X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-da05.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.147] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.7) with ESMTP id 4344852 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:09:22 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.147; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com Received: from imo-da04.mx.aol.com (imo-da04.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.202]) by imr-da05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o5BL8PYq012201 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:08:25 -0400 Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-da04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.e4c.27bbf20 (43982) for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:08:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtprly-de02.mx.aol.com (smtprly-de02.mx.aol.com [205.188.249.169]) by cia-dd04.mx.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILCIADD047-b2364c12a5c33d1; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:08:20 -0400 Received: from webmail-m096 (webmail-m096.sim.aol.com [64.12.101.42]) by smtprly-de02.mx.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDE023-b2364c12a5c33d1; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:08:19 -0400 References: To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Not surprised, but still disappointing...Mistral dimise Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:08:19 -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_8CCD7C15A044105_AF0_5973_webmail-m096.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 31888-STANDARD Received: from 65.113.35.181 by webmail-m096.sysops.aol.com (64.12.101.42) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:08:19 -0400 Message-Id: <8CCD7C159FD1CE5-AF0-5F72@webmail-m096.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: WRJJRS@aol.com ----------MB_8CCD7C15A044105_AF0_5973_webmail-m096.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Monty, I disagree on some points, but that is life. Still my feeling is that your= best bet would be in the homebuilt market. I think pushing for certificat= ion is crazy until you have customers and a track record. You're correct= that you would have a tough nut to crack in the STC world. I don't think= you can make a go of that EVER. I do think you can get manufacturers to= install a new certified engine in a new airframe often enough to survive,= just barely. I am mostly in agreement here... I think you're going to hav= e the best luck in the homebuilt market if your engine has advantages in= weight, compactness, multi-fuel capability, BSFC or power. I believe that= a properly configured rotary can hit several of those. The key is to have= tested the engine and FWF so that when a customer asks when he can take= delivery your answer is, "When your check clears." All this years of wait= ing baloney just killls any enthusiam for a new product. You absolutely MU= ST be ready to hit the gate running or you'll never get anywhere. Bill Jepson =20 -----Original Message----- From: MONTY ROBERTS To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Fri, Jun 11, 2010 12:54 pm Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Not surprised, but still disappointing...Mistral= dimise Bill, =20 I'm not trying to be a wet blanket here. I am going to play devils advocat= e.=20 =20 I never had any hope for Mistral. They had some really nice looking hardwa= re...but I do not think the market for a lycon replacement is there. Even= with an STC. Even if it costs less, Even if it is "better". Who is going= to take a $500K-$1million dollar airframe and risk it over a new engine= company? What is the support going to be like after the sale? Who will kn= ow how to work on it? What will the resale value be? How long will the new= company be around and parts be available? Just not going to happen. I wou= ldn't do it, and I like rotaries. I wouldn't even do it on a $100K airfram= e. There are a lot of airplanes cheaper than that....but why would they ch= ange? How much is an overhaul on a Lycon vs. the stc, the cost to reconfig= ure the whole front of the aircraft, instruments, cowl etc. What is it goi= ng to cost to get all those stcs? CRAZY! It ain't gonna fly.=20 =20 The people who they have identified as their market are not interested for= very sound business reasons. No matter how large the cost of the engine= seems to us, compared to the other operating costs of an aircraft in a re= al business setting engine cost is peanuts. How much does a corporate pilo= t, insurance, hangar, maintenance, and fuel cost compared to an engine....= ...There is frankly no way they can recoup the investment that has already= been put into the venture.=20 =20 So that means you will have to convince an airframe manufacturer to go wit= h you....good luck on that one. Theliert diesel has already crapped in tha= t punch bowl and that smell is not going away for a while. =20 I suggest your market is car racers, airboats, marine and aircraft homebui= lders-in that order. You might also look at gensets where wt matters. This= is a niche product that can sustain a small 1-5 man company at best. Proc= eed accordingly and don't spend $5+million on development. =20 I do think that there may be a niche in the 200-600 hp range where a heavy= fuel, light wt rotary could be competitive. Common rail, spark assist, pl= us big VNT turbo with air start. This would take some serious development.= ..like $10+million for the first round to do some proof of concept testing= and R&D. =20 Anybody want to write me a check?=20 =20 Anyone? =20 Anyone? =20 ;-)=20 =20 Monty=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: wrjjrs@aol.com=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:41 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Not surprised, but still disappointing...Mistral= dimise George, and Group, =20 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. =20 Bill Jepson Houston, GSOT ----------MB_8CCD7C15A044105_AF0_5973_webmail-m096.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Monty,
I disagree on some points, but that is life. Still my feeling is that= your best bet would be in the homebuilt market. I think pushing for certi= fication is crazy until you have customers and a track record. You're corr= ect that you would have a tough nut to crack in the STC world. I don't thi= nk you can make a go of that EVER. I do think you can get manufacturers to= install a new certified engine in a new airframe often enough to survive,= just barely. I am mostly in agreement here... I think you're going to hav= e the best luck in the homebuilt market if your engine has advantages in= weight, compactness, multi-fuel capability, BSFC or power. I believe= that a properly configured rotary can hit several of those. The key is to= have tested the engine and FWF so that when a customer asks whe= n he can take delivery your answer is, "When your check clears." All this= years of waiting baloney just killls any enthusiam for a new product. You= absolutely MUST be ready to hit the gate running or you'll never get anyw= here.
Bill Jepson
 
-----Original Message-----
From: MONTY ROBERTS <montyr2157@windstream.net>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Fri, Jun 11, 2010 12:54 pm
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Not surprised, but still disappointing...Mistral= dimise

Bill,
 
I'm not trying to be a wet blanket here.= I am going to play devils advocate.
 
I never had any hope for Mistral. They ha= d some really nice looking hardware...but I do not think the market for a= lycon replacement is there. Even with an STC. Even if it costs less, Even= if it is "better". Who is going to take a $500K-$1million dollar airframe= and risk it over a new engine company? What is the support going to be li= ke after the sale? Who will know how to work on it? What will th= e resale value be? How long will the new company be around and parts= be available? Just not going to happen. I wouldn't do it, and I like= rotaries. I wouldn't even do it on a $100K airframe. There are= a lot of airplanes cheaper than that....but why would they change? How mu= ch is an overhaul on a Lycon vs. the stc, the cost to reconfigure the whol= e front of the aircraft, instruments, cowl etc. What is it going= to cost to get all those stcs? CRAZY! It ain't gonna fly. 
 
The people who they have identified as th= eir market are not interested for very sound business reasons. No matter= how large the cost of the engine seems to us, compared to the other= operating costs of an aircraft in a real business setting engine cos= t is peanuts. How much does a corporate pilot, insurance, hangar= , maintenance, and fuel cost compared to an engine.......There is frankly= no way they can recoup the investment that has already been put into the= venture. 
 
So that means you will have to convince= an airframe manufacturer to go with you....good luck on that one. Thelier= t diesel has already crapped in that punch bowl and that smell is not goin= g away for a while.
 
I suggest your market is car racers, airb= oats, marine and aircraft homebuilders-in that order. You might also= look at gensets where wt matters. This is a niche product that can sustai= n a small 1-5 man company at best. Proceed accordingly and don't spen= d $5+million on development.
 
I do think that there may be a niche in= the 200-600 hp range where a heavy fuel, light wt rotary could be competi= tive. Common rail, spark assist, plus big VNT turbo with air start.&n= bsp;This would take some serious development...like $10+million for the fi= rst round to do some proof of concept testing and R&D.
 
 Anybody want to write me a check?=
 
Anyone?
 
Anyone?
 
;-) 
 
Monty 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:41= PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Not surpri= sed, but still disappointing...Mistral dimise

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

Houston, GSOT
----------MB_8CCD7C15A044105_AF0_5973_webmail-m096.sysops.aol.com--