Hi, just thought I would throw a few open questions at anyone who cares to give their opinion.

If a new thrust class of engine were to be offered by one of the established manufacturers or indeed a new manufacturer what would you like to see ?

OR.....do you consider that the wide thrust range of engines offered by the current manufacturers covers all requirements both now and into the foreseeable future ?

Are you happy with the range of engines offered but would like to see an established thrust class done better in some way ?

PLEASE, PLEASE, keep it civil with logical reasoned debate and no manufacturer bashing !!

Regards, Rob.

I think the turbines that are around today cover all our needs......

The weight limits of the jets here in Denmark are 25kg. And having a turbine thrust more than 20-25 kg would not be of any use. a 1/1 thrust/weight ratio is overkill [8D]

The only improvements I can think of is, if they could weigh less, and get cheaper, i guess ??

I believe the thrust spectrum is more than adequate for the market, however more efficient engines would be nice....we're currently blowing out gallons of fuel within minutes, and i'm thinking that with a bit of work on that sector, better consumptions could be achieved....

If anything a few more smaller engines would be nice like a P-40 hint hint. As well as more sizes of tubro props for the big plane guys.

We would like to see smaller engines, producing the current levels of power and consuming half the fuel. We would like to see simplified installations and zero throttle lags.

I believe, the turbofan development in model turbines will put the smaller engines (MW44, Simjet700 etc) in larger airframes and will produce the thrust levels we require. So, how come it's not out in the open yet?

Chris

I think that what we need now is not a new turbine with a new class of thrust, but we need that the actual turbines will be worked out, to get less kerosene burning, even more reliability and why not, less noise...

i'm dreaming to have a "scale" turbo fan!!![&:]

for sure development of new turboprop assembly, i think in the small class, using for example a MW44 as core engine will be great...
not always to have to build "big models"

alessio

I think we are covered from 7 - 50 lbs..If there are any gaps in that range, there is a natural tendancy to go to a higher rated engine....

I'd like to see development in effeciency and economy as well.......

Thanks all for your considered replies, seems that most people are happy with what is available but would like it to be cheaper, lighter, smaller and more fuel efficient with better performance. Also some people would like to see smaller turboshaft and turbofan engines.

What about things like kero start? Is this regarded as an improvement ?

Also the old chicken or egg thing...does a new thrust class of engine encourage airframe manufacturers to introduce suitable new models or visa versa?

Rob.

Is this a typo...?

Hee...hee...hope so...my Hotspot has 1.5:1 wet

Rob.

now that is crazy

Well I suppose it would be crazy if used without some common sense It is nice to have plenty of power reserve, you can do some neat tricks not possible with lower power. The lower rpm did catch me out a little at first, the HS velocity being much higher than the powerplant noise level would suggest, but you do quickly adapt to the different throttle management required.

If that is considered crazy, then how about putting two 160N devils in a small Avonds F-15 airframe coming to max 15kg dry?

Rob ...

I've got a BMT that has several neat features that I think others should adapt. (Andre has an awesome product but is more focused on UAV type work than hobby so supply is limited) Kero start has been awesome ... no problems with it and a much simplified and safer installation. It also has the solenoids under the front cap of the engine. The only components in the airframe are TCU (ECU to most of you), battery, fuel cells, and fuel pump.

Need for other brands to proove as reliable in the mid 30lb thrust range as in the mid 20 lb range. (hopefully we are there!)

I would like to see prices continue to drop as competition and technology both increase. This is not a major factor to some but it is to most of us.

JS

I suppose everything has been said about engine requirements but I agree with Cairoman as I see that the future would be in miniature turbofan development. Kero starting is also an interesting feature that one should not overlook too.
A question that I would like to raise at this point for discusssion is whether the present ECU technology is that good that we cannot make any further improvment to the overall current state of ECUs that are available. Perhaps a dual system which the flyer could override in an interference situation. Could be an RX issue but I suppose the ECu could also be an RX and ECU complete unit which could have a dual on-board system.

My 2 cents. Happy holidays.

Reuben