X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-db03.mx.aol.com ([205.188.91.97] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.7) with ESMTP id 4344626 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:42:56 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.91.97; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com Received: from imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (imo-ma04.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.139]) by imr-db03.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o5BHg5Cc016186 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:42:05 -0400 Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.d86.c6db261 (37523) for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtprly-mc01.mx.aol.com (smtprly-mc01.mx.aol.com [64.12.95.97]) by cia-ma08.mx.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMA088-d3cc4c12756521d; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:42:00 -0400 Received: from webmail-m058 (webmail-m058.sim.aol.com [64.12.158.158]) by smtprly-mc01.mx.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYMC016-d3cc4c12756521d; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:41:57 -0400 References: To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Not surprised, but still disappointing...Mistral dimise Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:41:57 -0400 X-AOL-IP: 65.113.35.181 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: wrjjrs@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CCD7A485F62D2E_1198_1AC8_webmail-m058.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 31888-STANDARD Received: from 65.113.35.181 by webmail-m058.sysops.aol.com (64.12.158.158) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:41:57 -0400 Message-Id: <8CCD7A485EF090B-1198-D0F@webmail-m058.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: WRJJRS@aol.com ----------MB_8CCD7A485F62D2E_1198_1AC8_webmail-m058.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" George, and Group, I am very saddened by the demise of Mistral. I believe that there is a go= od market for a sound Rotary engine conversion. George, I AM listening. In= fact I have been researching some net techniques that may make several "w= ish list" parts possible. First the basics though. We intend to make a goo= d p-port conversion with no epoxy and proper seals on the port insert. (O-= rings) The lightweight sideplates/end-housings in steel. But first I need= to make a comment that I believe is CRITICAL to success. This is a commen= t that is the very essence of the reason why many of these ventures fail.= Even ones with very good products like Mistral.=20 The comment is that anyone producing a new or conversion technology engin= e must absolutely expect it to sell for LESS than a Lycoming or Continenta= l, otherwise there is no REASONABLE EXPECTATION that people will buy it.= Some people might be enticed by a new or better technology, but never eno= ugh people to make the venture a success. My best estimate is that you wil= l need to be profitable at a price of about 1/2 that of certified aircraft= engines. Bill Jepson =20 -----Original Message----- From: George Lendich To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Thu, Jun 10, 2010 2:54 pm Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Not surprised, but still disappointing...Mistral= dimise Now that is bad, not that I could afford Mistral parts=20 IF they were available, but the exposure of a commercially available certi= fied rotary, would do the a great deal of good, for the rest of us wanting= to see further development of the rotary in Aviation. =20 I guess we will have to rely on people like Bill Jepson and his partner to= come up with the goods. =20 I have suggested to Bill that possibly the rotor weight could be reduced= by using the oven brazed technology and chrome molley. =20 I also believe that a bellhousing could be done in the same way and have= it designed to be the engine mount as well - are you listening Bill? =20 I wish I had an understanding of the processes 10 years ago, when Bill and= I started communicating. George (down under)=20 Gee, I wonder if they will sell inventory/parts to us side intake types.= I do have their intake already and like it. http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2010/100609mistral.html All the best, Chris Barber Houston, GSOT ----------MB_8CCD7A485F62D2E_1198_1AC8_webmail-m058.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
George, and Group,
 
 I am very saddened by the demise of Mistral. I believe that the= re is a good market for a sound Rotary engine conversion. George, I AM lis= tening. In fact I have been researching some net techniques that may make= several "wish list" parts possible. First the basics though. We intend to= make a good p-port conversion with no epoxy and proper seals on the port= insert. (O-rings) The lightweight sideplates/end-housings in steel. But= first I need to make a comment that I believe is CRITICAL to success. Thi= s is a comment that is the very essence of the reason why many of these ve= ntures fail. Even ones with very good products like Mistral.
 The comment is that anyone producing a new or conversion techno= logy engine must absolutely expect it to sell for LESS than a Lycoming or= Continental, otherwise there is no REASONABLE EXPECTATION that people wil= l buy it. Some people might be enticed by a new or better technology, but= never enough people to make the venture a success. My best estimate is th= at you will need to be profitable at a price of about 1/2 that of certifie= d aircraft engines.
 
Bill Jepson
 



-----Original Message-----
From: George Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thu, Jun 10, 2010 2:54 pm
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Not surprised, but still disappointing...Mistral= dimise

 Now that is bad, not that I could= afford Mistral parts
IF they were available,= but the exposure of a commercially available certified rotary, would do= the a great deal of good, for the rest of us wanting to see further devel= opment of the rotary in Aviation.
 
I guess we will have to rely on people li= ke Bill Jepson and his partner to come up with the goods.
 
I have suggested to Bill that possibly th= e rotor weight could be reduced by using the oven brazed technology and ch= rome molley.
 
I also believe that a bellhousing co= uld be done in the same way and have it designed to be the engine mount as= well - are you listening Bill?
 
I wish I had an understanding of the proc= esses 10 years ago, when Bill and I started communicating.
George (down under) 
Gee, I wonder if they will sell inventory/parts to= us side intake types.  I do have their intake already and like it.
http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2010/100609mistral.= html

All the best,

Chris Barber
Houston, GSOT
 ----------MB_8CCD7A485F62D2E_1198_1AC8_webmail-m058.sysops.aol.com--