Hi All:

     I was asked this question by a person who has an OS la.40 and an OS la .46.  He stated that both of his engines could not run any better.  These engines were given the BBTU right out of the box.  I have seen several of these engine run and I am impressed by how well they perform as a stock engine.

     What can I say to justify the added expense of these aftermarket p&c?

                                                                                                               Tia,

                                                                                                               Frank McCune

Frank a while back you asked this same question a different way

Here is a review of your ?? and my response...

https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/fox-36x-abc-pistonliners-why/msg393627/#msg393627

I think there is another thread where Tim Wescott or maybe some one else ( Bootlegger, or maybe even you, I have way too much short term mem loss) questions the wisdom of the expense to refurbish a so call obsolete engine with parts costing more than the base engine

answer is the same

BUT to expand a bit because it is not always about keeping a favorite good engine alive for future decades of use

Brian has a rep of creating parts that can make engines much better than as they were designed

Some of his stuff can take a mediocre engine and make it bad assed....or better behaved, or last longer, or all of these attributes

Brain is not the only game in town either... Randy Smith can hot rod a lot of engines OR sell you a, no BS strong, LONG lived stunt engine

Other guys like Lew Woolard can apply their special magic even at 93 years old he is still doing his thing

Tom Dixon is out there and reworking engines like OS FP 40s to be 4-2-4  and we know there are some who strongly disagree with these mods...preferring to run them as designed and manage the power with tank, fuel, and props

And one can always collaborate with Henry Nelson for a one off super engine or get enough pre orders spoken for a new 50 each run of some great engine he designed

I am sure there as some other suppliers I have no experience with...but know they exist    Like Dough Galbreath for free Flight

What we can not seem to do is convince Super Tiger, OS, and many others to get back to supporting the control line crowd with lower cost production engines

Don't forget there are thousands of good RINGED stunt engines out there with ZERO good wear part support

So OK yes a OS LA 46 is a pretty mundane and designed to be low cost engine... but a lot of folks, late to the table, acquired 2 to 10 of them (NIB or Use) just because many forums have such high praise of its mindless easy stunt use for a vast array of models

As I write this it occurs to me that of the thousands of OS LA 46s still in use....less than 100~150 will ever see a BG P/C ABC UPGRADE

Just finished the basic break-in on my Gardner LA46 with P&L and new head, carefully following Brian's instructions. With about an hour of bench time it sounds very promising. I think the advantage is longer service life, not that it will run much "better." Apparently it will run a little different compared with stock, but close. I have 3 dead stock LA46s (except Enya and Randy Smith NVA in two of them) and after hundreds of flights they run so reliably I don't see how they could be much improved on, so I am anxious to get the new one in the air.  Probably in a '52 Nobler (I know, overkill) from Brodak kit. Model is ready to fly so should have an answer soon.

It will run better and last substantially longer. Simple.