Matt,

Damned if you do--damned if you don't.......

You're right, though. I'm sure you weren't talking about the conscientious modeler who'll use a suitable engine for his .45-size jet that's scaring you. Maybe you were referring to the one who'll take an old bird with age-and-fuel rotted structure and use a not-so-suitable engine. Larry mentioned the Hawk with the Ram 750, but there wasn't much more information. Did the builder take steps to make sure that the airframe is safe with that kind of loading and thrust?

It's true you DO NOT have to buy an all-composite maga-buck ship to successfully fly turbines. Those kits like the Aviator and Facet are good examples of this. However, they were designed by intelligent people to be turbine aircraft. Though they are relatively inexpensive and all-balsa, they are perfectly suited to the kind of flying they are advertised for. I had an opportunity to inspect an Aviator in San Diego recently, and you could tell that though it was light and balsa, it was stout and well-designed for what it is for. It's not the same as grabbing a Kadet Senior and duct-taping a turbine to it because that's all you want to spend on a plane.

The first turbine-powered plane I ever saw fly was the JHH Cougar with a GWM 8-pound engine. It was much faster and had a much more aggressive climb and a faster, heavier landing than any .91 powered .45-size jet I've ever seen.