Originally Posted by
jvaliensi
Please post your test report.
Red herring, much? Read the thread again please and be careful what you ask for sir.
IF one simply must rely on data NOT provided by the mf’r or the OP, then I refer you to the June/July RCJI test report.. If one simply must rely on data NOT provided by the mf’r or the OP, then I refer you to the June/July RCJI test report which has no more + than - commentary overall and ranks the subject 180 thrust:weight ratio of this “New” engine as 5th of 7 in the class, only beating engines from tests conducted between 9 and 10 years ago. Engines ranking 1-4 on the other hand are from as many as 12 years ago.
The RCJI report aside, the only “testing” required in order to reach negative conclusions regarding this product line are the OP’s OWN PICS AND COMMENTS, coupled with his deafening non-answers and/or side-steps to specific questions. And if one’s product must resort to claims of no need for a UAT as a “highlight” -a claim actually based on 15+ year-old felt clunk innovation rather than the engine itself- or to outright false claims of superior service intervals, then there are warning signs here regarding both the manufacturer and/or it’s representative. By these standards, one might as well claim Kero start as a “highlight”. The smoke being blown up our skirts here is glaringly obvious.
There’s little or no reason IMO (and apparently others’ as well) to purchase a poorly launched/represented engine from a new, untested manufacturer. All the more so when those engines, as per the manufacturer’s OWN SPECS AND PHOTOS (!) offer no new technologies or performance gains, are heavier, and cost more.
But hey, man. Free Country, so no judgement here on your own conclusions. If your rosier world view compels to spend YOUR OWN $ on these engines then please do. Meanwhile, you might do well to refrain from impugning others judgements of the matter.