> I talked with a fellow yesterday who was telling
me how he had
> given up on
> the mazda engine dream, as he had come to the
conclusion he was
> going to
> spend more making it quick, easy starting,
running, properly geared
> andcooling and sufficiently reliable than he could
buy a turbine
> for.  I told
> him 'lotsa luck' and when he or anyone else got
that bargain
> turbine let me
> know because I not only would admit to being wrong
but would run
> right down
> and buy one.
>
> I got mazda rotary engines in my garage, in
various states of
> disassembly/repair; and, I got mazdas in my bone
yard; but, he
> ain't got no
> turbines, turbine containing craft or any readily
and cheaply
> available that
> I see. I still thing we rotary thinking people are
the way to go at
> thisplace in time.
>
> jesse farr, soddy tn USA (just north of chattanooga)
>
>



Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you, Jesse.  It's just
my opinion that the homebuilding world falls into
two camps.  Those willing to get their hands dirty,
and those with the money and willingness to pay
someone else to do it (There's actually a large gray
area, but that just confuses the conversation).
Many of those who'll do the dirty work will opt for
the rotary and do the dirty work.  

The Mistral engine has the worst of both camps.  You
still have to do the dirty work, but you have to pay
even MORE than what the bolt-on solution cost.

This is just my cost/benefit analysis for the
Mistral engine.  From what I see, they will be a
dismal failure, and the rotary will be tagged as yet
another untenable alternative engine (because the
hundreds of flying examples that won't be bought
from an 'aviation company' will be ignored).

Remember, to a whole of of people out there, if
there isn't a full color add for it in popular
magazines then it doesn't exist.