MLD wrote:

....
Comments accepted as intended--You're right, the cost is certainly a direct
result of the application, however, I'd like to add the following: With
respect to Biz Jets--Just about all the engines used in corporate aircraft
are derivatives of a design used in a Military application; for example, the
Lear Jet, Daussalt Falcon engines used derivatives of the GE J85 engine
which is used in the T38 Trainer, ... The design requirements
or Specs of these engines are not compromised in any way just because they
are on the commercial side of the fence. In fact, satisfying the FAA is, in
many cases, a much more difficult task than the Military. They (engines) are
less costly since they don't have to perform as aggressively as their
Military counterpart (simpler control systems, reduced complexity etc.) but
not at the expense of flight safety or endurance.

But, in fact, those latter considerations are "compromised" design
specs for precisely the reasons you give and including the fact that
the market would not support the cost structure if they weren't. That
the safety side isn't significantly different is only one portion of the
equation, albeit it is an important one.

For those that are down on GE and don't want to deal with their
products----cut down on your flying or be more selective with respect to the
aircraft you book on--GE engines are installed on approx 70% of the world's
commercial aircraft. BTW, did I mention that I worked for GE?

I gathered as much... Cincinnati?

OBTW, did I mention I had close family ties w/ Cessna?

However, the consumer appliance division of GE in its current
incarnation has gone the broad-market, less expensive route at the
apparent loss of reliability and longevity. That said, I'm sure they're
very precisely engineered and the production facilities are
ISO-certified. It's just too bad the American consumer is so
initial-purchase-price sensitive that there's no significant market for
better goods...