I would like to thank to all discussers for their valuable comments. All discussers are unanimous in the main points that they make. Although its expression varies in language and extent among the discussers, the summary of their main arguments goes as follows [1,2]:
Market dynamics, risks associated with a major change in architecture (origins of which going back to early 1940s) and recent technology developments make a radical diversion proposed in the paper essentially infeasible.
As one discusser points out, two recent attempts, while quite modest in comparison to what I proposed in my paper and successful from a field performance perspective (namely, sequential combustion and full steam cooling), failed to achieve commercial success. The point is well taken.
In the event of successful introduction of CMC materials and/or effusion cooling enable by advanced manufacturing, there is no question that the current simple architecture will...
