> From what you write here, I'm still not clear on why you do or don't
 > believe the conversion is advantageous. If not for low maintenance 
 > and fuel economy then why are all those dummies converting to turboprop?
The airplane conversions are done for low maintenance, I'll grant you that. 
They have extremely high reliability and long TBOs compared to the engines 
they replace. They're also much higher horsepower, giving the airplane better 
takeoff performance. Those factors offset the higher cost, and don't really 
apply in automotive applications of turbines.
Think about this: Nearly all large ships are powered by either steam turbines 
or huge Diesel engines. Does that make either suitable for automotive use? 
(Especially compared to present-day gasoline engines)
If you believe that the present-day piston engine should be replaced, you 
should be interested in the announcements in the past couple of days of some 
new fuel cell technology that's being developed. The thing runs on gasoline, 
extracting the needed hydrogen from that fuel. I'd almost bet on it making it 
to market quicker than a turbine in automotive applications.
That fuel cell would also make a wonderful backup generator for AE homes. No 
moving parts at all, probably no precision components involved.
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------