Logical fallacies*

Factual belief fallacy is heavy at play in these threads too, if you meant that

This is an interesting prospect. A Chinese company called Zongshen (and probably others) did this with the Rotax aviation engine, which is available at about 1/5 the cost. People still buy the Rotax version, as the Chinese version is harder to get and has limited support. Bombardier could never come close to matching that price and break even.

But selling an FJ44 at say half the cost and building a reputation for good support could work, Williams would have to operate at a loss to meet the pricing and it would be obvious they couldn’t do that long term. Textron could agree to buy the engines in advance with guarantees the engine will meet expectations.

I’ve been diving into paint spray guns lately. The big players are Devilbiss, Iwata, Sata, and Segola. To give you an idea of how competitive it is, Iwata hired Pininfarina to design the frame for their flagship model. Top models are about $800. Harbor freight knocked one off and it costs $180, less if you can find a coupon, and I’d bet it outsells the real one by 5-1. The technology is mostly figured out, so there’s not much justification in my view for those prices.

A ways back a couple people made comments about why doesn’t Honeywell try and develop the TPE for more certified aircraft?

I went on Honeywell’s website and it seems obvious. They are deep into all kinds of turbines. Not like they don’t “develop stuff”.

The only passenger turbo props sold new are TBM, M600, King Air, Pilatus and Epic. Did I miss any? Denali not being sold yet. All new Ag planes are PT6.

So, to put a TPE on a King Air or Pilatus would take a tremendous effort, and there is the whole spectre of liability/insurance.

Seems way easier to sell 300+ TPE331s for the MQ-9 Reaper program. No passenger liability, plus super low odds the military will sue you.

To me the new airplane market has spoken, turboprops are what they are. If you want more, get one of the many Jet options.

Companies like Honeywell find it easier to deal with the military, than develop a program that involves passengers on a turboprop…

But it mere existence will affect what Rotax does.


A Textron joint venture with a Chinese turbine engine maker would be interesting. There is no transfer of technology since the Chinese would be developing the engine, but Textron being involved puts Williams on notice.

There's a reason Boeing and Airbus keep at least two engine bidders on their programs. They want competition so the engine value is higher and they sell more planes. If there was only one engine choice, the planes would cost more and the Boeing Airbus rivalry would be slimmed on margins.

That's one reason the King Air B100 came with TPE331. Pratt was having labor problems and Beech introduced the B100 with Honeywell engines to make sure the message go through to Pratt to shape up. Textron with the Denali is doing the same, perhaps.

With the rise in private aviation, the market is getting bigger, not smaller, and right now the new planes are too expensive. It's time for something to change and introduce a lower cost option to the market.

Mike C.

I get a phone call a week from Chinese people wanting to buy JT15Ds and Citation airframes. I don't sell them anything on philosophical/moral grounds but others do. I assure you they have cloned these airplanes and engines. I know they have already cloned the Williams "for drones". They aren't stupid people.

But, I think 3D metal printing is the real salvation we should be talking about.

Whatever happened to the Safran Silvercrest? I know they lost both Dassault and Cessna as customers due to the delays but did they abandon it altogether?

How would 3D metal printing work with a turbine? The exotic alloys are the most expensive part of the engine, and how they are combined, formed, and cooled is critical to their strength. Not sure how that would work squiring out of a nozzle as is done with plastic based 3D printing.

The hidden factor that drives the cost of anything aviation through the roof is liability. As long as every aircraft that experiences a fatality crash results in high payout lawsuits, you’re not going to make anything economical.

That’s part of what is being missed here, we all see an engine that should cost X to build and sells for Y and we think “that’s an obscene profit” all the while we are ignoring how much certification cost and how much liability cost.

That’s why there isn’t more competition and that is why you don’t see new engines popping up from Mike’s bigger-better-cheaper Engine Manufacturing. The development, testing and certification process would take at least a decade and cost $100’s of millions of dollars.

When it comes to engines, we have what we have plus the new GE Catalyst,GE could be a game changer, if that engine does what they say it will do, Pratt will be paying attention. If they develop a jet version of it, Williams will as well.

In our customer experience meeting with Textron, they spent more time talking about the engine than they did the airframe. I can’t wait until our first Denali client gets his!

How would 3D metal printing work with a turbine? The exotic alloys are the most expensive part of the engine, and how they are combined, formed, and cooled is critical to their strength. Not sure how that would work squiring out of a nozzle as is done with plastic based 3D printing.

How would 3D metal printing work with a turbine? The exotic alloys are the most expensive part of the engine, and how they are combined, formed, and cooled is critical to their strength. Not sure how that would work squiring out of a nozzle as is done with plastic based 3D printing.

How would 3D metal printing work with a turbine? The exotic alloys are the most expensive part of the engine, and how they are combined, formed, and cooled is critical to their strength. Not sure how that would work squiring out of a nozzle as is done with plastic based 3D printing.

But does anyone or any process really decrease unit prices of engines below 600K to a mil? Liability, low volume, precise tolerances, low acceptance of error. Not making iPhones in the millions.

New ones? Probably not. But it's especially exciting for those of us with older engines and airframes. As the 3D printing technology continues to improve, we will still be able to make parts if Pratt or Williams abandons the older models. Or heck we could compete with OEM parts. The beauty of 3D printing is that it is still economical even if you just make one part. You don't need to do a huge run in order to get the price down (ie your iPhone example above).

Is it that much more cost efficient than say a CNC?

Chip-

One big advantage will be the ability to produce parts that do not require as much assembly. Internal structures can be printed in and vastly reduce parts count.