Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses

Date:         27 Dec 96 13:32:16 
From:         tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1) writes:


>"NASA's Lewis Research Centre has selected Williams International and
>Teledyne
>Continental Motors (TCM) to develop powerplant technology for
>next-generation light aircraft:

><snip>

>"The four year co-operation agreement ... is valued at $37million"

><snip>

>"NASA will fund equally a $9.5million, three-year project to develop an
>'intermittent combustion' (IC) engine for entry-level general-aviation
>aircraft"

>So, to my question: "when is a subsidy not a subsidy? when it's loans that
>have to be repaid? or when its an R&D grant of $37million or 9.5 million"

>(I should say that I'm not against such grants/loans in principle - I'm
>against the pretence that only some governments make such
>grants/loans/subsidies.)


It is worth noting that this support is *not* for commercial aircraft
since this engine is designed for planes with <6 seats.  It is
certainly a subsidy (although a number of companies competed for the
"contract") since it is designed to help an industry that completely
died a couple years ago and to help GA planes to meet tougher
emission standards that undoubtably lie ahead.

(The engine is to be a jet fuel burning diesel cycle design)

I completely support this sort of "tweaking" of the free market when
the market is unable to fix itself. Without this engine we will never
be able to get rid of the 110 LL fuel that is both expensive and
environmentally hazardous.

Terry