Hi guys,
I have a classic kit needing an engine so I have a question.  Which 36, Evo or Thunder Tiger has more prop turning grunt or a better stunt run.
With small changes to the landing gear and wheel size I can provide more prop clearance without spoiling the classic look of the plane, so I should be able to use up to an 11.5" diameter by 4" or 5" pitch 2-blade prop or a 3-blade prop at a maximum of an 11/4 narrow Bolly or, more likely, a cut down version of this prop that an engine can more easily handle.
Reports from forum seem to indicate both these engines are more of a 2-2 higher-rev engines which would need  lower pitch props. Most of the other 3 blade prop brands (in appropriate sizes) I looked at have higher pitches which would be unlikely to work well.
 
I have no experience with either engine so I have no frame of reference to their power, their needle consistency   
or the quality of the stunt run during the flight or even how easy they are to start, so all specific input would be appreciated.                 
                                                                                     Thanks,
                                                                                                   Pat Robinson

Pat

I think you are right - not many people have experiences with both engines yet.  However from what I know about the Evo and what I have read about the AT, I think EITHER is a good choice.  Probably comes down to price & availability...

The Thunder Tiger 36, stock, is not a particularly good stunt engine.  It is timed and ported for the 15-17,000 rpm range. The exhaust port is about .610x .31 on the TT(28% bigger) than the .55 x .29(with a bridge in it) on the Magnum.  The other ports are proportionally sized.  The port sizes have a lot to do with how a motor runs, and larger ports are almost always on the higher revving engiens.  The Evo 36 is a pretty nice stunt motor, esp. for the price.  The Aero Tiger 36 is also very nice, at a higher price.  By the time you get the TT fixed, almost any other option would have taken much less work and expense.