the AX). The AX isn't quite as good as the FX, but it's much more expensive than the Thunder Tiger.
There are a number of other good 46's out there, but I'd stay away from MDS (Multiple Dead Sticks, as the joke goes), or the OS 46 LA. I have a 46 LA and it's been a decent engine, but many have had problems with them.
46's are recommended mainly because they're powerful enough to be useful in sportier, more aerobatic second planes, but are not really overkill for a 40 size trainer. The LT-40 will handle the extra power without problems. (A friend in our club has one with an OS 70 four stroke, talk about overkill! )
Anyway, you're taking your time and being selective, so I'm sure you'll do fine with whatever you choose.
Dennis-
Sarge,
You get your first plane and engine, hear a couple guys at the local field say they don't like ABC engines, and suddenly you're an expert.
Sorry, but the break in on an ABC engine is typically one or two tanks of fuel. The break in on a ringed engine, when done properly, is a couple of GALLONS of fuel.
Aerobender,
True ABC engines are aluminum (A) pistons in a chrome (C) plated brass (B) sleeve. But many advertised ABC engines actually have a nickel plated sleeve and should be sold as ABN's. These are state of the art engine technology, and are big sellers primarily BECAUSE they need little break in, which can often times be done in the air.
Here's why, ABC engines are constructed with a tapered cylinder wall (no ring) so that the piston gets very tight at top dead center when they're cold. As the engine heats up, the differing rates of expansion provide the proper clearance between piston and cylinder wall.
If the engine is run too rich, it stays too cool (and too tight) which wears away the cylinder wall resulting in lower compression (not a good thing).
So, the BEST way to break one in is with a series of short (about one minute) runs at just below peak rpm (which quickly gets the engine to opewrating temps), followed by a cool down period of a few minutes; then repeat. I'd run at least a tank through it on the ground like this, then set it for about 500 to 600 rpm below peak and go fly!
Manufacturers will give different break in methods, but the typical one recommended is to run the engine on the rich side for a tank or so, then set it to normal conditions for flight. Personally, I think you run the risk of wearing away too much cylinder wall this way, but....
Now, I recommended the Thunder Tiger 46 Pro because I've never heard anything bad about them. The same is true of the OS 46 FX (which was recently replaced by the AX). The AX isn't quite as good as the FX, but it's much more expensive than the Thunder Tiger.
There are a number of other good 46's out there, but I'd stay away from MDS (Multiple Dead Sticks, as the joke goes), or the OS 46 LA. I have a 46 LA and it's been a decent engine, but many have had problems with them.
46's are recommended mainly because they're powerful enough to be useful in sportier, more aerobatic second planes, but are not really overkill for a 40 size trainer. The LT-40 will handle the extra power without problems. (A friend in our club has one with an OS 70 four stroke, talk about overkill!
) Anyway, you're taking your time and being selective, so I'm sure you'll do fine with whatever you choose.
Dennis-
I agree with the above...
Cheers
Matt
02-13-2005 | 01:20 AM
#19
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: auckland, NEW ZEALAND
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
ive been learning with a pt40 which i put a os 46la in it had plenty of power . how ever now im after that beguining stage im looking for more power
02-13-2005 | 02:34 PM
#20
Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: okc , OK
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
i really like the thunder tiger .46 pro great bang for the buck engine . wish we could still get irvines at a reasonable price . those are my first choice . 
02-13-2005 | 02:38 PM
#21
Senior Member
My Feedback: (6)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: El Dorado SpringsMissouri
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
ORIGINAL: DBCherry
After reading Sarges post again I have to add something here.
There are thousands of people flying ABC engines that are having absolutely NO problems with them, including idle, taxiing, and low throttle flight.
Sarge came here a couple weeks back, bought some used equipment that's giving him trouble. Some guys in the club he belongs to have told him ABC's are junk, only good for racing, blah, blah blah, and suddenly this is gospel. He's wrong, read a few more threads and learn the truth.
Sarge,
Sorry to come off so harsh, but you really have no idea what you're talking about, so posting stuff like that will ruin your reputation here pretty quickly.
Dennis-
After reading Sarges post again I have to add something here.
There are thousands of people flying ABC engines that are having absolutely NO problems with them, including idle, taxiing, and low throttle flight.
Sarge came here a couple weeks back, bought some used equipment that's giving him trouble. Some guys in the club he belongs to have told him ABC's are junk, only good for racing, blah, blah blah, and suddenly this is gospel. He's wrong, read a few more threads and learn the truth.
Sarge,
Sorry to come off so harsh, but you really have no idea what you're talking about, so posting stuff like that will ruin your reputation here pretty quickly.
Dennis-
And to about that used equipment. I bought every thing new from the hobby shop EXCEPT read EXCEPT the radio SYSTEM. the radio is the ONLY peice of equipment that has given me 0 problems, instructions were clear, system plugs together one way only and freakin WORKS!!!!!!! Its the NEW engine that is giving me troubles, it is the FACTORY built plane that I will have to fix. it was the FACTORY installed fuel tank I had to adjust because it would not stay in its place and was rubbing agianst the throttle and was making a problem there (just so u know, I FIXED that with OUT an INSTRUCTOR :shock: ) I was not trying to come off as a gospel preacher like some of you do. The guy went here to ask a question and you heathens jumped on him wit both feet!! shame on you!!
I was merely posting my expearences wit it so far since no one was mentioning all the crap I now have to go through.
And no body worry about the flames and other crap against me, my bull chit filter is adjusting nicely. thanks alll!!!!
02-13-2005 | 04:00 PM
#22
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
Dennis- to set things straight here. I did not "just stumble on this site a few weeks back" I have been here for like years,
However, your post about ABC engines goes against everything that I, and many others, have experienced and learned. So I'll stand by those statements.
Feel free to read as many of my posts as you like. I have quite a few, and I doubt you'll find many that show me 'jumping on anyone', let alone with both feet.
Dennis-
02-13-2005 | 04:12 PM
#23
Senior Member
My Feedback: (6)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: El Dorado SpringsMissouri
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
ok denis,
but I could point you to the post #14 but meh..
I was just setting the record straight since I get more usless posts in replies to my queries than good honest answeres to my questions. I get a lot of posts that really are saying "go find a instructor newbie!" than accuall help.
And yeah I did just "start" posting a few weeks ago in this forum. U could say I lurked on these boards for quite a while, only when I had a plane could I narow down on what I needed to know, and then my danged engine started giving me trouble and from what I can tell its not my fault they just make them tight and mine is just a little tighter from the factory than usuall. If people would have just said, hey abc engines are good BUT u have to break them in And u will have a hard time of it because of how they are designed. if people would quit leaving out that last part I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.
sarge out..
but I could point you to the post #14 but meh..
I was just setting the record straight since I get more usless posts in replies to my queries than good honest answeres to my questions. I get a lot of posts that really are saying "go find a instructor newbie!" than accuall help.
And yeah I did just "start" posting a few weeks ago in this forum. U could say I lurked on these boards for quite a while, only when I had a plane could I narow down on what I needed to know, and then my danged engine started giving me trouble and from what I can tell its not my fault they just make them tight and mine is just a little tighter from the factory than usuall. If people would have just said, hey abc engines are good BUT u have to break them in And u will have a hard time of it because of how they are designed. if people would quit leaving out that last part I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.
sarge out..
02-13-2005 | 11:10 PM
#24
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Davis,
OK
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
I'm running the Evolution .46nt on my LT-40. with an 11x7 prop, it flies great, with plenty of power. engine is very reliable, too. Easy to start, good throttle response, and the price is good also.
02-14-2005 | 01:00 AM
#25
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Birmingham, UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Engine Recommendation for LT-40
ORIGINAL: Sarges_heroes2003
ok denis,
but I could point you to the post #14 but meh..
I was just setting the record straight since I get more usless posts in replies to my queries than good honest answeres to my questions. I get a lot of posts that really are saying "go find a instructor newbie!" than accuall help.
And yeah I did just "start" posting a few weeks ago in this forum. U could say I lurked on these boards for quite a while, only when I had a plane could I narow down on what I needed to know, and then my danged engine started giving me trouble and from what I can tell its not my fault they just make them tight and mine is just a little tighter from the factory than usuall. If people would have just said, hey abc engines are good BUT u have to break them in And u will have a hard time of it because of how they are designed. if people would quit leaving out that last part I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.
sarge out..
ok denis,
but I could point you to the post #14 but meh..
I was just setting the record straight since I get more usless posts in replies to my queries than good honest answeres to my questions. I get a lot of posts that really are saying "go find a instructor newbie!" than accuall help.
And yeah I did just "start" posting a few weeks ago in this forum. U could say I lurked on these boards for quite a while, only when I had a plane could I narow down on what I needed to know, and then my danged engine started giving me trouble and from what I can tell its not my fault they just make them tight and mine is just a little tighter from the factory than usuall. If people would have just said, hey abc engines are good BUT u have to break them in And u will have a hard time of it because of how they are designed. if people would quit leaving out that last part I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.
sarge out..
Matt
