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

Joseph Berki wrote:

Does anyone remember the commercial that Shirl Dickey and the ERacer
appeared in targeted at Pacific rim countrys?  Nissan was `boasting about
putting the engine in an aircraft.

Joe Berki

The product liability argument of David Orr does not add up.
Mazda sells at least 50,000 cars a year in the US alone while only about
a dozen Mazda's are flying. Maybe two dozen at the out side world wide.
If Mazda made $5,000 net profit on each car that is $250 million to 
buy insurance in the remote chance some guy kills himself in a Mazda powered
airplane and sues Mazda. Continental on the other hand makes only 
17 aircraft engines a day for a yearly total of 4000 a year. At a $5000 
net profit that is only $20 million but every one of those Continentals 
is a potential aviation law suite. No way is a Mazda powered airplane
200 times more likely to crash than a Continental powered aircraft.
NTSB accident statistic's bear this out.

On the other hand Mazda spends millions on advertising.

Paul Lamar
 
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