From the stats I can find on the P100, it looks like it is 1/2 pound lighter & produces the same thrust. Anyone know if this is the true difference between the rtf (all onboard equipment) weight, or did Jetcat start to weigh differently, & 1/2 lb is a bit inflated?
Thanks

The 2 engines are chalk and cheese.

The P100 is almost P70 size and the specs show it being slightly more powerful than the P80. I haven't confirmed the weights but have no reason to doubt them. Jetcat usually post the weight of the 'core' engine and you have to add the weight of the ancilliaries to get to the installed package weight. However, the P100 has the valves (and Kerostart) in the engine case so the published weight for the P100 already includes both solenoid valves. It also comes with the V10 ECU which is smaller and lighter than the ECU that comes with the P80. Overall, the difference in the installed weight between the 2 engines is probably even greater than you think, with the P100 being MUCH lighter.

The only real reasons I see to buy a P80 is that it is cheap, very quiet and proven over a huge number of flying hours worldwide.

Thanks, I was about to pull the trigger on a slightly used P80se for my 1/8 F-16. It would be relatively cheap compared to the new P100, but this 100 seems to be a HUGE advancement in mini turbines. Hopefully it will live up to its predecessor's reputation.

Hi, just a couple of points I've noticed, the 100 is the length of a p-60, and the width of p-70.. It's surprisingly light, with a small downside being the fuel consumption, at wot I believe jc state 390ml/m, compared to the p-80, that's a big difference.

The Jetcat website states 350ml/min at full power for the P100. In comparison the Wren 100 is also shown at 350ml/min and the Merlin 100 is shown as 360 ml/min. Neither of the latter 2 are considered to be thirsty engines so, if the Jetcat specs are correct then it is ok. If I was a betting man I'd say that the P80 specs are not accurate and it is actually thirstier than Jetcat claim. My (very old) P80 was certainly not very fuel efficient.

Figures mean nothing unless you fly flat out the whole flight! Yes, P-80 was much thirstier than stated. The P-80SE and P-100 are close, my flight times are very close

Dave

For me the turbines are kind of like cell phones, I can skip a few generations until they make a big advancement I can't pass up.. I think this P100rx is what I've been waiting for.. It's my 4GS..lol.

I had a non se p80 and replaced it with a p100. My fuel burn is very similar to when the 80 was in there but performance is very much improved.

I saw that originally but in the p-100 manual it states 390, in the jetcat catalouge, it also states 390.. Maybe a mistake somewhere along the lines but either way im not running it @ 100%.

screen shots added from the catalouge...