Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:44 AM - Re: Engines-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 02/08/04 (patwilks)
2. 08:33 PM - Re: Re: Engines-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 02/08/04 (TeamGrumman@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 02/08/04 |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "patwilks" <patwilks@mindspring.com>
Hope I correctly cut and saved the posts below I am responding to:
Everything comes down to, can the Dyna-Cam be built and sold at a profit in
order to keep operations going. "Receiveables financing" does not exist in
this industry. Be assured this wasn't a "tax shelter scheme" because my
partner and I put in the first $250k out of our pockets and didn't need a
tax writeoff.
Repeating here what's on the website, (www.dynacam.com) the Navy used an
earlier and classified version of the Dyna-Cam for over 20 years
successfully. That design is the heart of the FAA certified version. (Type
Cert.#293). If the new investors let us build the engine as it was
certified, it will be successful.
I not only read the posts here, I forward the pertinent ones to my partner
and others and it helps us to know what's going on with the "real folks."
Regards, Pat Wilks
Time: 08:54:44 AM PST US
> From: Pat Wilks <patwilks@mindspring.com>
> Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 02/07/04
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Pat Wilks <patwilks@mindspring.com>
>
> Re: Dyna-Cam
>
> You are right. The Dyna-Cam advantages were real. But getting it into
production requires $5 - $10 million and we have never been able to raise
those funds. My partner and I finally brought in new investors in 1999 but
they insisted on doing a public offering which was approved 2 days after the
9/11 Attack. The new investment was not successful and it took 2 more years
to find new investors who agreed to participate in 2003. But my partner and
I had to give up control. The new investors founded a new company, Aero
Marine Engine, Inc. (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=armr.ob) to build the
engine. Nobody can understand the absolute impossiblity of getting new
investors for industrial products.
>
> The new investors say they will build the engine. I'll keep you posted.
> Best regards,
> Pat Wilks
> Co-founder, Dyna-Cam Engine Corp.
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
_____________________________________
******>
> Time: 09:57:26 AM PST US
> From: Doug Ritter <d.d.ritter@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 02/07/04
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Doug Ritter <d.d.ritter@verizon.net>
>
> Pat, thank you for your concern, update and developing a great looking
> product. I'm sorry you and your partners weren't able to reach the full
> potential that it deserved. We will look forward to further updates. It
> is refreshing to note that our email list is being read my someone in the
> industry.
>
> Doug Ritter
>
> >Time: 06:25:00 AM PST US
> >From: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
> >Subject: Re: Engines-List: DynaCam, was alternative diesel engines
> >
> >--> Engines-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor"
<doconnor@chartermi.net>
> >
> >Yeah, it's a shame because the engine seems to have advantages and no
real
> >engineering show stoppers that I have heard about... They have been
> >languishing so long now, that they have lost credibility, though... To
get
> >going again, they need to put some engines onto flying airframes - even
if
> >they have to give a couple of them away just to get them flying...
> >*** if I were the principle invester I would cut a deal with Van's RV to
get
> >two of them in the air, even if I had to pay Van to do it! But then, I
> >have been in business all my life and I have learned what it takes to
stay
> >in business ***
> >I have no details on the current status as I have no interest in chasing
> >rainbows... However, there are people in the experimental movement that
if
> >they pooled their money and their expertise (owning a machine shop, etc.)
> >and acquired the right to produce and put a pair of those engines on
> >airframes and generate interest, I feel that sales would follow... But
it
> >has to be a situation where the principal investors can substitute sweat
> >equity for money by machining engine parts when their other work is slow,
> >etc., so that they don't have to have 60K an engine to break even...
> >denny
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Johnny Johnson" <Johnny@wiktel.com>
> > You mention that they may be trying to get some engines out in
> > > the experimental arena... that is of interest to me if it is more than
> >just
> > > a ploy to get investors. Any details would be appreciated.
> > >
> Time: 12:19:21 PM PST US
> From: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: DynaCam, was alternative diesel engines
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
>
> This has been their story for years - at that time they wanted an investor
> to front a pile of money and not give him anything in return to back up
the
> loan. Didn't get any takers then, doubt if they do any better now. Last
I
> knew they still haven't produced any engines other than a few
> prototypes. I don't see how they can pay for the ads I've seen them run
or
> even the phone bill for that matter. Makes me wonder if this isn't a form
> of dummy company to provide a tax shelter or laundering front.
> jerryb
>
> At 11:44 PM 2/6/04 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> Engines-List message posted by: Doug Ritter <d.d.ritter@verizon.net>
> >
> >I talked to the president of DynaCam, don't remember her name, about a
year
> >ago and it just plane sounded like they were without funding and couldn't
> >go anywhere with it. She indicated that the future looked grim but I
have
> >to agree it has definite appeal to us home builders. Oh, the price was
in
> >the "competitive" market range about 27k. Something has gotta break
soon!
> >
> >
> >At 08:02 AM 2/6/2004 -0600, you wrote:
> > >--> Engines-List message posted by: "Johnny Johnson"
<Johnny@wiktel.com>
> > >
> > >Hi Denny,
> > >
> > >You mentioned DynaCam... I've been intrigued by that engine for a lot
of
> > >years... the last I heard--maybe 3 or 4 years ago--there was a new
group
> > >involved that had big plans to produce engines in a skookum new
facility and
> > >they were actively looking for investors. It looked to me like they
were
> > >going about it all goofy and it was not much more than a hole into
which to
> > >pour money. You mention that they may be trying to get some engines
out in
> > >the experimental arena... that is of interest to me if it is more than
just
> > >a ploy to get investors. Any details would be appreciated.
> > >
> > >That design has a lot of positive attributes for some applications.
For
> > >those of you that haven't been exposed to the DynaCam: 12 cyl so
should be
> > >smooth, low rpm so needs no PSRU, tons of torque (they say),
torpedo-like
> > >shape fits under most cowls easily (someone once said that the original
> > >intent was actually to use little ones to power torpedoes), good power
to
> > >weight, etc... and for die-hard certified engine fans, a 200 hp version
> > >supposedly was FAA (or CAA?) certified years ago by the original design
> > >group and flew a lot of hours in a low-wing Piper of some sort. This
is one
> > >that would have a lot of us drooling if it was for real IMHO.
> > >
> > >Johnny Johnson
> > >
> > >Denny wrote <snipped>:
> > >Look at the Dyna-Cam story... <snip>
> > >Dyna-Cam would have been well advised to build a base of engines
running in
> > >the field by catering to the experimenters right from the start... I
see
> > >they are now hoping to do that, but I suspect their window of
opportunity
> > >has closed
> > >denny...
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 02/08/04 |
--> Engines-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com
In a message dated 02/09/04 09:46:42 AM, patwilks@mindspring.com writes:
> Repeating here what's on the website, (www.dynacam.com) the Navy used an
> earlier and classified version of the Dyna-Cam for over 20 years
> successfully.
>
How many horsepower? What was the TBO?
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|