On Friday, 31 August 2018 03:05:32 UTC+10, krasw wrote:
On Thursday, 30 August 2018 10:21:58 UTC+3, Mike Borgelt wrote:

Don't forget that the Solo company makes aero engines ... and garden equipment, so your Solo engined glider has an engine derived from lawnmower and leaf blower
technology and is made by a company that makes those.

They have nothing in common with garden stuff other than name and logo. Would you rather have two stroke engine from manufacturer who has no experience building them for other applications? I would buy sustainer engine from Briggs&Stratton or Honda in heartbeat...

You might actually read my post properly. I said I have no problem with the Solo engines. I was referring to the "model aircraft engine" tag. You could apply the same to Solo as a "leaf blower" engine. You are absolutely sure that the Solo engines aren't built in the same factory by the same machines and people as the garden equipment engines? I would hope they are.
I'd rather have a jet engine built by a "model aircraft engine" manufacturer who has nearly 25 years in the business and has built thousands of engines than a "certified" engine built by a manufacturer who doesn't have any previous experience and built what, a few dozens?
Mind you the M&D engine looks to have the same compressor and turbine as an AMT Titan and is the same diameter. Funny that.
This early in the application of jet engines to gliders I believe certification is dangerous and misleading nonsense. This is EXPERIMENTAL aviation. When the major bugs, shortcomings, maintenance and operational procedures (including best fuel to use) have been worked out (in about 10 years, it might be time to certify these things, however little that concept is worth.
Even the authorities in various countries are beginning to realise that certification has hindered any progress towards safer and more efficient aviation at the light end.
Modern, state of the art gliders should all be regarded more like record setting or racing vehicles, unlike certified bugsmashers.