Mike,

Let's face it: you just WANT two engines. It isn't
a matter of design or complexity or fuel or cost; you just WANT
two little turbines on your glider. It looked really cool
and it sounds neat and you want TWO. Nothing wrong with that...
:P

Mike Borgelt wrote:

Even the jet Caproni was fly by wire for engine management. These
engines already come with automatic electronic controls. Not a heck of
a lot of complexity.

They simply are not available yet. Two smaller turbines are and have
some advantages and I beleive aren't likely to cost significantly more
than one large one.

solved(and a good argument for two engines)

plus with two you really aren't going to fail to get at least one
running to avoid an outlanding.

AMT450 or the AMT1500/1700. Redundancy may indeed be very nice to
have.

The little engines are used in R/C models. Obviously the heat issues
are solvable.

Yes and the redundancy is really nice to have. If the glider was not
capable of climbing on one I'd agree with you that one engine is
desirable but what is the point of designing around an engine that
isn't readily available with lots of operating history?

Until he has a customer have an engine failure right after takeoff.

The packaging
of two is also easier.

We are talking something that weighs 5 pounds. Installing and mounting
it isn't that difficult. Check out the model jet websites.

Mike Borgelt





You would need to check the fuel consumption at reduced power. You
might get a nasty surprise. The taxi to the strip might have fuel
consumption comparable to driving an M1A2 the same distance.

Two gallons per mile? $4 to taxi to the runway? I'm fine with
that. My whole premise in this design was that 1/5 of the fuel
efficiency of a two-stroke is worth the enormous other benefits
(including 1/5 the parts count for the engine). Wasting fuel is
a feature, not a disadvantage in my mind. $10 extra a launch
in fuel is better than sending the testy ASH-26 engine
back to the factory for six months (talk to Bill Gawthrop).