Not sure about a "competitive advantage" but you must be in
the running for a Darwin Award. Obviously Covid-19 holds no
fears for you.

Dave, I've already run my engine at 200ft more times than I can remember! Damn near every self-launch seems to involve climbing through 200ft with the engine out

To be clear, I haven't suggested doing anything dangerous. I'm exploring very reasonable operating limitations for a hypethetical motor glider that is orders of magnitude more reliable than a traditional one. Since a couple orders of magnitude is a VERY BIG difference, you really can't draw on experiences or practices from traditional motor gliders. It's a bit of a paradym shift so you really need to look at the math to get your mind around it.

My premise is this:

1) It is physically possible to install a redundant sustainer system on an existing FES motor glider.

2) The math suggests that there is room to improve reliability by several orders of magnitude.

3) With sufficient reliability, one could SAFELY operate over unlandable terrain, or lower decision heights. SAFELY means that the risk can be made very small relative to our other flight risks (stall/spin, mid-air, weather, etc.).

By the way, my cousin flies accross the ocean for work. My ex flies commercial heli tours over volcanos. My neighbor's airplane is certified to fly in known icing conditions. My aerial applicator buddies fly around at 5ft AGL with only ONE engine. I don't think it's very far-fetched to imagine an occasional trip down to 200ft AGL in a motor glider with redundant propulsion.. Unfortunately, existing motor gliders are just soooooo ****ty that we can't imagine starting the engine unless our fingers are crossed and we're at least 1,000ft above a landing field. Many accept this as reality, but I see this as an area for substantial improvement.