Chris is exactly right. The HPH Shark Jet uses a industrial
powerplant with over 700 made for UAV / Drone use, so maturity is
high. Field reliability is very good with minimal issues... Normally a
"one-off" re-tuning exercise. You mix turbine oil with JET A1 and
this total-loss approach avoids the needs for a separate lubrication
system. Drag on deployment is not noticable at all. The Engine
management is achieved with a FADEC controller which leaves you
with a single 'Throttle' knob on the panel. HPH have been shipping
the Shark Jet for over 5 years now and into the UK Market (where I
live) for about three years. With "Double-digit" Shark Jets in the UK
I have never had to remove a Jet powerplant yet....

At 05:47 04 June 2015, wrote:
"They are MODEL engines and are not "man rated" by the FAA.
There are
seve=
ral YT vids showing how they are built and assembled."

A very inappropriate comparison. It's akin to comparing an
experimental
air=
craft with a certified, high capacity transport category
aircraft.=20

The Williams has undergone destructive testing, blade
containment testing,
=
is certified for flight into known icing, use on ground, use in rain
etc
et=
c.

Using M&D's engine as an example, it has no accessory gearbox
so no
lubrica=
tion; you add extra oil to the fuel like a 2-stroke. It has no
electrical
s=
ystem thus no self-sustaining fuel delivery nor command and
control. Both
=
of those functions are powered by the battery so it's essential to
leave a
=
battery untouched 'for Justin'. It's not approved for ground
operation
oth=
er than maintenance nor for flight in rain. It's a simple, elegant,
low
wei=
ght, low drag thrust source for sustaining. A 'getcha home jet'
with only
t=
he operating principle as a similarity with Williams and other
certified
pr=
oducts. And thanks heavens for that! It would be too large, too
heavy and
=
too *EXPENSIVE* otherwise.

CJ