Russell Kent wrote:

Paul Lamar dreamed:

I also think Mazda PR should jump on this opportunity. How many car manufacturers
can say?; "Our rotary engines are so durable and reliable that they make better
aircraft engines than real aircraft engines".

HA! Dream on, Paul.  Aside from the potential lawsuits from
Textron/Lycoming/Continental (libel or slander, depending on how Mazda PR
advertises), doing so would paint Mazda as actively encouraging the use of the
engines in airplanes.  That's the one thing that I suspect that David Orr (legal
counsel for Mazda North America) is trying to avoid.  So long as Mazda can honestly
say "we didn't do anything to encourage the use of our engine in that crashed
airplane", they have an affirmative defense ("fitness of use").  It's much harder to
actually win a lawsuit against a manufacturer when the manufacturer can claim that
their product was not used for its intended purpose.  Of course, that doesn't prevent
the filing of nuisance lawsuits, but it does make it easier to get those inevitable
nusiance lawsuits dismissed.

Not many. I think it would be worth the legal liability risk.

Are you willing and able to indemnify Mazda?  I didn't think so. (Willing? Probably.
Able? Hardly, we're talking a multi-million dollar liability here.)

If you can obtain for me a meeting with the president of Mazda NA I can discuss
this with him further.

I'm certain he's a busy man (or woman); don't waste his/her time.

Perhaps he can get David Orr off our case

Could you explain what you mean by David Orr being "on our case"?

Russell Kent

The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.              Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. Copyright 1998-2002 All world wide rights reserved.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org