Honestly, that last thing I would consider when choosing an engine is weight. I would rather have a good engine and a chunk of lead on the tail than no lead and a less-than-suitable engine.

I forgot to add that there is a trainer ARF that is the perfect match for the Tower Hobbies .46 ball bearing engine. Ironically enough, it's the Tower Hobbies Tower Trainer .60 Mk II ARF. The Tower Hobbies .46 will provide plenty of power for the bigger trainer and allow it to balance easily as well.

Of course you would, MinnFlyer, you already know how to land.

You're right, get a cheap engine. There's nothing that will teach you how to land like doing it dead-stick

I like that one...
Teach ya how to land one way or another, huh!?

biged has a good point though...
We have a club trainer w/ an LA .46 and it rarely needs any adjusting...and the weight/balance is much better than it was with the Evo .46
Anyway....
I would also add the TT .42 GP to the list...nice little engine.

What's cheap about a Thunder Tiger Pro .36 or an O.S. Max .35 AX? They were suggested as suitable alternatives. I'm quite confident that anyone who buys a .35 AX for their Tower Hobbies Tower Trainer .40 Mk II ARF will be delighted with the performance and reliability.

I was just being facetious. I was going to say "A crappy engine", but didn't want people to think I was calling any of those engines "Crappy'

Sorry, just a failed attempt at a joke. Please don't anyone take it seriously.

If the TH 40 MKII is anything like the original (not sure), BB engines are not a problem. Move the battery back some to offset the weight. I have the original TH 40 Trainer and have flow it with a OS .40fp, OS 40max-h, YS .45(WOW!), Enya .45X, OS .46FX and a TT .46 pro. This plane is my .40 to .50 size engine test bed. The .40fp flew it but left nothing to be desired. The .40max-h was much better, it is still an air-bleed carb but just had that much more power and it's a BB engine. The others were great but the YS was too much. The.46LA would be fine, I won't argue that. My only point is why pay for OS's lesser engine when for the same price yet can get a better value engine to move into other planes down the road.

No problem, MinnFlyer, I was enjoying the verbal sparring.

I am a bit surprised to hear that you and Ken aren't big fans of LA-series engines, though. I've always regarded them as a bit soft on power output but dead-solid reliable. I'd be curious to hear about any negative experiences the two of you have had with air bleed carburators and/or plain bearing engines of any make.

I find it ironic that only the finest glow engine manufacturers like Thunder Tiger, O.S. Max, Enya, and K&B still make plain bearing engines and/or air bleed carburators while the cheapest Chinese engines on the market like SK, GMS, and Aviastar are all dual ball bearing engines with twin needle carburetors.

With all-castor lubrication fuel getting harder and harder to come by, it's not easy giving plain bearing engines the proper care and feeding thesed days. They must have their place, however, or else why else continue to make them?

I've always guessed that the O.S. Max LA-series engines were down on power because of the plastic backplate covers, how much compression can you get from a plastic case? The K&B Sportsters and the Thunder Tiger GP-series are all metal and don't seem to suffer from low power. Even in the LA series, though, the .65 LA has a great reputation for power output, with many folks reporting it out-turning the .61 FX on a number of props.

I know that plain bearing engines are great for float planes, there aren't any ball bearings to rust if the engine gets dunked. Where else have you used plain bearing engines, and what do you like or don't like about them?

I flew my Tower Trainer .40 Mk II with an O.S. Max .46 FX on the nose. I enjoyed flying it, but even with my receiver battery clear back in the tail section as far as I could put it, it was significantly nose heavy.

A nose heavy trainer (if you don't add weight to balance it) or a trainer with higher wing loading (with weight added for balance) will land faster and heavier than balanced trainer that weighs less. One of the biggest complaints about the Tower Trainer .40 Mk II is that the landing gear is too soft and spreads out or bends easily. Dropping 4 to 6 ounces of weight, lightening the wing loading, and slowing down the landings would make that go away for the most part.

That's why getting a lighter engine is important - smooth, slow, easy landings and reduced strain on the gear.

Some people have an OS fixation. Marketing does indeed work.

I tend to think that a 14 year old is going to want to move on from the trainer fairly quickly. Why not purchase an engine that will continue to be useful on a second or third plane?

What I've learned from many years of doing this is that I don't enjoy misbehaving engines. I do enjoy a wide variety of engines. If a person can get beyond the marketing, they can find quite a few great engines out there. If I were a beginner without much to spend, I'd look at a Thunder Tiger 46 Pro or the TH46. Good performance for the cost of a low-performance OS. OS is a brand I largely avoid, because for the prices involved there are much more interesting engines out there. My experience with OS is that they're fine engines, but not the most cost-effective.

My .40fp is a reliable engine and is still in my collection. I also have an Enya .15, Enya .19, and an OS .15fp. All bushing engines. The Enya's are screamers while the .15fp and .40fp just don't seem to turn up. The la series again while reliable just don't seem to turn up either. I know there were some articles written about hopping up the fp/la series engines a while back.

To be fair, the FPs and LAs aren't supposed to be revvers. They do better with a slightly larger prop.

I been following this thread for some time.
I see that many say brand A is better then brand B
This one is stronger then brand A and brand B,(same engine size) is knocked down for performance.
I just want to know if this is eye and ear testing.
Years ago I made a test jig.
I mounted different types of engines on it and the mount was supported on one side with 4 springs and a hinge on the other side.
On the back of the mount I used a thin piece if SS wire as a pointer.
When I mounted an engine on this mount and reved it up the needle showed a relative torque reading
Now with the hand held TAC RPM counters this will give a good indication of what engine is doing better under xxx RPM's
It would be nice if someone started producing these things.
It would sort of be like dyno testing the engine.
You can check the engine new, after break in and after a season of flying then compare the readings.
Vegas/

Aviatronics engines are only $50.00 from Sig and they are true ABC and dual Ball Bearing ,twin needle engines. I do recomend bench running them for break in since ABC engines take longer to break in than ABN does. But ABC engines are very long lived. In addition Sig parts and service have been very very good to me. [8D]

My thoughts exactly.

I have a few LA engines and they run great. I also have no problem using an air-bleed carb (Don't forget that even YS 4-strokes use Air-Bleed carbs)

I would just rather see someone spend an extra $10 and get an engine that they won't need to replace when they move up to a better plane

Now gentlemen, I do have the patience of a 'Saint', so to speak!!! Bring on the dead-sticks!

Well y'all, I turn my back for a few minutes and find an informative discussion going on. Once we get started flying, I'd love to have all of you right next to me. Hmmm, maybe I can hook up a laptop with a live video feed set up so I can get instant feedback!!!

Thank you to all that have responded. I have enjoyed the enlightenment to the differences of manufactures, models, prices and practicality.