Hi Buddy. I can't fault your premise, but it really is fantastic if true. The rotary valve isn't as bad as the initial plan, but the 5000 rpm, .0004 second valve gear seems simply impossible. (I would love to know what kind of energy it took just to drive the valves, the original engine designed for the Tucker was unworkable simply due to valve loads --- by all reports.)
If I were trying to avoid risk, I would avoid rotary valves like the plague. They don't handle high pressure or temperature, require lubrication verging on flooding and there is little in the way of a successful track record to go on given the history of sticking and premature wear.
Now I'm wondering if they are going with the rotary simply because it is cheap and simple. I guess it could be fine if they follow the current pattern of showing meaningless video and never allow one of their engines to be available for public test. Then the market would be unaware of the low power density and miserable economy along with the need to supply large amounts of lubricants. There is a better range of moderately capable alternatives using well known technology that has been around well over a century.
The basic ideas in the original engine weren't necessarily bad, but there was no analysis to find a best quality practical solution. The rotary valve looks like another item that will go into the books as a bad example, later.
