Dennis Fetters Mini 500

[EmailMe]

I have no ties to any of this Dennis Fetters guy or the Mini 500
debacle.

I ran across these postings about Dennis a few months back and started
reading all I could on the groups and the web about Fetters and this
helicopter.

All I can say is unbelievable....

I have read things tossed back and forth and finally found it all
encapsulated in a single source from a real reporter that actually
took the time to look into things.

http://www.mini500.com/oldmini/channel4.html

I bring all of this up for only one reason, this entire history of the
Mini 500 from 1990 forward is a good example of why one must do their
homework before becoming involved in any new aircraft that will be
deemed experimental.

My condolences to the families of those unfortunate soles that
unwittingly became involved in this craft and as a result were injured
or lost there lives.

I would look forward to conversing with any parties that, were in the
employ of, or were otherwise associated with, the manufacturer of the
Mini 500 from 1990 forward.

[Dennis Fetters]

EmailMe wrote:
> I have no ties to any of this Dennis Fetters guy or the Mini 500
> debacle.
>
> I ran across these postings about Dennis a few months back and started
> reading all I could on the groups and the web about Fetters and this
> helicopter.
>
> All I can say is unbelievable....
>
> I have read things tossed back and forth and finally found it all
> encapsulated in a single source from a real reporter that actually
> took the time to look into things.
>
> http://www.mini500.com/oldmini/channel4.html
>
> I bring all of this up for only one reason, this entire history of the
> Mini 500 from 1990 forward is a good example of why one must do their
> homework before becoming involved in any new aircraft that will be
> deemed experimental.
>
> My condolences to the families of those unfortunate soles that
> unwittingly became involved in this craft and as a result were injured
> or lost there lives.
>
> I would look forward to conversing with any parties that, were in the
> employ of, or were otherwise associated with, the manufacturer of the
> Mini 500 from 1990 forward.
>
>



Well, why don't you just converse with me? After all, you seem to want
to know something about it, wouldn't it have made since to talk to the
guy that knows the most about it?

The reporters and people interviewed in the story you read at the site
above just happen to be some of the most dishonest reporters writing today.

We all know Jim Campbell and his reputation, no need to dwell on that.
We all were here when the host of that web site Fred Stewart lied to us
all about his involvement and intentions. We all know that the convicted
child beater Rick Stitt was paid by Fred Stewart to spy, sabotage and
help destroy Revolution Helicopter. We all know that Joe Rinke was
trying to make his own helicopter and needed Revolution out of the way.
Everyone in the story had personal ambitions why they attacked
Revolution Helicopter, everyone knows that.

As for the reporter Lisa Brown, she came to my factory and promised to
do a balanced story, and ended up not reporting correctly on one single
fact that we gave her. Her report was completely one sided and full of
lies and misinformation. I even told that to her face after she made the
report.

If this is what you have based your opinion on, then you don't have the
full facts. If you have posted this to make trouble for some reason,
then go have fun with it, I don't have time to play with you. But if you
posted this to learn more about the subject, then you are welcome to
email me directly and I'm happy to tell you the true story. Below is one
of the final flight reviews made by a highly reputable magazine
Kitplanes, about the flight characteristics of the Mini-500 before
Revolution was forced to closed it's doors. Read it, makes it a little
hard to believe what the others had to say.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters



****************8
Additional Material Not Included in November 1999 Flight Evaluation
Six Questions posed by Bill Phillips; Answers by Ken Armstrong and
Dennis Fetters

The November '99 issue of KITPLANES contains the most complete flight
evaluation of the Mini 500 that we know about. The Mini 500 is a
single-seat kit helicopter sold in the hundreds by Revolution Helicopter
Corp., Inc. (RHCI) of Exelsior Springs, Missouri. Pilot/author Ken
Armstrong is a regular contributor to our bimonthly "Rotor Roundup"
column and among the few truly qualified to evaluate homebuilt
helicopters. A 9000-hour professional pilot who makes his living
teaching helicopter fire-fighting techniques around the world, he has
flown more than 40 types
of helicopters including most of the well-known homebuilts.

In his article, Armstrong acknowledges the controversy surrounding the
Mini 500, which has accumulated more than 40 accidents including eight
fatalities from among the 400+ kits sold. He describes his initial
difficulty correlating collective pitch and throttle to maintain rotor
rpm "in the green," noting that most of his flight time is in
turbine-powered helicopters with governors that do not require close
attention to power applied.

He notes the animosity that has grown between Mini 500 designer/RHCI
co-owner Dennis Fetters and some customers. A small but local group of
owner/pilots has accused RCHI of selling a kit with design and
workmanship defects. A common complaint has been incorporation of a
two-stroke engine (the liquid-cooled Rotax 582) for the Mini 500.
Numerous engine failures in the air have resulted in accidents, some of
which have been fatal.

While Fetters has contended consistently that all of the fatalities and
most of the other accidents have resulted from pilot and/or builder
error, critics have faulted RHCI for unsatisfactory customer support
including failure to develop fixes for technical problems such as
excessive vibration
leading to cracking frames, inadequate power, and defective parts
including the early clutch systems.

In his article, Armstrong says that he finds the major technical
problems have been solved with RHCI fixes including a mast support that
smooths the rotor and an engine performance-enhancement package (PEP--a
tuned-exhaust system). Some pilots have reported that the Mini 500
pitches down unacceptably after a power reduction or failure. After
entering a number of practice autorotations, Armstrong concurs with the
company that pitchdown was not a problem with the fully equipped Mini
500 he flew. He acknowledges that operation of any helicopter is not to
be taken lightly, but he
describes the Mini 500 as having "very good handling" including its
autorotation characteristics.

Armstrong's article will not satisfy the Mini 500's most ardent critics,
who have castigated us for continuing to accept advertising from RHCI
for its new two-place Voyager 500, which is powered by a three-cylinder,
two-stroke engine developed for the application.

Among the critics is Bill Phillips, a retired nuclear physicist and an
airplane and helicopter pilot who has flown a Mini 500. He was elected
president of the International Experimental Helicopter Association Inc.
(IEHA), which was formed in a February '99 Florida meeting of Mini 500
owners and others unhappy with their helicopters or company response to
problems. Phillips said they intended to finance their own fixes if RHCI
did not find acceptable Mini 500 technical solutions soon. At this
point, Phillips remains unconvinced that RHCI's PEP and mast suppport
systems
solve the power and frame-cracking problems, but IEHA has yet to offer
its own technical solutions.

Knowing about the upcoming article on the Mini 500, Phillips posed the
questions you will find below. Lacking space in KITPLANES to publish
them, we committed to what you see here on www.kitplanes.com: Phillips
six questions, comments by Ken Armstrong as he felt he could address
them, and official responses by Dennis Fetters of RHCI. We have no
illusion that this effort will change opinions of those whose views are
now polarized, but the airing of these issues is in the KITPLANES
tradition of continuing in-depth, unbiased reporting of the Mini 500 saga.

Questions and Answers

Bill Phillips: 1. What about running the Rotax at 104% continuously?
Rotax itself does not warrant this engine in this application. The
manual states that the rpm for 104% should only be used for 5 minutes,
yet the Mini 500 will not fly with most people in it unless it's run at
104%, which is nearly 6800 rpm. Rotax says maximum continuous is 6500
rpm. There is simply no margin left at 6500 rpm, and the engine is not
designed to be run at 6800 rpm for more than 5 minutes.

Ken Armstrong: RPM limits are usually related to the possibility of
overheating. In my Mini 500 flying--including extensive hovering where
the engine works hardest--heat was well within the green.

Dennis Fetters: Statement No. 1 is totally incorrect. First, Rotax does
warrant the 582 engines used in the Mini 500 and always has. Next, the
Rotax manual mentioned is for airplane or propeller installations only!
Helicopters are very different and use the power and rpm in a different
manner. All helicopters run their engines at 100 to 104% rpm while
constantly changing the power settings.
So at 104% rpm at cruise flight, the power required and used is about
70%, a normal usage. Operating at 104% rpm will not hurt the Rotax
engine in the least bit. In fact, it works better running it at a
continuous rpm and varying the power level. This will result in more
stable exhaust gas temperatures, more constant engine running
temperatures, and less carbon buildup. To date, there has not been a
single Rotax engine failure in a Mini 500 due to the overexertion of the
engine.


Phillips: 2. The use of Nylock nuts in the engine compartment? The
control pushrods are directed through an engine compartment where the
temperature gets to 300º F. on every flight. I'm not making
this up; I've measured it. This is simply not a standard accepted
practice in the aviation industry. All locknuts firewall forward must be
metal locking nuts, not plastic or fiber nuts.

Armstrong: No comment.

Fetters: First, it is not true that the engine compartment runs at 300º
F. If it did, the fuel in the tank would blow out the vents in a raging
boil, the fiberglass body would become soft and deform, and the pilot
could not sit with his back against the firewall. The use of Nylock nuts
is standard in aviation, even in the engine compartment. We have never
had a single failure or melting of one. Anywhere that gets hot, we use
steel locking nuts.

Phillips: 3. I have never seen a Mini 500 or a Voyager without the main
rotorbades warped with a forward sweep. It's probably a manufacturing
systematic error. The blades are baked with an aluminum spar in the
leading edge. They come out of the mold perfectly straight. But due to the
difference in coefficients of linear expansion between the aluminum and
the composite materials, the aluminum contracts more as the blade cools
and warps it in a forward sweep. I suspect that much of the vibration
the machine produces in forward flight is due to this unstable forward
sweep as
the blade hunts and seeks for stability in the feathering axis. I've had
this argument with [KITPLANES Editor] Dave Martin. Dave uses the Blanik
sailplane as an example of a forward sweep aircraft that is
pitch-stable. This is only true because the Blanik has a tail and the
forward sweep does not cause diverging pitching moments for the whole
airplane because the tail has more
authority. Simply sweep that wing forward a bit more and it would
diverge. A helicopter airfoil has no tail. A very tiny forward sweep is
divergent in pitch.

Armstrong: In my flights, I found this not to be an issue. There was no
apparent instaility that would be caused by blades hunting.

Fetters: It is necessary to relieve cyclic and collective pressures by
allowing for the proper amount of lift to occur forward of the pitching
point of the blade, or using springs, or both. This is done on other
helicopters with a narrow and less efficient chord width, or sweeping
the blades forward. The Mini 500 blade does this with a slight forward
sweep, and their rigidity and centrifugal forces help
maintain stability. It is ridiculous to say that the blades are "hunting
and seeking" because of this; the Mini 500 flies extremely stable. Look
at many of the more modern designs such as the paddle-tip
blades. Airplane control surfaces also do this with a certain amount of
area ahead of the pivot point. The well known helicopter analysis
engineer R.W. Prouty with Rotor & Wing writes that there are
no negative effects from forward-swept rotors.

Phillips: 4. What about two-per-rev imbalance? No one tomy knowledge has
been able to balance the machine in ETL and eliminate the "two-pers."
[ETL means entering translational lift--accelerating through 15-20 mph
in a Mini 500, according to Fetters.] This has led to frame
cracking in 30 to 50 hours on the majority of the ships that have flown
that long. My guess is that the problem lies in the engine mount and the
"hunting and seeking" of the main rotorblades in ETL.

Armstrong: In my Mini 500 flying, there was no notable lateral vibration.

Fetters: It is true that the Mini 500 had a two-per-rev problem that
caused some frames to crack. This problem was solved and made available
to all owners some time ago, but still our detractors don't acknowledge
its existence. It is called the Mast Support Upgrade. The "hunting and
seeking"
of the blades is not even close to having been the problem. RHCI found
the problem and made the fix available at our cost, and this problem is
no longer a valid point.


Phillips: 5. Nose-down pitch upon loss of power in translational lift
has been a problem. The horizontal stabilizer is in the downwash in
forward flight. This causes a positive pitching moment that RHCI has
overcome by essentially adding an elevator with a negative deflection.
This works fine
as long as the air is being pumped down by a running engine. At the
instant the engine quits, the downwash quits. The machine pitches over
violently. This is particularly dangerous since it's exactly
the wrong move to induce autorotation. It's important that the rotor
disk be pitched up so air can flow up through the blades and drive the
system before the inertia dissipates and it becomes
unrecoverable (which happens below 80% rpm). Many owners have told me
they have pitched over almost vertical. I suspect the boom chops have
followed from this scenario because the normal reflex is to pull back on
the stick, tilt the rotor system backward and chop off the tail before
the fuselage can pendulously respond to the disk pitch change.

Armstrong: I did not experience any significant nose drop when entering
practice autorotations. The approaches, however, were gentle and I knew
when they were coming.

Fetters: There is no significant nose drop in the Mini 500 if it is set
up right and flown correctly. Now with the Mast Support Upgrade, there
is almost no drop at all. The original problem occurred with a dramatic
nose drop after a member of the detractor group told everyone over
theInternet newsgroups that RHCI was wrong to set the negative blade tip
angle at 0.5º for proper entrance to an autorotation. Instead, he said
to set them at a negative 2.0º! This would suck down the nose of
the helicopter as you could imagine, and it flies the rotor blades 10
inches closer to the tail boom.
Also, the Mini 500 Pilot's Operating Handbook says to lead with back
cyclic before lowering the collective. Again, this was not a problem if
set up and performed right, and it has been improved
on since.


Phillips: 6. Many of the rotating parts lack castelated-pinned locknuts.
If you examine a tailrotor system on a Mini 500 or the Voyager 500, you
will find Nylock nuts again. This is just not normal accepted procedure.
All rotating parts should have hardware that is pinned or has metal locking
nuts with PAL nuts over them.

Armstrong: No comment.

Fetters: There are no rotating parts in the Mini 500 that use Nylock
nuts or all-metal, self-locking nuts. All control joints use an inner
sleeve, and the bolt and nut are tightened to full torque to
retain the sleeve. All working and pivoting is done on the sleeve, never
on the bolt. Therefore
our design is correct. It is only necessary to use a castelated and
pinned nut on a bolt that is used as a pivot, or in a place where
constant disassembly is required.

Phillips: I understand that most of the pilots who are still flying
their ships are low time. Not only that, they are low-time builders too.
Most of them have not built airplanes. Fred Stewart, Joe Rinke,
Allen Barklage and Gil Armbruster--just to name a few--never built an
airplane. They simply
assembled a helicopter and did not know the dangers or flaws in hardware
used by RHCI in this ship.

Fetters: Wrong again. Fred Stewart previously built a RotorWay
helicopter and was trained to operate an RHCI Service Center. Joe Rinke
tries to sell upgrades to Mini 500 customers and is now saying he will
come out with his own helicopter design, and he has no experience?
Sounds like an uphill battle to me. Allen Barklage had 33,000+ hours in
helicopters, and he and Gil Armbruster were expert speakers at the
detractors' meeting in Dallas in 1998. This is who was teaching about
safety and maintenance, and you are saying they didn't have experience?

Editor's Comments

While we're at it, let's get a response from RHCI on two other accusations:

1. That the company refuses customer support and parts sales from anyone
who joined the "detractors' group" (as Fetters calls them) or who joined
IEHA. Fetters flatly denies that any RHCI customer has ever been refused
support or parts sales.

2. That a $750 transfer fee is required to be paid to RHCI by any second
or subsequent Mini 500 owner to buy parts or get factory support.
Fetters acknowledges that such a policy was in effect
briefly but was dropped more than a year ago. Now, any owner who is
willing to sign the
standard purchase contract required of original kit buyers has access to
parts and service at regular prices, Fetters says.

Finally, I need to put some perspective on this tome. Ken Armstrong
alludes to the clashes of personalities surrounding the Mini 500. Here's
some insight. Fred Stewart--who helped organize the critics' meetings in
Dallas and Florida--was once RHCI's most active dealer. He and Dennis
Fetters were close friends. Stewart says he became disillusioned because
of RHCI's failure to support the product and his customers. Fetters has
supplied a pound of e-mail implicating Fred Stewart,
Joe Rinke and others in what he sees as a conspiracy to put RHCI out of
business. Some of the evidence is linked to this magazine. In early
September, 1997, Lee Sarouhan (who was at the time a pilot/sales rep for
RHCI) called in an ad to the KITPLANES classified advertising manager. The
ad recruited helicopter engineers to work on a new two-place heli at
Mid-America Helicopters--Fred Stewart's company in Barnhart, Missouri.
Stewart has said that he was simply trying to spur Fetters to develop
RHCI's two-seat trainer more quickly; he cancelled the ad contract early
and did not hire the qualified engineer who responded to the ad.

On February 10, 1998, Lee Sarouhan used his RHCI office computer to send
a personal e-mail to a relative. The e-mail said, "Well, it looks like
Revolution Helo will go out of bizz in the next few
weeks. The good news, my project Mid-American Helicopter should start up
within a year...."
Sarouhan's e-mail was found by RHCI and he was fired on February 12.
Stewart continued to deny that a business relationship with Sarouhan
existed. Rinke--a Mini 500 customer--lost a lawsuit
brought by RHCI to to prevent him from marketing a turbine engine
conversion for the Mini 500 in
violation of his RHCI purchase contract. The court ordered him not to
sell turbine systems and not to fly his jet-powered Mini 500. Bill
Phillips initially supported Fetters' position, but the two fell out
after Stewart offered Phillips a Mini 500 for evaluation. Fetters says
he felt that RHCI was being blackmailed by Phillips to supply Mini 500
parts and upgrades. Phillips and others are not convinced
that the RHCI fixes--primarily the PEP and the Mast Support
Upgrade--solve the technical
problems.

[Jay]

I don't have a dog in this fight but...

Read the news story, and one of the main themes was "we got to do
something to change this." My response, don't buy this aircraft.
More regulation and lawyers will put the last nail in the coffin of
experimental aviation. Living life is not without risk; it's the
price of freedom. Its like all this money we're spending on post 9/11
security, whether or not you're safer is questionable, but the amount
of your life your will have to sell to your boss(freedom you have been
denied) to pay those taxes is certainly greater. And isn't this whole
thing about loss of "life"?

So condolences to the families of those lost pursuing their dreams.
Think carefully, choose wisely in everything you do especially
building and flying aircraft.

BTW, a single 2 stroke motor is really best on aircraft and airports
that allow a safe landing anywhere any time.

Regards

(EmailMe) wrote in message >...
> I have no ties to any of this Dennis Fetters guy or the Mini 500
> debacle.
>
> I ran across these postings about Dennis a few months back and started
> reading all I could on the groups and the web about Fetters and this
> helicopter.
>
> All I can say is unbelievable....
>
> I have read things tossed back and forth and finally found it all
> encapsulated in a single source from a real reporter that actually
> took the time to look into things.
>
> http://www.mini500.com/oldmini/channel4.html
>
> I bring all of this up for only one reason, this entire history of the
> Mini 500 from 1990 forward is a good example of why one must do their
> homework before becoming involved in any new aircraft that will be
> deemed experimental.
>
> My condolences to the families of those unfortunate soles that
> unwittingly became involved in this craft and as a result were injured
> or lost there lives.
>
> I would look forward to conversing with any parties that, were in the
> employ of, or were otherwise associated with, the manufacturer of the
> Mini 500 from 1990 forward.
>
>

[EmailMe]

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Well, why don't you just converse with me? After all, you seem to want
> to know something about it, wouldn't it have made since to talk to the
> guy that knows the most about it?

Thank you for the invite Mr. Fetters.

At this juncture I am more interested in hearing from those that were
in the previous employ or under contract to the manufacturer of the
Mini 500 from 1990 forward. I am not interested at this point in any
principals of the old firm.

Perhaps in the future you and I will have a chance to converse when I
am more educated on the history of this aircraft.

Thank you.

[Stealth Pilot]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:46:36 GMT, Dennis Fetters
> wrote:


>
>Phillips: 6. Many of the rotating parts lack castelated-pinned locknuts.
>If you examine a tailrotor system on a Mini 500 or the Voyager 500, you
>will find Nylock nuts again. This is just not normal accepted procedure.
>All rotating parts should have hardware that is pinned or has metal locking
>nuts with PAL nuts over them.
>
>Armstrong: No comment.
>
>Fetters: There are no rotating parts in the Mini 500 that use Nylock
>nuts or all-metal, self-locking nuts. All control joints use an inner
>sleeve, and the bolt and nut are tightened to full torque to
>retain the sleeve. All working and pivoting is done on the sleeve, never
>on the bolt. Therefore
>our design is correct. It is only necessary to use a castelated and
>pinned nut on a bolt that is used as a pivot, or in a place where
>constant disassembly is required.
>

The link arm to the tailwheel on my tailwind has a ball joint at each
end. The ball joints are fixed to the rudder bracket and tailwheel
bracket with AN3 bolts.
since these are swivelling joints and get a fair hammering on rough
ground I used castelated nuts and split pins to retain them. I must
have had to replace bolts and nuts about every six months because the
nuts would strip.
I discussed the problem with an aircraft mechanic friend of mine who
advised using nylock nuts. I replaced the bolts and nuts and over the
last 3 years of flying havent had to replace a single nut or bolt.
If you look at the nylocks and compare them to castelated nuts you
will find that they have almost twice the thread length.

my experience supports Denis's contention here. Sorry Bill.
Stealth Pilot
Australia.

[Brad Mallard]

I will put a little two cents in here. I was actually finishing a
Metallurgical Engineering degree at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa
a few years ago when the Areospace Engineering Department actually bought a
kit as a project for the department.

I was actually following along the process of construction because I had
planned for quite some time to build one as well. I kept notes on the
progress and talked with the select individuals chosen to actually construct
the craft. The Areospace department had only one instructor that was
helicopter rated and there is only one seat in this chopper, so it was never
a question of who was going to fly the bird.

According to the FAA report of the National Transportation Board ID #
ATL01A003 it says " On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a
University of Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided
with the ground and burst into flames."

This guy had thousands of logged hours, and numerous aviation ratings
including Commercial Helicopter and a repairman experimental aircraft
builder certificate. My thoughts of building a helicopter quit that day...

The full report can be read at www.ntsb.gov



"Jay" > wrote in message
om...
> I don't have a dog in this fight but...
>
> Read the news story, and one of the main themes was "we got to do
> something to change this." My response, don't buy this aircraft.
> More regulation and lawyers will put the last nail in the coffin of
> experimental aviation. Living life is not without risk; it's the
> price of freedom. Its like all this money we're spending on post 9/11
> security, whether or not you're safer is questionable, but the amount
> of your life your will have to sell to your boss(freedom you have been
> denied) to pay those taxes is certainly greater. And isn't this whole
> thing about loss of "life"?
>
> So condolences to the families of those lost pursuing their dreams.
> Think carefully, choose wisely in everything you do especially
> building and flying aircraft.
>
> BTW, a single 2 stroke motor is really best on aircraft and airports
> that allow a safe landing anywhere any time.
>
> Regards
>
> (EmailMe) wrote in message
>...
> > I have no ties to any of this Dennis Fetters guy or the Mini 500
> > debacle.
> >
> > I ran across these postings about Dennis a few months back and started
> > reading all I could on the groups and the web about Fetters and this
> > helicopter.
> >
> > All I can say is unbelievable....
> >
> > I have read things tossed back and forth and finally found it all
> > encapsulated in a single source from a real reporter that actually
> > took the time to look into things.
> >
> > http://www.mini500.com/oldmini/channel4.html
> >
> > I bring all of this up for only one reason, this entire history of the
> > Mini 500 from 1990 forward is a good example of why one must do their
> > homework before becoming involved in any new aircraft that will be
> > deemed experimental.
> >
> > My condolences to the families of those unfortunate soles that
> > unwittingly became involved in this craft and as a result were injured
> > or lost there lives.
> >
> > I would look forward to conversing with any parties that, were in the
> > employ of, or were otherwise associated with, the manufacturer of the
> > Mini 500 from 1990 forward.
> >
> >

[Dennis Fetters]

Brad Mallard wrote:
> I will put a little two cents in here. I was actually finishing a
> Metallurgical Engineering degree at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa
> a few years ago when the Areospace Engineering Department actually bought a
> kit as a project for the department.
>
> I was actually following along the process of construction because I had
> planned for quite some time to build one as well. I kept notes on the
> progress and talked with the select individuals chosen to actually construct
> the craft. The Areospace department had only one instructor that was
> helicopter rated and there is only one seat in this chopper, so it was never
> a question of who was going to fly the bird.
>
> According to the FAA report of the National Transportation Board ID #
> ATL01A003 it says " On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a
> University of Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided
> with the ground and burst into flames."
>
> This guy had thousands of logged hours, and numerous aviation ratings
> including Commercial Helicopter and a repairman experimental aircraft
> builder certificate. My thoughts of building a helicopter quit that day...
>
> The full report can be read at www.ntsb.gov
> "Jay" > wrote in message
> om...


Fetters wrote:
This is a little part of the problem here Brad. People don't tell the
complete story. In that way it will make a point opposite of what really
happened. Why would you do that? Here, lets go into the true, full facts:

************
On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a University of
Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided with the
ground and burst into flames while on approach to the Tuscaloosa
Municipal Airport, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. <cut>

According to the airport control tower operator, the helicopter had
completed three to four circuits in closed traffic to taxiway golf.
While on the downwind leg, the controller believed that the helicopter
had a sudden loss of engine power and began to descend. The tower
received no communications and the helicopters rotor rpm decreased and
appeared to stop before impact. Crash fire rescue trucks were on the
scene and the post-crash fire was extinguished within minutes.
****************


Fetters wrote:
Why did the engine quit? according to our files I do know that the
helicopter did not have all the mandatory AD's installed and should not
have been flying at all. I do know that the helicopter did not have the
mandatory PEP exhaust system installed which eliminated the need of
jetting after ambient temperature changes. I also know that he had left
the stock Rotax jetting in the engine and ignored our instructions to
change it from airplane jetting to helicopter jetting, which would cause
the engine to lean out and seize in a decent, as all of our advisories
and instructions said would happen. He also never even once signed and
returned a single AD notice as required.


***************
<cut>
According to the aircraft logbook, on September 28, 2000, the pilot had
modified the helicopters horizontal stabilizer by cutting off part of
the stabilizer behind mounting plates number 88 and number 98, and
removed the winglets. The pilot flew 10 traffic patterns in new
configuration. He noted in the logbook "less objectionable side to side
shaking, but balance still indicates vertical 1.5 ips in climb."
However, according to the FAA, this modification was not approved as
required by the experimental aircraft operating limitations.
<cut>
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The loss of engine power for undetermined reasons, and the pilot's
unapproved airframe modification that resulted in the loss of flight
control during the emergency descent.
*******************


Fetters wrote:
OK, now where was this the helicopters fault? The man was flying a kit
helicopter he built that didn't have the up-to-date mandatory upgrades,
he had the wrong jetting and he modified a sensitive part of the
airframe that directly allows proper entrance into an autorotation, and
he did not enter a proper autorotation after the engine quit, if he even
could after the modification. The FAA determined that it was pilot
error, who could disagree?

I hope this clears up any misconceptions from inadequate posting of
partial information.

Dennis Fetters

[Dennis Fetters]

EmailMe wrote:
> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>
>>Well, why don't you just converse with me? After all, you seem to want
>>to know something about it, wouldn't it have made since to talk to the
>>guy that knows the most about it?
>
>
> Thank you for the invite Mr. Fetters.
>
> At this juncture I am more interested in hearing from those that were
> in the previous employ or under contract to the manufacturer of the
> Mini 500 from 1990 forward. I am not interested at this point in any
> principals of the old firm.
>
> Perhaps in the future you and I will have a chance to converse when I
> am more educated on the history of this aircraft.
>
> Thank you.


Why? What do you hope to gain? I hope you're not contemplating buying a
Mini-500! I would strongly advise against buying any aircraft that no
longer has factory support, especially a helicopter.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters

[C.D.Damron]

> Fetters wrote:


Your answers are well rehearsed.

I'll summarize:

1) Accident reports conclude pilot error, Fetters is not responsible.

2) Builders did not comply with build instructions or AD's, Fetters is not
responsible.


Don't come here for a Baptism, Fetters, you won't get it. A few of us know
the truth.

[Brad Mallard]

The guy is dead from a Mini 500.



"Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
m...
> Brad Mallard wrote:
> > I will put a little two cents in here. I was actually finishing a
> > Metallurgical Engineering degree at the University of Alabama in
Tuscaloosa
> > a few years ago when the Areospace Engineering Department actually
bought a
> > kit as a project for the department.
> >
> > I was actually following along the process of construction because I had
> > planned for quite some time to build one as well. I kept notes on the
> > progress and talked with the select individuals chosen to actually
construct
> > the craft. The Areospace department had only one instructor that was
> > helicopter rated and there is only one seat in this chopper, so it was
never
> > a question of who was going to fly the bird.
> >
> > According to the FAA report of the National Transportation Board ID #
> > ATL01A003 it says " On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a
> > University of Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided
> > with the ground and burst into flames."
> >
> > This guy had thousands of logged hours, and numerous aviation ratings
> > including Commercial Helicopter and a repairman experimental aircraft
> > builder certificate. My thoughts of building a helicopter quit that
day...
> >
> > The full report can be read at www.ntsb.gov
> > "Jay" > wrote in message
> > om...
>
>
> Fetters wrote:
> This is a little part of the problem here Brad. People don't tell the
> complete story. In that way it will make a point opposite of what really
> happened. Why would you do that? Here, lets go into the true, full facts:
>
> ************
> On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a University of
> Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided with the
> ground and burst into flames while on approach to the Tuscaloosa
> Municipal Airport, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. <cut>
>
> According to the airport control tower operator, the helicopter had
> completed three to four circuits in closed traffic to taxiway golf.
> While on the downwind leg, the controller believed that the helicopter
> had a sudden loss of engine power and began to descend. The tower
> received no communications and the helicopters rotor rpm decreased and
> appeared to stop before impact. Crash fire rescue trucks were on the
> scene and the post-crash fire was extinguished within minutes.
> ****************
>
>
> Fetters wrote:
> Why did the engine quit? according to our files I do know that the
> helicopter did not have all the mandatory AD's installed and should not
> have been flying at all. I do know that the helicopter did not have the
> mandatory PEP exhaust system installed which eliminated the need of
> jetting after ambient temperature changes. I also know that he had left
> the stock Rotax jetting in the engine and ignored our instructions to
> change it from airplane jetting to helicopter jetting, which would cause
> the engine to lean out and seize in a decent, as all of our advisories
> and instructions said would happen. He also never even once signed and
> returned a single AD notice as required.
>
>
> ***************
> <cut>
> According to the aircraft logbook, on September 28, 2000, the pilot had
> modified the helicopters horizontal stabilizer by cutting off part of
> the stabilizer behind mounting plates number 88 and number 98, and
> removed the winglets. The pilot flew 10 traffic patterns in new
> configuration. He noted in the logbook "less objectionable side to side
> shaking, but balance still indicates vertical 1.5 ips in climb."
> However, according to the FAA, this modification was not approved as
> required by the experimental aircraft operating limitations.
> <cut>
> The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
> cause(s) of this accident as follows:
> The loss of engine power for undetermined reasons, and the pilot's
> unapproved airframe modification that resulted in the loss of flight
> control during the emergency descent.
> *******************
>
>
> Fetters wrote:
> OK, now where was this the helicopters fault? The man was flying a kit
> helicopter he built that didn't have the up-to-date mandatory upgrades,
> he had the wrong jetting and he modified a sensitive part of the
> airframe that directly allows proper entrance into an autorotation, and
> he did not enter a proper autorotation after the engine quit, if he even
> could after the modification. The FAA determined that it was pilot
> error, who could disagree?
>
> I hope this clears up any misconceptions from inadequate posting of
> partial information.
>
> Dennis Fetters
>

[Dennis Fetters]

Brad Mallard wrote:
> The guy is dead from a Mini 500.


Brad, That's really putting it in a way that makes it sound like it was
the helicopters fault when it was not. We're all adults, is it to much
to be fair here?

The man is dead because he was attempting to fly a "helicopter" that was
not correctly built, not correctly jetted, and had been modified in a
manner that could have adversely affected it's flight characteristics,
and he did not properly autorotate after he had an engine failure due to
his own failure to follow simple instructions.

That is the proper and fair description. It's sad to see someone die in
a completely preventable accident.

Couldn't that happen in any helicopter design with the same scenario, right?

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters



> "Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>Brad Mallard wrote:
>>
>>>I will put a little two cents in here. I was actually finishing a
>>>Metallurgical Engineering degree at the University of Alabama in
>
> Tuscaloosa
>
>>>a few years ago when the Areospace Engineering Department actually
>
> bought a
>
>>>kit as a project for the department.
>>>
>>>I was actually following along the process of construction because I had
>>>planned for quite some time to build one as well. I kept notes on the
>>>progress and talked with the select individuals chosen to actually
>
> construct
>
>>>the craft. The Areospace department had only one instructor that was
>>>helicopter rated and there is only one seat in this chopper, so it was
>
> never
>
>>>a question of who was going to fly the bird.
>>>
>>>According to the FAA report of the National Transportation Board ID #
>>>ATL01A003 it says " On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a
>>>University of Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided
>>>with the ground and burst into flames."
>>>
>>>This guy had thousands of logged hours, and numerous aviation ratings
>>>including Commercial Helicopter and a repairman experimental aircraft
>>>builder certificate. My thoughts of building a helicopter quit that
>
> day...
>
>>>The full report can be read at www.ntsb.gov
>>>"Jay" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>>
>>Fetters wrote:
>>This is a little part of the problem here Brad. People don't tell the
>>complete story. In that way it will make a point opposite of what really
>>happened. Why would you do that? Here, lets go into the true, full facts:
>>
>>************
>>On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a University of
>>Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided with the
>>ground and burst into flames while on approach to the Tuscaloosa
>>Municipal Airport, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. <cut>
>>
>>According to the airport control tower operator, the helicopter had
>>completed three to four circuits in closed traffic to taxiway golf.
>>While on the downwind leg, the controller believed that the helicopter
>>had a sudden loss of engine power and began to descend. The tower
>>received no communications and the helicopters rotor rpm decreased and
>>appeared to stop before impact. Crash fire rescue trucks were on the
>>scene and the post-crash fire was extinguished within minutes.
>>****************
>>
>>
>>Fetters wrote:
>>Why did the engine quit? according to our files I do know that the
>>helicopter did not have all the mandatory AD's installed and should not
>>have been flying at all. I do know that the helicopter did not have the
>>mandatory PEP exhaust system installed which eliminated the need of
>>jetting after ambient temperature changes. I also know that he had left
>>the stock Rotax jetting in the engine and ignored our instructions to
>>change it from airplane jetting to helicopter jetting, which would cause
>>the engine to lean out and seize in a decent, as all of our advisories
>>and instructions said would happen. He also never even once signed and
>>returned a single AD notice as required.
>>
>>
>>***************
>><cut>
>>According to the aircraft logbook, on September 28, 2000, the pilot had
>>modified the helicopters horizontal stabilizer by cutting off part of
>>the stabilizer behind mounting plates number 88 and number 98, and
>>removed the winglets. The pilot flew 10 traffic patterns in new
>>configuration. He noted in the logbook "less objectionable side to side
>>shaking, but balance still indicates vertical 1.5 ips in climb."
>>However, according to the FAA, this modification was not approved as
>>required by the experimental aircraft operating limitations.
>><cut>
>>The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
>>cause(s) of this accident as follows:
>>The loss of engine power for undetermined reasons, and the pilot's
>>unapproved airframe modification that resulted in the loss of flight
>>control during the emergency descent.
>>*******************
>>
>>
>>Fetters wrote:
>>OK, now where was this the helicopters fault? The man was flying a kit
>>helicopter he built that didn't have the up-to-date mandatory upgrades,
>>he had the wrong jetting and he modified a sensitive part of the
>>airframe that directly allows proper entrance into an autorotation, and
>>he did not enter a proper autorotation after the engine quit, if he even
>>could after the modification. The FAA determined that it was pilot
>>error, who could disagree?
>>
>>I hope this clears up any misconceptions from inadequate posting of
>>partial information.
>>
>>Dennis Fetters
>>
>
>
>

[Dennis Fetters]

C.D.Damron wrote:
>>Fetters wrote:
>
>
>
> Your answers are well rehearsed.


But true answers. What more would you want? Isn't that what really
matters? Is the facts so hard to swallow? Why do you feel the need to
imply something else?


> I'll summarize:
>
> 1) Accident reports conclude pilot error, Fetters is not responsible.
>
> 2) Builders did not comply with build instructions or AD's, Fetters is not
> responsible.
>
>
> Don't come here for a Baptism, Fetters, you won't get it. A few of us know
> the truth.


Nor do I want it from you or anyone else here. Honestly, you don't
deserve to give it. I know the truth, that's all that matters.

A few of you say you know the truth? Well, what is that? Was this last
accident talked about without the full facts the "truth" you say you
know about? The real truth is that there still has been no deaths in a
Mini-500 that was the fault of the design or flight characteristics. For
some reason you may not like that answer, but it is the truth!

I will adjust that statement. Now that there is no factory support, I do
fear that there will someday be accidents due to the lack of sustained
testing that occurred on a daily bases at the factory to stay ahead of
unforeseen problems, thus why we came out with a few AD's in the past.
That is why I recommend all Mini-500 activity be stopped.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters

[C.D.Damron]

I'm not implying something else, I'm saying something else.

You parse words with the best of them. You pick and choose among the many
truths related to the record of your aircraft.


"Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
...
> But true answers. What more would you want? Isn't that what really
> matters? Is the facts so hard to swallow? Why do you feel the need to
> imply something else?

[Dennis Fetters]

C.D.Damron wrote:
> I'm not implying something else, I'm saying something else.
>
> You parse words with the best of them. You pick and choose among the many
> truths related to the record of your aircraft.


Pick and choose what? Truth is truth. Facts are facts. Please, please
show me what I omitted that would make what I said untrue or the fault
of the aircraft, in any case or crash. Please show me proof of your
accusation. Please prove yourself right. I sincerely invite you to do so.

The problem I just finished proving again was that some people here do
just what you accuse me of doing. They said a Mini crashed and implied
it was the fault of the aircraft. I showed that was wrong and nor some
of you are upset I did so, and I've done it time and time again, without
distorting or omitting any fact. Please prove otherwise.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters


> "Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>But true answers. What more would you want? Isn't that what really
>>matters? Is the facts so hard to swallow? Why do you feel the need to
>>imply something else?

[Matt Whiting]

Brad Mallard wrote:

> The guy is dead from a Mini 500.

Really? Sounds like he is dead from not following the manufacturer's
recommendations. It is sad that he is dead, but stupidity can be fatal,
especially when it occurs in relation to aviation.


Matt

[Rich]

Dennis Fetters > wrote in message >...

> > Your answers are well rehearsed.
>
>
> But true answers. What more would you want? Isn't that what really
> matters? Is the facts so hard to swallow? Why do you feel the need to
> imply something else?

The truth is it's really stupid to design, sell, or fly a helicopter
powered by a small 2-stroke engine.

Anyone dumb enough to fly it kills only themselves.
Anyone dumb enough to design and sell them should feel somewhat
responsible for those who die in them.

Rich

[Dennis Fetters]

Rich wrote:
> The truth is it's really stupid to design, sell, or fly a helicopter
> powered by a small 2-stroke engine.
>
> Anyone dumb enough to fly it kills only themselves.
> Anyone dumb enough to design and sell them should feel somewhat
> responsible for those who die in them.
>
> Rich


Why? the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered engines
quit because it failed from over excursion. Not one Rotax in a Mini-500
failed from the engine wearing out, ever. The only failures that ever
occurred was from failure to jet the engine according to instructions,
using poor fuel below 86 octane, or running out of fuel, or improper
coolant mix or leak, but never the fault of the engine. Nothing beats
the power to weight of a 2-stroke and the ease of maintenance. It was
the right engine.

So where is this the fault of the designer or the aircraft? It was made
plan in instructions, AD's and advisories not to make these mistakes. We
flew the factory helicopters hundreds of hours to prove the design
worked. Sure there were some development problems, but each one was
solved and made available. The truth is that the engine worked well.

Like it or not, your comments are unfounded, uninformed, based on lack
of experience and unappreciated.

Dennis Fetters

[Blueskies]

..
"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message ...
> Brad Mallard wrote:
>
> > The guy is dead from a Mini 500.
>
> Really? Sounds like he is dead from not following the manufacturer's
> recommendations. It is sad that he is dead, but stupidity can be fatal,
> especially when it occurs in relation to aviation.
>
>
> Matt
>

I think we all need to blame gravity, or maybe the earth, or maybe the adventurous spirit of man. He chose to do what he
did. Freedom is a wonderful thing. It does have its responsibilities though. Ignorance can be bliss, and it can kill
you.
--
Dan D.
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html

[Kyle Boatright]

"Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
...
> Rich wrote:
> > The truth is it's really stupid to design, sell, or fly a helicopter
> > powered by a small 2-stroke engine.
> >
> > Anyone dumb enough to fly it kills only themselves.
> > Anyone dumb enough to design and sell them should feel somewhat
> > responsible for those who die in them.
> >
> > Rich
>
>
> Why? the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered engines
> quit because it failed from over excursion. Not one Rotax in a Mini-500
> failed from the engine wearing out, ever. The only failures that ever
> occurred was from failure to jet the engine according to instructions,
> using poor fuel below 86 octane, or running out of fuel, or improper
> coolant mix or leak, but never the fault of the engine. Nothing beats
> the power to weight of a 2-stroke and the ease of maintenance. It was
> the right engine.
>
> So where is this the fault of the designer or the aircraft? It was made
> plan in instructions, AD's and advisories not to make these mistakes. We
> flew the factory helicopters hundreds of hours to prove the design
> worked. Sure there were some development problems, but each one was
> solved and made available. The truth is that the engine worked well.
>
> Like it or not, your comments are unfounded, uninformed, based on lack
> of experience and unappreciated.
>
> Dennis Fetters

Dennis,

Your statement "the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered
engines quit because it failed from over excursion (sic)" may be correct,
but I doubt that you have the tear-down reports and expert knowledge to
*prove* the claim. To me, the bigger issue is the one Rich alluded to - 2
stroke engines are notoriously unreliable compared to their 4 stroke
cousins. ALL of the ultralight guys I know with more than a couple of
hundred hours behind 2 strokes have suffered engine events. Seized engines,
partially seized engines, exhaust failures that lead to power loss, etc.
Because of the reliability issue, 2 stroke engines are simply not suitable
for helicopter power plants. You know that, as does anyone else who is
familiar with the history of 2 stroke engines.

Now, if you wanted to build and fly your own 2 stroke powered heli, that's
fine, but kitting the thing and selling it to the dumb masses just isn't
right. Presumably, the target buyer for a 2 stroke powered kit helicopter
is either a big-time risk taker or is simply ignorant of the risks involved.

KB

[Rich]

Dennis Fetters > wrote in message >...

> > The truth is it's really stupid to design, sell, or fly a helicopter
> > powered by a small 2-stroke engine.
>
> Why? the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered engines
> quit because it failed from over excursion
> Like it or not, your comments are unfounded, uninformed, based on lack
> of experience and unappreciated.

Rotax Operators Manual, page 4-2 "Warning: This engine, by its design,
is subject to sudden stoppage".

Evidently, you didn't read that far.

Rich

[C.D.Damron]

"Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
m...
> C.D.Damron wrote:
> Pick and choose what? Truth is truth. Facts are facts. Please, please
> show me what I omitted that would make what I said untrue or the fault
> of the aircraft, in any case or crash. Please show me proof of your
> accusation. Please prove yourself right. I sincerely invite you to do so.
>
> The problem I just finished proving again was that some people here do
> just what you accuse me of doing. They said a Mini crashed and implied
> it was the fault of the aircraft. I showed that was wrong and nor some
> of you are upset I did so, and I've done it time and time again, without
> distorting or omitting any fact. Please prove otherwise.


Dennis,

From time to time, you show up on this forum to defend yourself against
defamation. You are nothing, if not persistent.

There is a record of the truths you have selectively presented and the lies
that you cannot escape. It is interesting that the truths you present are
as damaging as any of your lies.

It is true that pilot error has been officially attributed to most, if not
all, Mini-500 accidents and fatalities. You might actually believe that
this absolves your design and production of any responsibility. If this is
the case, you are probably the only one to share this view. I would contend
that you are factual, but far from honest when you rest your case on this
bit of aviation trivia.

I would be happy to explain myself further, but you know exactly what I'm
talking about. You have heard it before from myself, others, and your own
conscience.

Beyond this "truth" you like to present, there is no problem documenting
your lies and deceit. I would be happy to reveal them, in detail.

[Dennis Fetters]

KB,
Thank you for your well spoken opinion. Opinions are always welcome when
put across in a civilized professional manner as you have done. I with
more people had your manners.


Kyle Boatright wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> Your statement "the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered
> engines quit because it failed from over excursion (sic)" may be correct,
> but I doubt that you have the tear-down reports and expert knowledge to
> *prove* the claim.


Actually, I personally attended the advanced Rotax engine maintenance
and installation courses in Vernon BC Canada, along with later sending
several of my employees to the school. I was the first human to fly a
Rotax powered Gyroplane, and I received the first 532 Rotax ever shipped
to the aviation industry, and the first to fly a 532 Rotax on any kind
of aircraft. I'm the one that showed Rotax the way to cool the liquid
cooled engines at 160F when they said it was OK to run them at 210F.
They sent me their first 582 rotax and I was the first to fly it in any
type of aircraft. They sent me the first engines because they knew I
could make them work and report back when something needed to be
changed. When ever there was a problem I was the one that inspected the
engines, and I did this many, many times. In almost all cases it was not
the engines fault, that is after Rotax overcome a few unforeseen startup
problems.
I have plenty of knowledge about Rotax engines and how to make them work
and what makes them fail.


To me, the bigger issue is the one Rich alluded to - 2
> stroke engines are notoriously unreliable compared to their 4 stroke
> cousins. ALL of the ultralight guys I know with more than a couple of
> hundred hours behind 2 strokes have suffered engine events. Seized engines,
> partially seized engines, exhaust failures that lead to power loss, etc.
> Because of the reliability issue, 2 stroke engines are simply not suitable
> for helicopter power plants. You know that, as does anyone else who is
> familiar with the history of 2 stroke engines.


There is a reason. I have found over my years of working and flying
Rotax, that literally 98% of all Rotax engine failures is installation.
Even today, here at my airport people bring their airplane or
helicopters to me when their Rotax has a problem. In every case it has
been installation problems, either designed wrong by the factory or
modified by the builder. In every case after I rebuild the engine I must
redesign the engine mounting and cooling system. In every case that
airplane or helicopter performs better, runs cooler and has no further
problems.

How many times have you seen someone cook a Rotax engine, send it in and
have it rebuilt, and put it back in the aircraft without changing the
installation? About every time! Well, what should you then expect to
happen? The engine quits again, duh! Stupid Rotax!! This is from many
factory designed installations that are poorly conceived, and customers
that fail to follow instructions. Think about it. This dude spends years
building an airplane kit, gets the airframe done and it looks beautiful!
But then he gets impatient and ****-installs the engine because he wants
to go fly now. How many times have I seen this happen!

The engine will only run as good as the installation and maintenance
performed. Period. Same goes for a 4 stroke, but since 4 strokes are
more expensive and fewer they seem to be more respected and more care is
provided.


> Now, if you wanted to build and fly your own 2 stroke powered heli, that's
> fine, but kitting the thing and selling it to the dumb masses just isn't
> right. Presumably, the target buyer for a 2 stroke powered kit helicopter
> is either a big-time risk taker or is simply ignorant of the risks involved.
>
> KB


With hindsight being 20-20, I find it hard to argue that point. The
2-stroke Rotax in a Mini-500 has and is functioning very well with those
that properly install it with the proper jetting and PEP exhaust, and
operate and maintain it as designed. The problem has been with, as you
call it, the "dumb masses". It was defiantly wrong of me to think that
ordinary people had the ability and discipline to properly build, fly
and apply maintenance to a helicopter. The fault had not been the
helicopter, because it even today performs just fine, but in the hands
of most people it is beyond their reach.

I provided an affordable helicopter kit that would perform as our
factory ships performed if assembled correctly, maintained and
modifications added as ours were. I provided excellent instructions, up
do date web site, news letters, AD notifications and daily assistance on
the phone. I provided constant factory testing and developments to keep
ahead. We held the tail rotor gearboxes from customers until they
provided proof of instruction, and so on. We had factory maintenance and
building courses and offered free inspections to anyone that came to the
factory or an airshow with their Mini-500. We did more than any factory
I know of to help the customer succeed.

I did everything I could think of, and many things other people thought
of to make a successful project. We make a great kit helicopter, the
best ever made. The opportunity was there for anyone that wanted it, the
American way. We made it available to those that thought they had the
right stuff to build and fly a helicopter, and at an affordable price.
It was in their choice if they thought they could do it, we tried to
filter out the ones we knew couldn't, but that was all we could do.
Mostly, people were successful, but it only took a few bad apples to
give people like Fred Stewart and his coolies the ammunition they needed
to succeed in helping to shut our factory down, but only after 2 long
years of fighting.

Now, am I to blame for others that failed to follow instructions, made
modifications and flying stupid, resulting in a crash? decide for
yourself. I really don't care what people think. I know what I did and I
know how I feel about it. That is all that matters. And if anyone of you
think you could do it better, don't just talk about it, prove it.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters

[Dennis Fetters]

Rich wrote:
> Dennis Fetters > wrote in message >...
>
>
>>>The truth is it's really stupid to design, sell, or fly a helicopter
>>>powered by a small 2-stroke engine.
>>
>>Why? the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered engines
>>quit because it failed from over excursion
>>Like it or not, your comments are unfounded, uninformed, based on lack
>>of experience and unappreciated.
>
>
> Rotax Operators Manual, page 4-2 "Warning: This engine, by its design,
> is subject to sudden stoppage".
>
> Evidently, you didn't read that far.
>
> Rich


Rich,
It is true what the manual said. It says that in every Rotax manual for
every airplane, balloon, gyroplane, hovercraft and other helicopter out
there flying. A statement like you made is only meant to be slanderous
and mean, but lacks any foundation. Everyone knows that Rotax puts that
in every manual simply for liability reasons because or their lack of
ability to oversee all installation operations. In reality every engine
in the world is subject to the same possible fate.

Dennis Fetters

[Dennis Fetters]

C.D.Damron wrote:
> "Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>C.D.Damron wrote:
>>Pick and choose what? Truth is truth. Facts are facts. Please, please
>>show me what I omitted that would make what I said untrue or the fault
>>of the aircraft, in any case or crash. Please show me proof of your
>>accusation. Please prove yourself right. I sincerely invite you to do so.
>>
>>The problem I just finished proving again was that some people here do
>>just what you accuse me of doing. They said a Mini crashed and implied
>>it was the fault of the aircraft. I showed that was wrong and nor some
>>of you are upset I did so, and I've done it time and time again, without
>>distorting or omitting any fact. Please prove otherwise.
>
>
>
> Dennis,
>
> From time to time, you show up on this forum to defend yourself against
> defamation. You are nothing, if not persistent.


I never show up until someone comes here an makes an incorrect
statement. I will always set the record straight.


> There is a record of the truths you have selectively presented and the lies
> that you cannot escape. It is interesting that the truths you present are
> as damaging as any of your lies.


Then post it here. If there is a record it should be easy to copy and
paste it here. Do it.


> It is true that pilot error has been officially attributed to most, if not
> all, Mini-500 accidents and fatalities. You might actually believe that
> this absolves your design and production of any responsibility.


If that has been the case, and it has, then why wouldn't it? Is there
something that you know that the inspectors don't? Please, tell us.


If this is
> the case, you are probably the only one to share this view. I would contend
> that you are factual, but far from honest when you rest your case on this
> bit of aviation trivia.


You don't make since. You say that I am probably factual, but not
honest. How can someone do that? I give the facts and withhold nothing.
I don't even make the determinations of the outcome of an accident, but
I'm not honest when I quote from a government report? Please explain that.


> I would be happy to explain myself further, but you know exactly what I'm
> talking about. You have heard it before from myself, others, and your own
> conscience.


No, I don't know. I'm inviting you to tell me and the world right here
today. You will not do so, because you don't know what you're talking
about. I'm inviting you to expose me. You can't because your statements
are false.


> Beyond this "truth" you like to present, there is no problem documenting
> your lies and deceit. I would be happy to reveal them, in detail.


I guess I can only repeat what I said above. Please, please back up what
you said with something I have omitted. Please do that, and if it's true
I will admit so and apologize to the newsgroup world! This is it, your
time to shine, you day of potential glory in life to prove me wrong.
Grab the ring, take the leap, go for the gusto. Don't miss the boat.
Let's have it! Are you all talk, or can you stand behind your words with
some facts?

Dennis Fetters

[EmailMe]

Excerpt from Dennis Fetters post:

__________________________________________________ ____

Bill Phillips: 1. What about running the Rotax at 104% continuously?
Rotax itself does not warrant this engine in this application. The
manual states that the rpm for 104% should only be used for 5 minutes,
yet the Mini 500 will not fly with most people in it unless it's run
at
104%, which is nearly 6800 rpm. Rotax says maximum continuous is 6500
rpm. There is simply no margin left at 6500 rpm, and the engine is not
designed to be run at 6800 rpm for more than 5 minutes.

Ken Armstrong: RPM limits are usually related to the possibility of
overheating. In my Mini 500 flying--including extensive hovering where
the engine works hardest--heat was well within the green.

Dennis Fetters: Statement No. 1 is totally incorrect. First, Rotax
does
warrant the 582 engines used in the Mini 500 and always has. Next, the
Rotax manual mentioned is for airplane or propeller installations
only!
Helicopters are very different and use the power and rpm in a
different
manner. All helicopters run their engines at 100 to 104% rpm while
constantly changing the power settings.
So at 104% rpm at cruise flight, the power required and used is about
70%, a normal usage. Operating at 104% rpm will not hurt the Rotax
engine in the least bit. In fact, it works better running it at a
continuous rpm and varying the power level. This will result in more
stable exhaust gas temperatures, more constant engine running
temperatures, and less carbon buildup. To date, there has not been a
single Rotax engine failure in a Mini 500 due to the overexertion of
the
engine.

__________________________________________________ _


The post above contains the statement "First, Rotax does
warrant the 582 engines used in the Mini 500 and always has."

Yet, the the following was entered by the NTSB investigating an
engine-out fatality in November 1998 which was 1 year previous to Mr.
Fetters statement.

https://extranet.nasdac.faa.gov/pls/nasdac/STAGE.NTSB_BRIEF_REPORT?
EV_ID=20001211X11436&AC_VAR=FALSE&ENG_VAR=FALSE&INJ_VAR=FALSE
&FT_VAR=FALSE&OCC_VAR=FALSE&WTHR_VAR=FALSE&PNARR_VAR=FALSE
&FNARR_VAR=FALSE&CNARR_VAR=FALSE&NARR_VAR=mini%20500

"Although the kit helicopter was built according to plans, the engine
manufacturer did not recommend several of the engine modifications
found on the accident helicopter. Additionally, the engine
manufacturer did not recommend the installation of this model engine
in the helicopter and published the following warning with the engine
manual: 'This engine, by its design is subject to sudden stoppage.
Engine stoppage can result in crash landings, forced landings or no
power landings. Such crash landings can lead to serious bodily injury
or death.'"

Is it normal for Rotax to "not recommend" an engine for a particlar
aircraft yet to also still "warrant" its use in that same aircraft ?

Thanks

[Dennis Fetters]

EmailMe wrote:
> The post above contains the statement "First, Rotax does
> warrant the 582 engines used in the Mini 500 and always has."
>
> Yet, the the following was entered by the NTSB investigating an
> engine-out fatality in November 1998 which was 1 year previous to Mr.
> Fetters statement.
>
> https://extranet.nasdac.faa.gov/pls/nasdac/STAGE.NTSB_BRIEF_REPORT?
> EV_ID=20001211X11436&AC_VAR=FALSE&ENG_VAR=FALSE&INJ_VAR=FALSE
> &FT_VAR=FALSE&OCC_VAR=FALSE&WTHR_VAR=FALSE&PNARR_VAR=FALSE
> &FNARR_VAR=FALSE&CNARR_VAR=FALSE&NARR_VAR=mini%20500
>
> "Although the kit helicopter was built according to plans, the engine
> manufacturer did not recommend several of the engine modifications
> found on the accident helicopter. Additionally, the engine
> manufacturer did not recommend the installation of this model engine
> in the helicopter and published the following warning with the engine
> manual: 'This engine, by its design is subject to sudden stoppage.
> Engine stoppage can result in crash landings, forced landings or no
> power landings. Such crash landings can lead to serious bodily injury
> or death.'"
>
> Is it normal for Rotax to "not recommend" an engine for a particlar
> aircraft yet to also still "warrant" its use in that same aircraft ?
>
> Thanks


Email, you forgot to post the part of that report that said:

"According to the Rotax representative, "...the modified tuning and
non-conforming parts of the engine from stock configuration..." was not
recommended; however, some modifications, such as the "PEP" exhaust
system, were recommended and marketed by the helicopter kit manufacturer."

This report you posted comes from the Gil Armbruster crash, and has
already been reported on and further explained on what happened to cause
that crash. Gil was a friend of ours, and everyone knows how much Gil
liked to modify and experiment with his Mini-500. He later purchased the
PEP exhaust from us, one of the first ones to do so. He refused to use
the factory recommended jetting and wanted to experiment on his own. He
convinced himself that the system needed smaller main jets for high EGT
adjustments in hover, and I tried to explain to him it needed different
needles and needle jets for cruse adjustments and main jets were only
for full power, as we sent him. I begged him to use our jetting system
and explained why. I offered to buy back the PEP but no deal. Time
proved I was right and Gil was wrong. His engine seized because the main
jet was to small. It was good in a hover but when he pulled in more
power in flight the main jet could only allow so much fuel and it caused
the engine to lean out and seize.
He crashed into the top of a 50 foot tree and fell nose first to his
death. In time the PEP proved to be a deferent advantage for the
Mini-500, so much that we made it mandatory to install.

Rotax did sell Revolution Helicopter engines directly and specifically
for the Mini-500. Rotax did warranty the Engine. Now, what was the point
you were trying to make here?

Dennis Fetters

[Cam]

Good on Ya Dennis.

A two stroke engine "CAN" be just as reliable as any other engine with more
than one moving part!
If it is designed and used correctly..

Cam


> >>>The truth is it's really stupid to design, sell, or fly a helicopter
> >>>powered by a small 2-stroke engine.
> >>
> >>Why? the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered engines
> >>quit because it failed from over excursion
> >>Like it or not, your comments are unfounded, uninformed, based on lack
> >>of experience and unappreciated.
> >
> >
> > Rotax Operators Manual, page 4-2 "Warning: This engine, by its design,
> > is subject to sudden stoppage".
> >
> > Evidently, you didn't read that far.
> >
> > Rich
>
>
> Rich,
> It is true what the manual said. It says that in every Rotax manual for
> every airplane, balloon, gyroplane, hovercraft and other helicopter out
> there flying. A statement like you made is only meant to be slanderous
> and mean, but lacks any foundation. Everyone knows that Rotax puts that
> in every manual simply for liability reasons because or their lack of
> ability to oversee all installation operations. In reality every engine
> in the world is subject to the same possible fate.
>
> Dennis Fetters
>

[Matt Whiting]

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> "Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Rich wrote:
>>
>>>The truth is it's really stupid to design, sell, or fly a helicopter
>>>powered by a small 2-stroke engine.
>>>
>>>Anyone dumb enough to fly it kills only themselves.
>>>Anyone dumb enough to design and sell them should feel somewhat
>>>responsible for those who die in them.
>>>
>>>Rich
>>
>>
>>Why? the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered engines
>>quit because it failed from over excursion. Not one Rotax in a Mini-500
>>failed from the engine wearing out, ever. The only failures that ever
>>occurred was from failure to jet the engine according to instructions,
>>using poor fuel below 86 octane, or running out of fuel, or improper
>>coolant mix or leak, but never the fault of the engine. Nothing beats
>>the power to weight of a 2-stroke and the ease of maintenance. It was
>>the right engine.
>>
>>So where is this the fault of the designer or the aircraft? It was made
>>plan in instructions, AD's and advisories not to make these mistakes. We
>>flew the factory helicopters hundreds of hours to prove the design
>>worked. Sure there were some development problems, but each one was
>>solved and made available. The truth is that the engine worked well.
>>
>>Like it or not, your comments are unfounded, uninformed, based on lack
>>of experience and unappreciated.
>>
>>Dennis Fetters
>
>
> Dennis,
>
> Your statement "the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered
> engines quit because it failed from over excursion (sic)" may be correct,
> but I doubt that you have the tear-down reports and expert knowledge to
> *prove* the claim. To me, the bigger issue is the one Rich alluded to - 2
> stroke engines are notoriously unreliable compared to their 4 stroke
> cousins. ALL of the ultralight guys I know with more than a couple of
> hundred hours behind 2 strokes have suffered engine events. Seized engines,
> partially seized engines, exhaust failures that lead to power loss, etc.
> Because of the reliability issue, 2 stroke engines are simply not suitable
> for helicopter power plants. You know that, as does anyone else who is
> familiar with the history of 2 stroke engines.

Sorry, but that isn't correct. I ran two-stroke motorcycles for years
with no problems. Many outboard engines are two-strokes and they have
excellent reliability records. I think the issues with two-strokes in
aviation has been improper operation.

Matt

[Rich]

Dennis Fetters > wrote in message >...

> Rich wrote:
> >
> >>>The truth is it's really stupid to design, sell, or fly a helicopter
> >>>powered by a small 2-stroke engine.
> >
> > Rotax Operators Manual, page 4-2 "Warning: This engine, by its design,
> > is subject to sudden stoppage".
> >
> > Evidently, you didn't read that far.

> A statement like you made is only meant to be slanderous and mean

Which statement?

All my statements are shown above. The first one is based on the 2nd.
The 2nd is straight out of the Rotax manual. And the third is
pointing out that maybe you didn't read the manual, for if you did,
you'd have realized the first.


> Everyone knows that Rotax puts that in every manual simply for
> liability reasons because

Were you at the meeting with Rthe otax people when they were writing
the manual? Because if you weren't then you don't "know" this. I
personally belive what the manual says for two reasons. 1) It was
written by the people that made the engine, and 2) history has shown
that the rotax engines do in fact stop without warning.

And while any engine may in fact strop functioning at any time, the
reality is, a 2-stroke is much more likely to quit without much
warning then a 4-stroke.

Rich

[Dennis Fetters]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>>> Why? the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered engines
>>> quit because it failed from over excursion. Not one Rotax in a Mini-500
>>> failed from the engine wearing out, ever. The only failures that ever
>>> occurred was from failure to jet the engine according to instructions,
>>> using poor fuel below 86 octane, or running out of fuel, or improper
>>> coolant mix or leak, but never the fault of the engine. Nothing beats
>>> the power to weight of a 2-stroke and the ease of maintenance. It was
>>> the right engine.
>>>
>>> So where is this the fault of the designer or the aircraft? It was made
>>> plan in instructions, AD's and advisories not to make these mistakes. We
>>> flew the factory helicopters hundreds of hours to prove the design
>>> worked. Sure there were some development problems, but each one was
>>> solved and made available. The truth is that the engine worked well.
>>>
>>> Like it or not, your comments are unfounded, uninformed, based on lack
>>> of experience and unappreciated.
>>>
>>> Dennis Fetters

>
>
> Sorry, but that isn't correct. I ran two-stroke motorcycles for years
> with no problems. Many outboard engines are two-strokes and they have
> excellent reliability records. I think the issues with two-strokes in
> aviation has been improper operation.
>
> Matt


Well, sorry Matt, but my statements are right on. In fact, you just
helped support exactly what I said. Thank you.

You see, the majority of people buy a motorcycle ready to run, set up
correctly by the factory. Same as outboard engines, they're already in
the boat and set up by the factory. As I said, if you have proper
installation the 2 stroke runs without problems.

On kit built aircraft, nearly all of the engines are installed by the
public, never by the factory. And nearly all of the engines installed in
kit built aircraft are done so not according to factory instructions, or
improper factory installations. So they have a higher rate of failure.

2 strokes are very much in aviation, and will be for a long time.

So again, thank you for helping make my point, couldn't have done better
myself.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters

[Dennis Fetters]

Rich wrote:
>>>Rotax Operators Manual, page 4-2 "Warning: This engine, by its design,
>>>is subject to sudden stoppage".
>>>
>>>Evidently, you didn't read that far.
>
>
>>A statement like you made is only meant to be slanderous and mean
>
>
> Which statement?
>
> All my statements are shown above. The first one is based on the 2nd.
> The 2nd is straight out of the Rotax manual. And the third is
> pointing out that maybe you didn't read the manual, for if you did,
> you'd have realized the first.


Rich, it's how you made the statement. You did it in a way that
indicated I was negligent, and even though I was smart enough to design
and manufacture over 1700 aircraft in my career, I was not smart enough
to read the Rotax statement. Well Rich, I did read it. Better than
that, I understand it as most people do and was able to see beyond it
and accomplish designing a helicopter that can fly with it.
Rich, there is no need to be mean or insulting to people.


>>Everyone knows that Rotax puts that in every manual simply for
>>liability reasons because
>
>
> Were you at the meeting with Rthe otax people when they were writing
> the manual? Because if you weren't then you don't "know" this. I
> personally belive what the manual says for two reasons. 1) It was
> written by the people that made the engine, and 2) history has shown
> that the rotax engines do in fact stop without warning.


As a matter of fact, I was involved a great deal with the Rotax
distributor and provided them a great deal of knowledge helping to make
that warning. Yes I did know before they wrote that warning and I agreed
with them. They are handicapped because there are hundreds of different
aircraft using their engines and all installed by the public. What a
nightmare!!

1. Correct, it was written by the attorneys of the people that made the
engine, and for good reason in this sue happy country.

2. The engines fail mostly due to improper installation and operation
from lack of the ability to control the public and insure proper
installation and operation.


> And while any engine may in fact strop functioning at any time, the
> reality is, a 2-stroke is much more likely to quit without much
> warning then a 4-stroke.
>
> Rich


Not so. If improperly installed a 4 stroke will fail too. By the way,
have you read the warnings in the Rotax manuals for the 4 strokes??
Sounds kind of familiar.

Dennis Fetters

[Bryan]

2-stroke engines can be just as if not more reliable than 4-strokes. Look
at the big rigs on the road, a very large number of them are 2-stroke
engines pulling very heavy loads for hundreds of thousands of miles.

It all comes down to engine design and installation. The fact that an
engine is a 2-stroke has nothing to do with reliability!

Bryan

"Rich" > wrote in message
om...
> Dennis Fetters > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Rich wrote:
> > >
> > >>>The truth is it's really stupid to design, sell, or fly a helicopter
> > >>>powered by a small 2-stroke engine.
> > >
> > > Rotax Operators Manual, page 4-2 "Warning: This engine, by its design,
> > > is subject to sudden stoppage".
> > >
> > > Evidently, you didn't read that far.
>
> > A statement like you made is only meant to be slanderous and mean
>
> Which statement?
>
> All my statements are shown above. The first one is based on the 2nd.
> The 2nd is straight out of the Rotax manual. And the third is
> pointing out that maybe you didn't read the manual, for if you did,
> you'd have realized the first.
>
>
> > Everyone knows that Rotax puts that in every manual simply for
> > liability reasons because
>
> Were you at the meeting with Rthe otax people when they were writing
> the manual? Because if you weren't then you don't "know" this. I
> personally belive what the manual says for two reasons. 1) It was
> written by the people that made the engine, and 2) history has shown
> that the rotax engines do in fact stop without warning.
>
> And while any engine may in fact strop functioning at any time, the
> reality is, a 2-stroke is much more likely to quit without much
> warning then a 4-stroke.
>
> Rich


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.705 / Virus Database: 461 - Release Date: 6/12/2004

[John Ammeter]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:12:04 GMT, Dennis Fetters
> wrote:


>
>As a matter of fact, I was involved a great deal with the Rotax
>distributor and provided them a great deal of knowledge helping to make
>that warning. Yes I did know before they wrote that warning and I agreed
>with them. They are handicapped because there are hundreds of different
>aircraft using their engines and all installed by the public. What a
>nightmare!!
>
>1. Correct, it was written by the attorneys of the people that made the
>engine, and for good reason in this sue happy country.
>
>2. The engines fail mostly due to improper installation and operation
>from lack of the ability to control the public and insure proper
>installation and operation.
>
r.
>
>Dennis Fetters


Dennis,

I'm sure no one will doubt your ability to sell helicopters.
You designed a product that would appeal to many people; in
particular, to the new builder or pilot.

It was "cute" and "sporty", to say the least....

Unfortunately, due to the very nature of your customer base,
most of the new owner/builders had little or no real
experience in building aircraft, let alone a helicopter with
its many specific needs.

Where you failed your customers was in failing to realize
that you absolutely had to detail exactly how the 2 stroke
Rotax was to be installed. Your failure was most likely due
to your expectation that the builder would know more than
they did...

If/when you ever get back into the kit sales business I'd
strongly suggest you hire someone to write the builders
manual in such a way that even the newbie will know exactly
what to do and how to do it.

Also, I'd suggest a motor that wasn't so dependant on EXACT
jetting for dependability. When the motor worked as planned
an FAA standard pilot could fly the helicopter... BUT, when
a 200 pound pilot attempted to fly the helicopter at the
2500 foot elevation of Las Vegas and 80 degrees it was not
possible to get out of ground effect. I was there and saw
it...

John

[Barnyard BOb -]

>2-stroke engines can be just as if not more reliable than 4-strokes. Look
>at the big rigs on the road, a very large number of them are 2-stroke
>engines pulling very heavy loads for hundreds of thousands of miles.
>
>It all comes down to engine design and installation. The fact that an
>engine is a 2-stroke has nothing to do with reliability!
>
>Bryan
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The REALLY big honking 2-stroke rigs on the road are...

<<< EMD locomotives built by GM >>>


So, what you say is definitely true and correct.

However, pigs and locomotives have yet to fly.



Barnyard BOb - retired Union Pacific RR

[C.D.Damron]

Dennis,

While the language is losing it specificity due to improper usage and the
incorporation of distorted definitions in modern dictionaries, there is
general agreement that the words, "fact", "truth", and "honesty" are not
synonomous.

You often select factual statements in an attempt to prove some larger truth
or your own honesty. The omission of critical facts makes it possible to
present factual statements while failing to be truthful or honest.

You are so proud of those FAA accident reports that reach a conclusion of
pilot error. Both civil and military accident reports use a rather strict
standard in establishing whether an accident was the result of pilot error.
In short, the approach is to determine if the pilot could have done anything
at any point to avoid an accident - EVEN IF FACTORS BEYOND THE PILOT'S
CONTROL CONTRIBUTED TO THE SITUATION. As a result, poor design and
production can significantly contribute to an accident that is eventually
attributed to pilot error.

Pilot error is not some trump card you can throw down on the table. So yes,
I think you are less than truthful or honest when you insist that pilot
error absolves you of any responsibility.

The realm of experimental aviation further complicates the validity of such
accident reports. The reason for this is pretty obvious, the FAA is
trained to investigate accidents involving certified aircraft. As a result,
they will make assumptions about experimental aircraft based on their
limited training and experience.

For example, if I build a plane that is impossible to fly or a helicopter
that cannot be auto-rotated, it is still very possible that an accident
report could conclude that I was at fault for not avoiding a stall or not
successfully performing an auto-rotation. Why? Because the FAA makes
certain assumptions about experimental aircraft that are not supported by
any basis in reality.

When I have a little more time, I would be happy to rehash the lies.

[C.D.Damron]

[synonymous]

[B2431]

>From: "Bryan"
>Date: 6/17/2004 7:21 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>2-stroke engines can be just as if not more reliable than 4-strokes. Look
>at the big rigs on the road, a very large number of them are 2-stroke
>engines pulling very heavy loads for hundreds of thousands of miles.

But those are diesel and made specifically for trucking.

Fetters has said repeatedly in this thread that the engine had to be modified
to be used.

The question I have is didn't this helicopter have autorotation? If it did how
does a sudden engine failure make for a fatal crash? If it didn't it was a
major design flaw.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Hoppy]

Dennis Fetters wrote:

> "According to the Rotax representative, "...the modified tuning and
> non-conforming parts of the engine from stock configuration..." was not
> recommended;

The Rotax guy refers to non-conforming from stock, non-recommended stuff...

> He later purchased the PEP exhaust from us,

Isn't that one of the parts the Rotax guy was talking about?

> however, some modifications, such as the "PEP" exhaust system, were
> recommended and marketed by the helicopter kit manufacturer."

Ah, that _is_ one of the parts. Rotax wouldn't recommend the PEP, but you
recommended it. Actually, you mandated it. And marketed it, naturally.

> He crashed into the top of a 50 foot tree and fell nose first to his death.
> In time the PEP proved to be a deferent advantage for the Mini-500, so much
> that we made it mandatory to install.

MANDATORY! Anyone else's mods were prohibited, by purchase contract and court
order. Any new mods you wanted to sell, however, were "mandatory", by phony AD.
When customers fell to their deaths, so what, you just shrugged it off.

> Rotax did sell Revolution Helicopter engines directly and specifically for
> the Mini-500.

They were coerced, forced to.

> Now, what was the point you were
> trying to make here?
>
> Dennis Fetters

[Hoppy]

Bryan wrote:

> 2-stroke engines can be just as if not more reliable than 4-strokes. Look
> at the big rigs on the road, a very large number of them are 2-stroke
> engines pulling very heavy loads for hundreds of thousands of miles.

Yeah, 2-stroke diesels. Valves, not ported cylinder walls. Pressure lubrication,
not diluted oil/fuel mist.

2-stroke gassers with big cylinders seize a lot, they just do. Except the Rotax
in a CH-7, don't know why that worked out so well, when a Mini-500 with the same
engine is crap.

[D.A.L]

"
> I think we all need to blame gravity, or maybe the earth, or maybe the adventurous spirit of man. He chose to do what he
> did. Freedom is a wonderful thing. It does have its responsibilities though. Ignorance can be bliss, and it can kill
> you.

Why are you people not trying to shut down the gun manufactures or
porsche or ferrari? They all produce/sell products to anybody who
walks through their doors and have no conscience or even give a rats
behind if those people go out and kill themselves or anybody else. Gun
manufacturers even refuse to adjust the trigger presure so that
children (who they know might or do have access) can'nt fire a bullet!
I won't even talk about the tobaco or alchohol producers! You guys
blame Dennis for the plight of people who 'know not what they do'
and/or do not fully respect the dangers of aviation. Most people fully
understand the dangers (like myself) and still wish to persue the
freedom of flight.
My two cents.
Don.

[Barnyard BOb -]

Hoppy > wrote:

>Bryan wrote:
>
>> 2-stroke engines can be just as if not more reliable than 4-strokes. Look
>> at the big rigs on the road, a very large number of them are 2-stroke
>> engines pulling very heavy loads for hundreds of thousands of miles.
>
>Yeah, 2-stroke diesels. Valves, not ported cylinder walls. Pressure lubrication,
>not diluted oil/fuel mist.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Heh, heh.

Bryan is obviously correct...
for as far as he cared to take the argument.

I suspect the reason we haven't seen much of 2-stroke or 4-stroke
aviation diesels with valves and pressure lubrication is that they've
been heavy and more costly to manufacture than the gas 4-strokes
we currently enjoy. Cheap gas in the past also played a large role.
However, times are a changing, so stay tuned, eh?

Kudos to you, Hoppy, for filling in the blanks.


Barnyard BOb - born in the dark, but not last night.

[Stan Premo]

They'll fly if you throw 'em hard enough!
"Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >2-stroke engines can be just as if not more reliable than 4-strokes.
Look
> >at the big rigs on the road, a very large number of them are 2-stroke
> >engines pulling very heavy loads for hundreds of thousands of miles.
> >
> >It all comes down to engine design and installation. The fact that an
> >engine is a 2-stroke has nothing to do with reliability!
> >
> >Bryan
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> The REALLY big honking 2-stroke rigs on the road are...
>
> <<< EMD locomotives built by GM >>>
>
>
> So, what you say is definitely true and correct.
>
> However, pigs and locomotives have yet to fly.
>
>
>
> Barnyard BOb - retired Union Pacific RR

[Rich]

Dennis Fetters > wrote in message >...

> ...<snip>... I was not smart enough
> to read the Rotax statement. Well Rich, I did read it. Better than
> that, I understand it as most people do and was able to see beyond it

Iteresting that you have the abilty to "see beyond" the facts that
don't fit your plans. Unfortunately, your customers lacked the abilty
to "see beyond" your retoric and realize that the cute little
helicopter was in fact beyond the abilty of even very experienced
helicopter pilots to operate safely.


> Rich, there is no need to be mean or insulting to people.

Which is why I have not been mean or insulting to anyone.


> If improperly installed a 4 stroke will fail too.

I never stated a 4-store wouldn't fail. My statement said a 2-stoke
was more likely to fail without warning then a 4-stoke. You appear to
have "looked beyond" the without warning part.

Rich

[Dennis Fetters]

John,
Thank you for your kind post giving us your view.

John Ammeter wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> I'm sure no one will doubt your ability to sell helicopters.
> You designed a product that would appeal to many people; in
> particular, to the new builder or pilot.
>
> It was "cute" and "sporty", to say the least....
>
> Unfortunately, due to the very nature of your customer base,
> most of the new owner/builders had little or no real
> experience in building aircraft, let alone a helicopter with
> its many specific needs.


Correct. 73% of our buyers had no helicopter experience whatsoever. 99%
had no experience building a helicopter. 91% never built an aircraft of
any kind.

But, even with this great deal of inexperience most all were capable of
building and flying the Mini-500. It is a simple helicopter to build and
fly, yet still being a helicopter and unforgiving to neglect and to
stupidity.


> Where you failed your customers was in failing to realize
> that you absolutely had to detail exactly how the 2 stroke
> Rotax was to be installed. Your failure was most likely due
> to your expectation that the builder would know more than
> they did...


Thank you for your opinion, but I don't think that is the case. We had a
very nice and detailed assembly manual. The parts were even designed to
only fit one way. We had no problem with owners assembling the engine
into the helicopter correctly. In fact I can't remember one that I saw
incorrect. The problem came to the jetting, of which we gave out plenty
of instructions, newsletters and advisories, but some customers simply
refused to change the jetting. They would say "it flies fine in a hover
with the stock jets, so I'll wait and see how it does in flight before I
do any changing". Of course then, it was to late. We told them why and
what would happen, but some of them did it anyway. Later we even started
taking the jets out of the engine before we shipped it and made them buy
jets using the same chart we always sent. We could not provide jets
because of different altitudes. Remember most of the customers did what
they should. It was only a few that didn't, but those are the ones you
hear about.


> If/when you ever get back into the kit sales business I'd
> strongly suggest you hire someone to write the builders
> manual in such a way that even the newbie will know exactly
> what to do and how to do it.


No thanks, I don't need the grief of dealing with the public.

But, as I said, we had one of the best manuals out there. Time after
time the FAA inspector would comment to the customer on how nice and
detailed the manual was, and so would the customers. We sent a set to
the FAA in OK, they said the same thing.

But, there was a problem. We started to notice that most everyone we
talked to at the air shows or on the phone were building according to
the pictures and drawings, because they were so detailed, and ignoring
all the written instruction. Even when it said at the first of each
chapter "Read and understand this entire section before applying the
directions". We sent out letters and did all we could to warn them about
omitting even the simplest details. How many times did I tell a guy he
should disassemble his Mini-500 and start again, but this time READ!


> Also, I'd suggest a motor that wasn't so dependant on EXACT
> jetting for dependability. When the motor worked as planned
> an FAA standard pilot could fly the helicopter... BUT, when
> a 200 pound pilot attempted to fly the helicopter at the
> 2500 foot elevation of Las Vegas and 80 degrees it was not
> possible to get out of ground effect. I was there and saw
> it...


Well, the Rotax was not so dependent on exact jetting, just proper
jetting. And again, most customers did fine, it was only a few we had
problems with. You had summer jetting and winter jetting. Some failed to
switch, and some failed to rejet to helicopter all together.

Later we came out with the PEP system which took away the need of summer
and winter jetting. So long as you put the proper PEP jetting in, you
had no problems, no more engine failures after that.

I have customers flying all over the world at those altitudes and
weight, but there are other factors why a Mini-500 can't hover at that
altitude. I had a Mini-500 customer at 180 pounds that couldn't fly at
500 feet. After inspecting it and finding a few adjustments, and pealing
off the improper blade tape that ruined the laminar flow of the blades,
it flew fine.
But admittedly, the performance is not going to be good at 2500 feet.
Remember, a Mini-500 with one pilot and full of fuel is fully loaded.
You take a Brantly with two people and full of fuel and it's fully
loaded, and it won't hover at 2500 feet either.

But, with the introduction of the PEP, that added enough available power
that you would perform very well at that altitude. I have owners using
the PEP and flying from 6500 feet and loving it.

But not all the customers complied with the mandatory PEP, and they
still had some problems. It is a fact that a Mini-500 with all the
latest upgrades fly fine, and still are. But I firmly believe that no
one should continue flying any aircraft that no longer has factory support.

I look at myself and can say I have failed in many things by wishing I
would have done some thing better or differently. Hindsight is 20/20.

I wish I would have made my factory on higher ground the first time, so
I would have avoided loosing my factory in the floods of 93 and
occurring all the expenses to start over.

I wish I would have never gave Rick Stitt and Lee a job.

I wish I would have never met that back stabbing Fred Stewart and sold
him a kit.

I wish I would have continued paying Jim Campbell every month for that
worthless ad in his rag magazine so he wouldn't have turned on me like
the dog he is.

I wish I would have never designed the 0.001" bushings to be on the
cotton picking inside of the check plates so head shifts wouldn't be
such a pain in the ass!!

But, unlike most people, I DID get off my ass and do something, and am
still doing something, and I'll never regret that. So did I fail at
anything? No, never failed, maybe could have done a few thing better,
but never failed.

Did I fail with Revolution Helicopter. No, we did an outstanding job
against all odds. We did what few have been able to accomplish, and we
are proud of that. We closed because we were defeated after a 2 year war
with Stewart and his coolies, a small group of people that cheated and
lied to everyone about us, while advertising in Kitplanes magazine they
wanted to start their own helicopter company, so they needed us out of
the way. Our ammunition could only be the truth. But you don't need fire
to stop someone's sales, smoke will do if you keep it up long enough.

In the end, Fred Stewart is the one that failed. He never could start
his own helicopter company, or offer assistance to Mini-500 owners as he
promised, and now he has a worthless Mini-500 with no factory support.
He has no victory either, because there is no honor in stabbing a friend
in the back, or defeating someone with lies.

Again, thanks for your view, hope I put some light on mine.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters

[Dennis Fetters]

C.D.Damron wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> While the language is losing it specificity due to improper usage and the
> incorporation of distorted definitions in modern dictionaries, there is
> general agreement that the words, "fact", "truth", and "honesty" are not
> synonomous.
>
> You often select factual statements in an attempt to prove some larger truth
> or your own honesty. The omission of critical facts makes it possible to
> present factual statements while failing to be truthful or honest.


C.D.
I believe that is what I'm here about, but the other way around. It is
some people here that are making posts that are incomplete so that they
take on a bad meaning. That is a fact, just read my responses over the
last few days.


> You are so proud of those FAA accident reports that reach a conclusion of
> pilot error. Both civil and military accident reports use a rather strict
> standard in establishing whether an accident was the result of pilot error.
> In short, the approach is to determine if the pilot could have done anything
> at any point to avoid an accident - EVEN IF FACTORS BEYOND THE PILOT'S
> CONTROL CONTRIBUTED TO THE SITUATION. As a result, poor design and
> production can significantly contribute to an accident that is eventually
> attributed to pilot error.


Please, name some of those factors that the government forgot to mention.

None of the accidents were caused by the design or flight
characteristics of the Mini-500, how simple can that be? The helicopter
had great flight characteristics compared to any helicopter. People love
the way it fly's. Kin Armstrong of Kitplanes magazine did a flight
review and said it had no bad characteristics, on the contrary he said
it had very good flight characteristics. So if no parts failed that were
installed properly and it flew fine, where is it the fault of the
aircraft or it's designer if it crashes due to strictly pilot error or
maintenance error, or stupidity?


> Pilot error is not some trump card you can throw down on the table. So yes,
> I think you are less than truthful or honest when you insist that pilot
> error absolves you of any responsibility.


I'm not insisting, the reports are insisting. The facts are insisting.
The cause of the accidents are insisting. I will be the first to stand
up and say this accident is my fault, if it were. But if I did that
would be a lie. Now, if it would make you feel better to hear me say so
just because, forget it. I will if it was my fault, but it has not been
my fault. If you want someone to be sacrificed just for the fun of it,
then why don't you take the blame. Why not, your as guilty as I am.


> The realm of experimental aviation further complicates the validity of such
> accident reports. The reason for this is pretty obvious, the FAA is
> trained to investigate accidents involving certified aircraft. As a result,
> they will make assumptions about experimental aircraft based on their
> limited training and experience.
>
> For example, if I build a plane that is impossible to fly or a helicopter
> that cannot be auto-rotated, it is still very possible that an accident
> report could conclude that I was at fault for not avoiding a stall or not
> successfully performing an auto-rotation. Why? Because the FAA makes
> certain assumptions about experimental aircraft that are not supported by
> any basis in reality.


Well if that were the case that the Mini-500 would not autorotate, then
yes, that would be a serious design flaw and I would be responsible. But
that is not the case, the Mini-500 autorotates better that most helicopters.


> When I have a little more time, I would be happy to rehash the lies.


If you could just put forth one piece of evidence to substantiate your
accusations would be very helpful in giving you something to argue
about. But that has not been the case. So I'm afraid that what you are
saying is worthless and lacking.

Dennis Fetters

[Dennis Fetters]

Hoppy wrote:
> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>
>
>>"According to the Rotax representative, "...the modified tuning and
>>non-conforming parts of the engine from stock configuration..." was not
>>recommended;
>
>
> The Rotax guy refers to non-conforming from stock, non-recommended stuff...
>
>
>>He later purchased the PEP exhaust from us,
>
>
> Isn't that one of the parts the Rotax guy was talking about?
>
>
>>however, some modifications, such as the "PEP" exhaust system, were
>>recommended and marketed by the helicopter kit manufacturer."
>
>
> Ah, that _is_ one of the parts. Rotax wouldn't recommend the PEP, but you
> recommended it. Actually, you mandated it. And marketed it, naturally.


So what's your point? Did you just discover this or are you just way
behind the rest of us? I don't mean that in an insulting way, but I'm
really asking so I know.


>>He crashed into the top of a 50 foot tree and fell nose first to his death.
>>In time the PEP proved to be a deferent advantage for the Mini-500, so much
>>that we made it mandatory to install.
>
>
> MANDATORY! Anyone else's mods were prohibited, by purchase contract and court
> order. Any new mods you wanted to sell, however, were "mandatory", by phony AD.
> When customers fell to their deaths, so what, you just shrugged it off.


Yes, it became mandatory. Again, are you just now discovering this? I'm
very sorry, but I don't get your point.

As for the crash of Gil using the PEP, I hope you read the part were we
begged him to follow instructions when he refused to do so, and we
offered to buy the unit back when he refused to use the recommended
jetting. So, what is the point you are trying to make?


>>Rotax did sell Revolution Helicopter engines directly and specifically for
>>the Mini-500.
>
>
> They were coerced, forced to.


Oh yes, I told them I would fire each and every one of them. I'm sorry
Hoppy`, but I can't help but get a chuckle out of that one.

Dennis Fetters

[Dennis Fetters]

Hoppy wrote:

> Bryan wrote:
>
>
>>2-stroke engines can be just as if not more reliable than 4-strokes. Look
>>at the big rigs on the road, a very large number of them are 2-stroke
>>engines pulling very heavy loads for hundreds of thousands of miles.
>
>
> Yeah, 2-stroke diesels. Valves, not ported cylinder walls. Pressure lubrication,
> not diluted oil/fuel mist.
>
> 2-stroke gassers with big cylinders seize a lot, they just do. Except the Rotax
> in a CH-7, don't know why that worked out so well, when a Mini-500 with the same
> engine is crap.


Almost all the CH-7 helicopters were built and test flown by the
factory, not the customers. There are less than 100 CH-7's while there
are over 500 Mini-500.


Dennis Fetters

[Dennis Fetters]

Rich wrote:
> Dennis Fetters > wrote in message >...
>
>
>>...<snip>... I was not smart enough
>>to read the Rotax statement. Well Rich, I did read it. Better than
>>that, I understand it as most people do and was able to see beyond it
>
>
> Iteresting that you have the abilty to "see beyond" the facts that
> don't fit your plans.


It's true, I don't ware blinders and I have a forward thinking mind. I
and many others know why Rotax puts warnings on their engines. Who
don't? Even food and rides has warnings. Please, be reasonable.


Unfortunately, your customers lacked the abilty
> to "see beyond" your retoric and realize that the cute little
> helicopter was in fact beyond the abilty of even very experienced
> helicopter pilots to operate safely.


So are you saying that every lite aircraft out there today has pilots
that lack the ability to "see beyond"? Rich, please be fair and not so
selective. Even today Mini-500's are flying with the same Rotax it
started with and with no problems. The proof is historical now. It says
that if you build and maintain your Mini-500 according to the latest
factory instructions, your Mini-500 will fly as designed. History, fact.
But, this may not be true in the future. I now have no way of knowing
what potential and unforeseen problems may occur since there is no
further factory continued testing.


>>Rich, there is no need to be mean or insulting to people.
>
>
> Which is why I have not been mean or insulting to anyone.


Then please allow me to apologize if I took you wrong.


>>If improperly installed a 4 stroke will fail too.
>
>
> I never stated a 4-store wouldn't fail. My statement said a 2-stoke
> was more likely to fail without warning then a 4-stoke. You appear to
> have "looked beyond" the without warning part.
>
> Rich


No, I didn't. In fact, if there was a proven reliable 4 stroke that had
the power to weight needed, and was available new in-the-box at a rate
of 5 a week at the time we designed and built the Mini-500, I would have
probably used it. But there was nothing like that. The Rotax 582 was the
best available engine, and still is running well.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters

[Matt Whiting]

Dennis Fetters wrote:

>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>>> Why? the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered engines
>>>> quit because it failed from over excursion. Not one Rotax in a Mini-500
>>>> failed from the engine wearing out, ever. The only failures that ever
>>>> occurred was from failure to jet the engine according to instructions,
>>>> using poor fuel below 86 octane, or running out of fuel, or improper
>>>> coolant mix or leak, but never the fault of the engine. Nothing beats
>>>> the power to weight of a 2-stroke and the ease of maintenance. It was
>>>> the right engine.
>>>>
>>>> So where is this the fault of the designer or the aircraft? It was made
>>>> plan in instructions, AD's and advisories not to make these
>>>> mistakes. We
>>>> flew the factory helicopters hundreds of hours to prove the design
>>>> worked. Sure there were some development problems, but each one was
>>>> solved and made available. The truth is that the engine worked well.
>>>>
>>>> Like it or not, your comments are unfounded, uninformed, based on lack
>>>> of experience and unappreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Dennis Fetters
>
>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but that isn't correct. I ran two-stroke motorcycles for years
>> with no problems. Many outboard engines are two-strokes and they have
>> excellent reliability records. I think the issues with two-strokes in
>> aviation has been improper operation.
>>
>> Matt
>
>
>
> Well, sorry Matt, but my statements are right on. In fact, you just
> helped support exactly what I said. Thank you.

I actually was trying to support your point, but you reply here messed
up the thread so it appears I was replying to your message when I was
actually replying to the reply to your message. Count the "carats"
along the edge and you will see that you messed up the attribution chain.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

D.A.L wrote:

> "
>
>>I think we all need to blame gravity, or maybe the earth, or maybe the adventurous spirit of man. He chose to do what he
>>did. Freedom is a wonderful thing. It does have its responsibilities though. Ignorance can be bliss, and it can kill
>>you.
>
>
> Why are you people not trying to shut down the gun manufactures or
> porsche or ferrari? They all produce/sell products to anybody who
> walks through their doors and have no conscience or even give a rats
> behind if those people go out and kill themselves or anybody else. Gun
> manufacturers even refuse to adjust the trigger presure so that
> children (who they know might or do have access) can'nt fire a bullet!
> I won't even talk about the tobaco or alchohol producers! You guys
> blame Dennis for the plight of people who 'know not what they do'
> and/or do not fully respect the dangers of aviation. Most people fully
> understand the dangers (like myself) and still wish to persue the
> freedom of flight.

You need to do some homework. There have been many lawsuits attempting
to shut down gun manufacturers. The trial lawyers are trying to make
gun makers the next silicon implant/tobacco/asbestos class action sham.


Matt

[Dennis Fetters]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>>> Why? the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered engines
>>>>> quit because it failed from over excursion. Not one Rotax in a
>>>>> Mini-500
>>>>> failed from the engine wearing out, ever. The only failures that ever
>>>>> occurred was from failure to jet the engine according to instructions,
>>>>> using poor fuel below 86 octane, or running out of fuel, or improper
>>>>> coolant mix or leak, but never the fault of the engine. Nothing beats
>>>>> the power to weight of a 2-stroke and the ease of maintenance. It was
>>>>> the right engine.
>>>>>
>>>>> So where is this the fault of the designer or the aircraft? It was
>>>>> made
>>>>> plan in instructions, AD's and advisories not to make these
>>>>> mistakes. We
>>>>> flew the factory helicopters hundreds of hours to prove the design
>>>>> worked. Sure there were some development problems, but each one was
>>>>> solved and made available. The truth is that the engine worked well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like it or not, your comments are unfounded, uninformed, based on lack
>>>>> of experience and unappreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dennis Fetters
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, but that isn't correct. I ran two-stroke motorcycles for
>>> years with no problems. Many outboard engines are two-strokes and
>>> they have excellent reliability records. I think the issues with
>>> two-strokes in aviation has been improper operation.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, sorry Matt, but my statements are right on. In fact, you just
>> helped support exactly what I said. Thank you.
>
>
> I actually was trying to support your point, but you reply here messed
> up the thread so it appears I was replying to your message when I was
> actually replying to the reply to your message. Count the "carats"
> along the edge and you will see that you messed up the attribution chain.
>
>
> Matt


I'm sorry Matt. But I did agree with you too, even when I posted it. I
appreciate you adding your viewpoint, and sorry I misunderstood the way
it was posted.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters

[Cy Galley]

I sincerely doubt that an engine with the same power to weight ratio as a
diesel truck engine whether it be a 2 or 4 cycle could be made to fly. They
are very heavy. That is how they get their reliability and longevity.

--
Cy Galley - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair
Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
"Hoppy" > wrote in message
...
> Bryan wrote:
>
> > 2-stroke engines can be just as if not more reliable than 4-strokes.
Look
> > at the big rigs on the road, a very large number of them are 2-stroke
> > engines pulling very heavy loads for hundreds of thousands of miles.
>
> Yeah, 2-stroke diesels. Valves, not ported cylinder walls. Pressure
lubrication,
> not diluted oil/fuel mist.
>
> 2-stroke gassers with big cylinders seize a lot, they just do. Except the
Rotax
> in a CH-7, don't know why that worked out so well, when a Mini-500 with
the same
> engine is crap.
>

[Dennis Fetters]

Cy Galley wrote:
> I sincerely doubt that an engine with the same power to weight ratio as a
> diesel truck engine whether it be a 2 or 4 cycle could be made to fly. They
> are very heavy. That is how they get their reliability and longevity.


Sure. Really big wings.

[John]

Me thinks he (D.F.)talks to much?


"Dennis Fetters" > skrev i meddelandet
m...
> KB,
> Thank you for your well spoken opinion. Opinions are always welcome when
> put across in a civilized professional manner as you have done. I with
> more people had your manners.
>
>
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
> > Dennis,
> >
> > Your statement "the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered
> > engines quit because it failed from over excursion (sic)" may be
correct,
> > but I doubt that you have the tear-down reports and expert knowledge to
> > *prove* the claim.
>
>
> Actually, I personally attended the advanced Rotax engine maintenance
> and installation courses in Vernon BC Canada, along with later sending
> several of my employees to the school. I was the first human to fly a
> Rotax powered Gyroplane, and I received the first 532 Rotax ever shipped
> to the aviation industry, and the first to fly a 532 Rotax on any kind
> of aircraft. I'm the one that showed Rotax the way to cool the liquid
> cooled engines at 160F when they said it was OK to run them at 210F.
> They sent me their first 582 rotax and I was the first to fly it in any
> type of aircraft. They sent me the first engines because they knew I
> could make them work and report back when something needed to be
> changed. When ever there was a problem I was the one that inspected the
> engines, and I did this many, many times. In almost all cases it was not
> the engines fault, that is after Rotax overcome a few unforeseen startup
> problems.
> I have plenty of knowledge about Rotax engines and how to make them work
> and what makes them fail.
>
>
> To me, the bigger issue is the one Rich alluded to - 2
> > stroke engines are notoriously unreliable compared to their 4 stroke
> > cousins. ALL of the ultralight guys I know with more than a couple of
> > hundred hours behind 2 strokes have suffered engine events. Seized
engines,
> > partially seized engines, exhaust failures that lead to power loss, etc.
> > Because of the reliability issue, 2 stroke engines are simply not
suitable
> > for helicopter power plants. You know that, as does anyone else who is
> > familiar with the history of 2 stroke engines.
>
>
> There is a reason. I have found over my years of working and flying
> Rotax, that literally 98% of all Rotax engine failures is installation.
> Even today, here at my airport people bring their airplane or
> helicopters to me when their Rotax has a problem. In every case it has
> been installation problems, either designed wrong by the factory or
> modified by the builder. In every case after I rebuild the engine I must
> redesign the engine mounting and cooling system. In every case that
> airplane or helicopter performs better, runs cooler and has no further
> problems.
>
> How many times have you seen someone cook a Rotax engine, send it in and
> have it rebuilt, and put it back in the aircraft without changing the
> installation? About every time! Well, what should you then expect to
> happen? The engine quits again, duh! Stupid Rotax!! This is from many
> factory designed installations that are poorly conceived, and customers
> that fail to follow instructions. Think about it. This dude spends years
> building an airplane kit, gets the airframe done and it looks beautiful!
> But then he gets impatient and ****-installs the engine because he wants
> to go fly now. How many times have I seen this happen!
>
> The engine will only run as good as the installation and maintenance
> performed. Period. Same goes for a 4 stroke, but since 4 strokes are
> more expensive and fewer they seem to be more respected and more care is
> provided.
>
>
> > Now, if you wanted to build and fly your own 2 stroke powered heli,
that's
> > fine, but kitting the thing and selling it to the dumb masses just isn't
> > right. Presumably, the target buyer for a 2 stroke powered kit
helicopter
> > is either a big-time risk taker or is simply ignorant of the risks
involved.
> >
> > KB
>
>
> With hindsight being 20-20, I find it hard to argue that point. The
> 2-stroke Rotax in a Mini-500 has and is functioning very well with those
> that properly install it with the proper jetting and PEP exhaust, and
> operate and maintain it as designed. The problem has been with, as you
> call it, the "dumb masses". It was defiantly wrong of me to think that
> ordinary people had the ability and discipline to properly build, fly
> and apply maintenance to a helicopter. The fault had not been the
> helicopter, because it even today performs just fine, but in the hands
> of most people it is beyond their reach.
>
> I provided an affordable helicopter kit that would perform as our
> factory ships performed if assembled correctly, maintained and
> modifications added as ours were. I provided excellent instructions, up
> do date web site, news letters, AD notifications and daily assistance on
> the phone. I provided constant factory testing and developments to keep
> ahead. We held the tail rotor gearboxes from customers until they
> provided proof of instruction, and so on. We had factory maintenance and
> building courses and offered free inspections to anyone that came to the
> factory or an airshow with their Mini-500. We did more than any factory
> I know of to help the customer succeed.
>
> I did everything I could think of, and many things other people thought
> of to make a successful project. We make a great kit helicopter, the
> best ever made. The opportunity was there for anyone that wanted it, the
> American way. We made it available to those that thought they had the
> right stuff to build and fly a helicopter, and at an affordable price.
> It was in their choice if they thought they could do it, we tried to
> filter out the ones we knew couldn't, but that was all we could do.
> Mostly, people were successful, but it only took a few bad apples to
> give people like Fred Stewart and his coolies the ammunition they needed
> to succeed in helping to shut our factory down, but only after 2 long
> years of fighting.
>
> Now, am I to blame for others that failed to follow instructions, made
> modifications and flying stupid, resulting in a crash? decide for
> yourself. I really don't care what people think. I know what I did and I
> know how I feel about it. That is all that matters. And if anyone of you
> think you could do it better, don't just talk about it, prove it.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dennis Fetters
>
>
>

[B2431]

>From: Dennis Fetters
>Date: 6/19/2004 11:49 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Cy Galley wrote:
>> I sincerely doubt that an engine with the same power to weight ratio as a
>> diesel truck engine whether it be a 2 or 4 cycle could be made to fly. They
>> are very heavy. That is how they get their reliability and longevity.
>
>
>Sure. Really big wings.
>

Yes, you can scale up a P-51 about 700%. Be the first kid on your block with a
P-51 that can carry 4 adults in comfort.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Dennis Fetters]

Me thinks only a fool (John) would complain about something he didn't
need to read if he didn't want to. But that's just me thinking.


John wrote:

> Me thinks he (D.F.)talks to much?
>
>
> "Dennis Fetters" > skrev i meddelandet
> m...
>
>>KB,
>>Thank you for your well spoken opinion. Opinions are always welcome when
>>put across in a civilized professional manner as you have done. I with
>>more people had your manners.
>>
>>
>>Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>
>>>Dennis,
>>>
>>>Your statement "the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered
>>>engines quit because it failed from over excursion (sic)" may be
>
> correct,
>
>>>but I doubt that you have the tear-down reports and expert knowledge to
>>>*prove* the claim.
>>
>>
>>Actually, I personally attended the advanced Rotax engine maintenance
>>and installation courses in Vernon BC Canada, along with later sending
>>several of my employees to the school. I was the first human to fly a
>>Rotax powered Gyroplane, and I received the first 532 Rotax ever shipped
>>to the aviation industry, and the first to fly a 532 Rotax on any kind
>>of aircraft. I'm the one that showed Rotax the way to cool the liquid
>>cooled engines at 160F when they said it was OK to run them at 210F.
>>They sent me their first 582 rotax and I was the first to fly it in any
>>type of aircraft. They sent me the first engines because they knew I
>>could make them work and report back when something needed to be
>>changed. When ever there was a problem I was the one that inspected the
>>engines, and I did this many, many times. In almost all cases it was not
>>the engines fault, that is after Rotax overcome a few unforeseen startup
>>problems.
>>I have plenty of knowledge about Rotax engines and how to make them work
>>and what makes them fail.
>>
>>
>> To me, the bigger issue is the one Rich alluded to - 2
>>
>>>stroke engines are notoriously unreliable compared to their 4 stroke
>>>cousins. ALL of the ultralight guys I know with more than a couple of
>>>hundred hours behind 2 strokes have suffered engine events. Seized
>
> engines,
>
>>>partially seized engines, exhaust failures that lead to power loss, etc.
>>>Because of the reliability issue, 2 stroke engines are simply not
>
> suitable
>
>>>for helicopter power plants. You know that, as does anyone else who is
>>>familiar with the history of 2 stroke engines.
>>
>>
>>There is a reason. I have found over my years of working and flying
>>Rotax, that literally 98% of all Rotax engine failures is installation.
>>Even today, here at my airport people bring their airplane or
>>helicopters to me when their Rotax has a problem. In every case it has
>>been installation problems, either designed wrong by the factory or
>>modified by the builder. In every case after I rebuild the engine I must
>>redesign the engine mounting and cooling system. In every case that
>>airplane or helicopter performs better, runs cooler and has no further
>>problems.
>>
>>How many times have you seen someone cook a Rotax engine, send it in and
>>have it rebuilt, and put it back in the aircraft without changing the
>>installation? About every time! Well, what should you then expect to
>>happen? The engine quits again, duh! Stupid Rotax!! This is from many
>>factory designed installations that are poorly conceived, and customers
>>that fail to follow instructions. Think about it. This dude spends years
>>building an airplane kit, gets the airframe done and it looks beautiful!
>>But then he gets impatient and ****-installs the engine because he wants
>>to go fly now. How many times have I seen this happen!
>>
>>The engine will only run as good as the installation and maintenance
>>performed. Period. Same goes for a 4 stroke, but since 4 strokes are
>>more expensive and fewer they seem to be more respected and more care is
>>provided.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Now, if you wanted to build and fly your own 2 stroke powered heli,
>
> that's
>
>>>fine, but kitting the thing and selling it to the dumb masses just isn't
>>>right. Presumably, the target buyer for a 2 stroke powered kit
>
> helicopter
>
>>>is either a big-time risk taker or is simply ignorant of the risks
>
> involved.
>
>>>KB
>>
>>
>>With hindsight being 20-20, I find it hard to argue that point. The
>>2-stroke Rotax in a Mini-500 has and is functioning very well with those
>>that properly install it with the proper jetting and PEP exhaust, and
>>operate and maintain it as designed. The problem has been with, as you
>>call it, the "dumb masses". It was defiantly wrong of me to think that
>>ordinary people had the ability and discipline to properly build, fly
>>and apply maintenance to a helicopter. The fault had not been the
>>helicopter, because it even today performs just fine, but in the hands
>>of most people it is beyond their reach.
>>
>>I provided an affordable helicopter kit that would perform as our
>>factory ships performed if assembled correctly, maintained and
>>modifications added as ours were. I provided excellent instructions, up
>>do date web site, news letters, AD notifications and daily assistance on
>>the phone. I provided constant factory testing and developments to keep
>>ahead. We held the tail rotor gearboxes from customers until they
>>provided proof of instruction, and so on. We had factory maintenance and
>>building courses and offered free inspections to anyone that came to the
>>factory or an airshow with their Mini-500. We did more than any factory
>>I know of to help the customer succeed.
>>
>>I did everything I could think of, and many things other people thought
>>of to make a successful project. We make a great kit helicopter, the
>>best ever made. The opportunity was there for anyone that wanted it, the
>>American way. We made it available to those that thought they had the
>>right stuff to build and fly a helicopter, and at an affordable price.
>>It was in their choice if they thought they could do it, we tried to
>>filter out the ones we knew couldn't, but that was all we could do.
>>Mostly, people were successful, but it only took a few bad apples to
>>give people like Fred Stewart and his coolies the ammunition they needed
>>to succeed in helping to shut our factory down, but only after 2 long
>>years of fighting.
>>
>>Now, am I to blame for others that failed to follow instructions, made
>>modifications and flying stupid, resulting in a crash? decide for
>>yourself. I really don't care what people think. I know what I did and I
>>know how I feel about it. That is all that matters. And if anyone of you
>>think you could do it better, don't just talk about it, prove it.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Dennis Fetters
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[ahlbebuck]

Hello, Matt!
You wrote on Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:46:37 -0400:

Wow, lawyers! Next - GM, Ford, etc - then Boeing (more people have died in
Boeings than all private planes combined)

The problem with this Mini500 debacle lies not with the craft that seems to
have been well enough designed, but rather with the fact that the
owner/builder was not qualified to build such a potentially dangerous
machine. The seller and the buyer were both naive.

I own a Cobra replica. I will certainly not try to push this vehicle to
beyond its reasonable limits. I also know that any changes I make to
critical parts could have far reaching implications. If the manufacturer
told me to make changes I would do so. Same goes for the chopper. Ignoring
factory mods can only be your own problem. The worst though is that the
chopper could kill innocent bystanders - a fact that makes adherence to
factory mods all the more important.

But then I know quite a few pilots and most of them think they know it all!
Could explain many of the problems experienced. Mind you, not having known
any of those killed, I can only speculate.

If you buy a gun/boat/sportscar/plane/chopper, you know what you are letting
yourself in for. If you go as far as building it yourself, well need I say
more!



??>> "
??>>
??>>> I think we all need to blame gravity, or maybe the earth, or maybe
??>>> the adventurous spirit of man. He chose to do what he did. Freedom is
??>>> a wonderful thing. It does have its responsibilities though.
??>>> Ignorance can be bliss, and it can kill you.
??>>
??>> Why are you people not trying to shut down the gun manufactures or
??>> porsche or ferrari? They all produce/sell products to anybody who
??>> walks through their doors and have no conscience or even give a rats
??>> behind if those people go out and kill themselves or anybody else. Gun
??>> manufacturers even refuse to adjust the trigger presure so that
??>> children (who they know might or do have access) can'nt fire a bullet!
??>> I won't even talk about the tobaco or alchohol producers! You guys
??>> blame Dennis for the plight of people who 'know not what they do'
??>> and/or do not fully respect the dangers of aviation. Most people fully
??>> understand the dangers (like myself) and still wish to persue the
??>> freedom of flight.

MW> You need to do some homework. There have been many lawsuits attempting
MW> to shut down gun manufacturers. The trial lawyers are trying to make
MW> gun makers the next silicon implant/tobacco/asbestos class action sham.


With best regards, ahlbebuck. E-mail:

[Dennis Fetters]

ahlbebuck wrote:
> The problem with this Mini500 debacle lies not with the craft that seems to
> have been well enough designed, but rather with the fact that the
> owner/builder was not qualified to build such a potentially dangerous
> machine. The seller and the buyer were both naive.


Well, I admit I know more afterwards then I knew beforehand.

Dennis Fetters

[John]

Is he even thinking? doubt it!

"Dennis Fetters" > skrev i meddelandet
. com...
> Me thinks only a fool (John) would complain about something he didn't
> need to read if he didn't want to. But that's just me thinking.
>
>
> John wrote:
>
> > Me thinks he (D.F.)talks to much?
> >
> >
> > "Dennis Fetters" > skrev i meddelandet
> > m...
> >
> >>KB,
> >>Thank you for your well spoken opinion. Opinions are always welcome when
> >>put across in a civilized professional manner as you have done. I with
> >>more people had your manners.
> >>
> >>
> >>Kyle Boatright wrote:
> >>
> >>>Dennis,
> >>>
> >>>Your statement "the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax
powered
> >>>engines quit because it failed from over excursion (sic)" may be
> >
> > correct,
> >
> >>>but I doubt that you have the tear-down reports and expert knowledge to
> >>>*prove* the claim.
> >>
> >>
> >>Actually, I personally attended the advanced Rotax engine maintenance
> >>and installation courses in Vernon BC Canada, along with later sending
> >>several of my employees to the school. I was the first human to fly a
> >>Rotax powered Gyroplane, and I received the first 532 Rotax ever shipped
> >>to the aviation industry, and the first to fly a 532 Rotax on any kind
> >>of aircraft. I'm the one that showed Rotax the way to cool the liquid
> >>cooled engines at 160F when they said it was OK to run them at 210F.
> >>They sent me their first 582 rotax and I was the first to fly it in any
> >>type of aircraft. They sent me the first engines because they knew I
> >>could make them work and report back when something needed to be
> >>changed. When ever there was a problem I was the one that inspected the
> >>engines, and I did this many, many times. In almost all cases it was not
> >>the engines fault, that is after Rotax overcome a few unforeseen startup
> >>problems.
> >>I have plenty of knowledge about Rotax engines and how to make them work
> >>and what makes them fail.
> >>
> >>
> >> To me, the bigger issue is the one Rich alluded to - 2
> >>
> >>>stroke engines are notoriously unreliable compared to their 4 stroke
> >>>cousins. ALL of the ultralight guys I know with more than a couple of
> >>>hundred hours behind 2 strokes have suffered engine events. Seized
> >
> > engines,
> >
> >>>partially seized engines, exhaust failures that lead to power loss,
etc.
> >>>Because of the reliability issue, 2 stroke engines are simply not
> >
> > suitable
> >
> >>>for helicopter power plants. You know that, as does anyone else who is
> >>>familiar with the history of 2 stroke engines.
> >>
> >>
> >>There is a reason. I have found over my years of working and flying
> >>Rotax, that literally 98% of all Rotax engine failures is installation.
> >>Even today, here at my airport people bring their airplane or
> >>helicopters to me when their Rotax has a problem. In every case it has
> >>been installation problems, either designed wrong by the factory or
> >>modified by the builder. In every case after I rebuild the engine I must
> >>redesign the engine mounting and cooling system. In every case that
> >>airplane or helicopter performs better, runs cooler and has no further
> >>problems.
> >>
> >>How many times have you seen someone cook a Rotax engine, send it in and
> >>have it rebuilt, and put it back in the aircraft without changing the
> >>installation? About every time! Well, what should you then expect to
> >>happen? The engine quits again, duh! Stupid Rotax!! This is from many
> >>factory designed installations that are poorly conceived, and customers
> >>that fail to follow instructions. Think about it. This dude spends years
> >>building an airplane kit, gets the airframe done and it looks beautiful!
> >>But then he gets impatient and ****-installs the engine because he wants
> >>to go fly now. How many times have I seen this happen!
> >>
> >>The engine will only run as good as the installation and maintenance
> >>performed. Period. Same goes for a 4 stroke, but since 4 strokes are
> >>more expensive and fewer they seem to be more respected and more care is
> >>provided.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Now, if you wanted to build and fly your own 2 stroke powered heli,
> >
> > that's
> >
> >>>fine, but kitting the thing and selling it to the dumb masses just
isn't
> >>>right. Presumably, the target buyer for a 2 stroke powered kit
> >
> > helicopter
> >
> >>>is either a big-time risk taker or is simply ignorant of the risks
> >
> > involved.
> >
> >>>KB
> >>
> >>
> >>With hindsight being 20-20, I find it hard to argue that point. The
> >>2-stroke Rotax in a Mini-500 has and is functioning very well with those
> >>that properly install it with the proper jetting and PEP exhaust, and
> >>operate and maintain it as designed. The problem has been with, as you
> >>call it, the "dumb masses". It was defiantly wrong of me to think that
> >>ordinary people had the ability and discipline to properly build, fly
> >>and apply maintenance to a helicopter. The fault had not been the
> >>helicopter, because it even today performs just fine, but in the hands
> >>of most people it is beyond their reach.
> >>
> >>I provided an affordable helicopter kit that would perform as our
> >>factory ships performed if assembled correctly, maintained and
> >>modifications added as ours were. I provided excellent instructions, up
> >>do date web site, news letters, AD notifications and daily assistance on
> >>the phone. I provided constant factory testing and developments to keep
> >>ahead. We held the tail rotor gearboxes from customers until they
> >>provided proof of instruction, and so on. We had factory maintenance and
> >>building courses and offered free inspections to anyone that came to the
> >>factory or an airshow with their Mini-500. We did more than any factory
> >>I know of to help the customer succeed.
> >>
> >>I did everything I could think of, and many things other people thought
> >>of to make a successful project. We make a great kit helicopter, the
> >>best ever made. The opportunity was there for anyone that wanted it, the
> >>American way. We made it available to those that thought they had the
> >>right stuff to build and fly a helicopter, and at an affordable price.
> >>It was in their choice if they thought they could do it, we tried to
> >>filter out the ones we knew couldn't, but that was all we could do.
> >>Mostly, people were successful, but it only took a few bad apples to
> >>give people like Fred Stewart and his coolies the ammunition they needed
> >>to succeed in helping to shut our factory down, but only after 2 long
> >>years of fighting.
> >>
> >>Now, am I to blame for others that failed to follow instructions, made
> >>modifications and flying stupid, resulting in a crash? decide for
> >>yourself. I really don't care what people think. I know what I did and I
> >>know how I feel about it. That is all that matters. And if anyone of you
> >>think you could do it better, don't just talk about it, prove it.
> >>
> >>Sincerely,
> >>
> >>Dennis Fetters
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

[Dennis Fetters]

When it comes down to childish insults like that, no further response is
even necessary.

Dennis Fetters

John wrote:
> Is he even thinking? doubt it!
>
> "Dennis Fetters" > skrev i meddelandet
> . com...
>
>>Me thinks only a fool (John) would complain about something he didn't
>>need to read if he didn't want to. But that's just me thinking.
>>
>>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Me thinks he (D.F.)talks to much?

[Hoppy]

John wrote:
> Me thinks he (D.F.)talks to much?

Yup. Vulgar insults and name calling for a while, then he switches to
"diplomatic" mode and tries to pass himself off as being a professional. It's a
facade.

Occasionally, someone posts a reply that leaves him speechless...
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=7fffb206.0302161431.43f7ee42%40posting.google .com&rnum=9

.... and he disappears back under his rock, lurking.

Always comes back though, like those punching-bag clowns that pop back up!

[Dennis Fetters]

Hoppy wrote:
> John wrote:
>
>>Me thinks he (D.F.)talks to much?
>
>
> Yup. Vulgar insults and name calling for a while, then he switches to
> "diplomatic" mode and tries to pass himself off as being a professional. It's a
> facade.


Please show us my vulgar insults you say I made. Please show us where I
have been other than an adult in my writings. As for being a
professional, forget it, I don't need to any longer. I'm just one of you
turds now, only growen up.


> Occasionally, someone posts a reply that leaves him speechless...
> http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=7fffb206.0302161431.43f7ee42%40posting.google .com&rnum=9
>
> ... and he disappears back under his rock, lurking.


Nothing to discuss I already spent the time answering his inaccurate
accusations before. Just because someone repeats them later don't make
them true.


> Always comes back though, like those punching-bag clowns that pop back up!


So says you. What's worse, calling someone a punching bag clown, or
being someone that enjoys the childish punching of a punching bag
clowns? I don't need to play children's games.

Dennis Fetters

[B2431]

>From: Dennis Fetters
>Date: 6/20/2004 7:29 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Hoppy wrote:
>> John wrote:
>>
>>>Me thinks he (D.F.)talks to much?
>>
>>
>> Yup. Vulgar insults and name calling for a while, then he switches to
>> "diplomatic" mode and tries to pass himself off as being a professional.
>It's a
>> facade.
>
>
>Please show us my vulgar insults you say I made. Please show us where I
>have been other than an adult in my writings. As for being a
>professional, forget it, I don't need to any longer. I'm just one of you
>turds now, only growen up.
>
>
And there is your vulgarity.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dennis Fetters]

Hoppy wrote:
> Occasionally, someone posts a reply that leaves him speechless...
> http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=7fffb206.0302161431.43f7ee42%40posting.google .com&rnum=9
>
> ... and he disappears back under his rock, lurking.


Yes, read it again, still stand behind my post he answered. But lets
take a closer look and I'll answer it now that I got some time to do so,
since you opened the topic.



Dennis Fetters > wrote in message
>...
> Ken,
>
> All that you said below is false, and meant in a flaming manner. You
> do not conduct yourself here as a person that could have something
> valuable to say. You are full of insults and unfounded information,
> and just another big mouth.
>
> What did you do for gyros besides fly them around? I took the sport
> out of decay and gave it new life and shipped out over 1200 aircraft
> world wide, experimented with different and new designs and engines,
> and was the first to bring Rotax to the sport as a viable engine
> alternative. I made a machine that was convertible from a single plac
> to a side by side or tandem two place. I have won more awards at that
> time than any other PRA member for my designs and competition,
> including the PRA Man and Machine award. In fact they stopped letting
> me compete to give the others a chance!
>
> Up until I sold the company, there had never been a single instance of
> a crash due to a failed part. The machine flew very well, and hundreds
> are still flying today, nearly 20 years later.
>
> Now, what have you done for the sport?
>
> Talk all you want, because you come off sounding more like someone
> with a big mouth that need washed out rather then someone that knows
> about what he's talking about.
>
> Dennis Fetters

Ken Wrote:
"Finally Fetters, we can cut to the chase. You have never designed
anything. All you did was start with a "borrowed" concept and alter
and modify it during a period when the gyro community at large was
still ignorant as to the fatal design flaws in what you were peddling."


Answer:
This is not true. I have designed the Commander gyroplane series, the
Mini-500, the Voyager-500 and now the Star-Lite RPV helicopter. I did
it, I copied them from no one. They did not exist before I designed and
built them. That is a fact.

I think what ken was trying to say is I have invented nothing. I have
said it before, I have invented nothing that has not been done by
someone before. I did not invent the gyrocopter and I did not invent the
helicopter. In fact, I learned from what others did and applied that to
my own designs.


Ken Wrote:
"This is where I have to jump in and acknowledge your greatest talent,
marketing. I don't deny you this skill. It was great. You were able
to sell hundreds and hundreds of design flawed, dangerous machines."


Answer:
It is stupid to say that my designs were flawed when there has never
been an accident caused by the failure of a component in one of my
designs that was installed and maintained correctly. My designs are
still flying today all around the world. They fly stable. Can they be
made better? Sure, we learn as we go and we apply. If I was to design
another gyroplane I would do if differently. But the old Air Commands
flew fine and still do, or can you just ignore all the times you saw me
and customers flying them at the air shows?


Ken Wrote:
"When the fatality rate of your ill-designed product started getting
people killed left and right, they were banned and grounded in Great
Britain."


Answer:
That is not an accurate statement. The UK distributor was soloing his
customers with only 5 hours of instruction, and the deaths were due to
the inexperienced pilots flying in windy conditions which exceeded their
ability. The UK distributor quit after I told the CAA that 5 hours was
totally inadequate. Then since there was no distributor, and I was
selling Air Command an was no longer the one who needed to replace the
distributor, the CAA grounded the aircraft's due to lack of support.


Ken Wrote:
"You proudly state that no one was killed from a failed
component. That may be 100% correct. The fact is that they were
killed from an aeronautically flawed design that you peddled as safe
and easy to fly, just as the idiots at RAF continue to do today."


Answer:
When I came into the gyroplane business, I increased the number of
gyroplanes being sold at that time from about an average of 5 in the
world per month to about 12.5 being sold in the world per month. In fact
when I owned Air Command, within a year we were selling 98% of all
gyroplanes being sold in the world. Suddenly the worlds gyroplane sales
had more than doubled per month and had a steady growth until I sold the
company years later. Naturally the accident rate was going to clim just
due to increased attrition. Yet we did not have 98% of all the
accidents at that time. As a matter of fact, even though 98 out of 100
gyroplanes being sold and flown were Air Commands, 2 out of 5 accidents
involved other than an Air Command Gyroplanes.


Ken Wrote:
"The fact is, that a high thrust-line gyro without a stab is not safe
and easy to fly. It flies at the outside edge of the envelope where the
slightest mis-maneuver or downdraft, especially during take-off at
full throttle, can easily and regularly does, kill the occupant(s)."


Answer:
That is not true. Anyone that has flown an AIr Command can tell you they
were very stable and flew well. In fact, just remember the Kin Brock
routines performed every year at Oshkosh. He flew on the edge and always
came back. So did I, at air shows all around the world, and I'm still here.

Now, if you take a low time pilot with inadequate training, he can get
into trouble. But that can happen even on one of those ugly center line
thrust gyrothings.


Ken Wrote:
"Accolades from the PRA at the time you were in the gyro business is no
great fete. The PRA at that time, and I am a current member,
consisted mainly of a very small bunch of good old boys, on the edge
of the experimental pool, with no knowledge of basic aeronautics, save
for a select few who were primarily ignored by the majority."


Answer:
Dude, it was the "members" that voted me in for the Man and Machine
award. Did you receive it yet? As for your description of the board, I
have to agree.


Ken Wrote:
"We're still the ******* children of aviation."


Answer:
Agreed.


Ken Wrote:
"As more and more educated people got interested and started flying
gyros, the fatal design flaws
in gyros as yours began to be addressed by people who actually
understood them."


Answer:
I have to agree that people will learn, and yes I did bring a lot of
people to a dying sport that gave it a new beginning, and some of them
have potential to advance the sport. As for flaws? The Air Command flew
great with a trained pilot. They were never meant to be flown by anyone
other then a trained gyroplane pilot. What you call a flaw on a 20 year
old design is merely a characteristic that a pilot was trained to easily
avoid. Like ground looping a taildrager. It's not a flaw, it's a
characteristic you train for.


Ken Wrote:
"For the most part, the PRA is embarrassed that they
ever handed you the awards and wishes they could take them back.
After all, they were clearly merely for marketing, even if the PRA
didn't know it at the time."


Answer:
Sure they are. Tell them to come and ask for it back. Well, I did ****
some of those good old boys off a few times when I told them they didn't
know their head from a coconut.


Ken Wrote:
"You wouldn't even recognize the Air
Command of today. To stop the slaughter, it has been completely
redesigned with a center-line thrust and huge horizontal stabilizer.
That's the only way the name could be continued, to fix the pooorly
designed contraption you were peddling."


Answer:
You're right, I wouldn't. It's one ugly critter now. But the accident
rate went down for one reason and one reason only. After I sold the
company the sales dropped from 150 a year to 5 or 10 a year. We won't
even mention the dollars it made by the change with 1200 potential mods
to be sold.


Ken Wrote:
"Your basic ignorance of gyro design is magnified by the recent comment
that you made, that you have so many hours in gyros and you never
noticed any difference in flying one with a center-line thrust or not."


Answer:
So say you, who ever you are? Ken, denying my experience in gyroplanes
is ridiculous. I think you are just jealous of my accomplishments. Go
out there an accomplish something and then come back here and talk.


Ken Wrote:
"You don't notice the lack of a serious design flaw until you're dead,
as so many of your customers and RAF's customers are. We could take
you in a car, get it going 75 m.p.h. on the freeway, have you take
over the wheel and tool along for a few miles. We would tell you to
coast it to a stop and then inform you that the car had no brakes.
Your obvious comment would then be that you didn't notice any
difference in how it drove with brakes or not. That's the point
Fetters, you don't recognize design-flaws until it is too late, until
something occurs where that flaw now rears its head and kills you.
Your flaws, that you didn't and still don't because of ignorance get,
have killed numerous people, both in your design-flawed gyros and Mini
500s."


Answer:
All talk, worthless talk. You have no idea what I know. For you to even
pretend to is foolish and wishful thinking.


Ken Wrote:
"The problem with you, the same as with LaFleur at RAF, is that neither
of you have any common sense or learning ability, that having been
replaced by giant egos in a futile attempt to compensate. You both
took basic designs and modified them without thinking, to what you
thought the masses wanted and then marketed the hell out of them and
damned be the consequences. At both endeavors, knowledgeable people
tried to warn you and educate you, even within your company, but you
thought that you knew better, when in fact you know diddly about gyro
aeronautics."


Answer:
I can't speak for LaFleur, but what you said above has nothing to do
with me. Denying my aircraft flew well is done so in ignorance. The
facts say otherwise. I always took advice anytime I could get it. I used
any good idea someone gave me.


Ken Wrote:
"What have I done besides flying them? I was the first one to bring a
horizontal stabilizer to market to correct this flaw in the RAF."


Answer:
Whoop-de-doo!! Wow, really? So you took someone else's gyroplane they
designed and manufactured and added a horizontal stabilizer that has
been flying on aircraft for 100 years?? You da man! Ken, anyone in a
barn could have done that. Is that your great accomplishment that makes
you all high and mighty?


Ken Wrote:
"I sold a good number and probably saved numerous people from bunting
over and dying.....exactly the opposite of what you and RAF have done."


Answer:
Wait, I know they needed a horizontal stabilizer since day one. I told
them that. All gyroplanes that have a pod or enclosure need one. Only
open air gyroplanes can get away without a horizontal stabilizer. Even
Kin Wallis agrees.


Ken Wrote:
"All that your modifications have done is caused people to die.
Within a year of being introduced to gyros, I was able to learn of
this basic flaw and do something about it. All you have done is get
people killed in your ill-conceived contraptions. As long as you have
been peddling gyros and helis, you still have not learned the very
basic concepts as to what is safe and what is not. All you had to do
was to seek out the information, but you were too lazy and air-headed
to ever do it."


Answer:
There you go again. Assuming what someone you don't know knows or don't
know. I designed, manufactured and sold 1700 aircraft so far, and you
call me lazy? You, someone that has made a few fiberglass horizontal
stabilizers and sold them? Design your own aircraft and sell them, then
try and tell someone what they know and don't know, and how lazy they are.


Ken Wrote:
"From your semi-literate postings, I think that I can safely assume
that you have a difficult time with writing (obvious) using proper
spelling, punctuation and grammar. This almost always relates to
difficulty in reading. People that have a hard time reading are
usually loathe to accept either new or even proven ideas, because
they'd have to read some technical data. Due to your ignorance and
difficulty in writing and reading basic English, I'm sure you'd have a
giant migraine by the 3rd paragraph. So I understand people like you
and LaFleur and why you act the way you do, with callousness,
non-caring and total blame-shifting to your victims. But
understanding you is not sufficient, as you and he won't change your
ignorant ways. People like you need to be constantly exposed to the
daylight and as many as possible warned to keep them safe from your
ignorant fallacies. That is why I spend a good portion of my valuable
time exposing phonies and charlatans like you and Don. It's worth it
if even one life is saved, something that you and he never showed the
slightest concern about."


Answer:
Ken, you talk a lot. And that's about all you have accomplished. You
keep talking, and I'll keep designing and building. After all, you think
you got us all figured out. A guy like you must have a lot of time to
think and imagine. Why don't you spend that time doing something
significant in your life rather then worrying about someone else that
has done the things you wish you could do, and then complaining about them.

Dennis Fetters

[Dennis Fetters]

B2431 wrote:

>>From: Dennis Fetters
>>Date: 6/20/2004 7:29 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Hoppy wrote:
>>
>>>John wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Me thinks he (D.F.)talks to much?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yup. Vulgar insults and name calling for a while, then he switches to
>>>"diplomatic" mode and tries to pass himself off as being a professional.
>>
>>It's a
>>
>>>facade.
>>
>>
>>Please show us my vulgar insults you say I made. Please show us where I
>>have been other than an adult in my writings. As for being a
>>professional, forget it, I don't need to any longer. I'm just one of you
>>turds now, only growen up.
>>
>>
>
> And there is your vulgarity.
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


You got me there, but I'm afraid you must do better.

Dennis Fetters

[B2431]

Why didn't the Mini 500 have autorotation?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Dennis Fetters
>Date: 6/20/2004 10:00 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>B2431 wrote:
>
>>>From: Dennis Fetters
>>>Date: 6/20/2004 7:29 PM Central Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>Hoppy wrote:
>>>
>>>>John wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Me thinks he (D.F.)talks to much?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yup. Vulgar insults and name calling for a while, then he switches to
>>>>"diplomatic" mode and tries to pass himself off as being a professional.
>>>
>>>It's a
>>>
>>>>facade.
>>>
>>>
>>>Please show us my vulgar insults you say I made. Please show us where I
>>>have been other than an adult in my writings. As for being a
>>>professional, forget it, I don't need to any longer. I'm just one of you
>>>turds now, only growen up.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And there is your vulgarity.
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>You got me there, but I'm afraid you must do better.
>
>Dennis Fetters

Why? I'm not taking sides here, but you did duck the question I asked a few
days ago. Why did the mini 500 not have autorotation?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[RobertR237]

>
>John wrote:
>> Me thinks he (D.F.)talks to much?
>
>Yup. Vulgar insults and name calling for a while, then he switches to
>"diplomatic" mode and tries to pass himself off as being a professional. It's
>a
>facade.
>
>Occasionally, someone posts a reply that leaves him speechless...
>
>http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=7fffb206.03
02161431.43f7ee42%40posting.google.com&rnum=9
>
>... and he disappears back under his rock, lurking.
>
>Always comes back though, like those punching-bag clowns that pop back up!
>

As long as he stays OUT OF THE BUSINESS, who cares.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Dennis Fetters]

B2431 wrote:

>>You got me there, but I'm afraid you must do better.
>>
>>Dennis Fetters
>
>
> Why? I'm not taking sides here, but you did duck the question I asked a few
> days ago. Why did the mini 500 not have autorotation?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


I'm sorry Dan, I didn't duck any question intentionally. If you asked
it, I don't recall you asking me directly or I would have answered.

The Mini-500 has excellent autorotation characteristics. Better than
most helicopters. In fact, we would demonstrate autorotations at the air
shows starting from hundreds of feet high or starting at ten's of feet
high, followed by an unusual slow decent of 45 mph and completing in a
zero slideon landings. In fact, the Mini-500 had such a good combination
of inertia, blade efficiency and low drag drive system that we
demonstrated hovering autorotations from as high as 15 feet at air shows.

Congratulations to Space ship one. The real door to space is open.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters

[B2431]

>From: Dennis Fetters
>Date: 6/21/2004 11:00 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>B2431 wrote:
>
>>>You got me there, but I'm afraid you must do better.
>>>
>>>Dennis Fetters
>>
>>
>> Why? I'm not taking sides here, but you did duck the question I asked a few
>> days ago. Why did the mini 500 not have autorotation?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>I'm sorry Dan, I didn't duck any question intentionally. If you asked
>it, I don't recall you asking me directly or I would have answered.
>
>The Mini-500 has excellent autorotation characteristics. Better than
>most helicopters. In fact, we would demonstrate autorotations at the air
>shows starting from hundreds of feet high or starting at ten's of feet
>high, followed by an unusual slow decent of 45 mph and completing in a
>zero slideon landings. In fact, the Mini-500 had such a good combination
>of inertia, blade efficiency and low drag drive system that we
>demonstrated hovering autorotations from as high as 15 feet at air shows.
>
>Congratulations to Space ship one. The real door to space is open.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Dennis Fetters

In that case how could a sudden engine stop cause a crash? Last I heard
helicopter training includes autorotations.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dennis Fetters]

B2431 wrote:
>>>Why? I'm not taking sides here, but you did duck the question I asked a few
>>>days ago. Why did the mini 500 not have autorotation?
>>>
>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>>I'm sorry Dan, I didn't duck any question intentionally. If you asked
>>it, I don't recall you asking me directly or I would have answered.
>>
>>The Mini-500 has excellent autorotation characteristics. Better than
>>most helicopters. In fact, we would demonstrate autorotations at the air
>>shows starting from hundreds of feet high or starting at ten's of feet
>>high, followed by an unusual slow decent of 45 mph and completing in a
>>zero slideon landings. In fact, the Mini-500 had such a good combination
>>of inertia, blade efficiency and low drag drive system that we
>>demonstrated hovering autorotations from as high as 15 feet at air shows.
>>
>>Congratulations to Space ship one. The real door to space is open.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Dennis Fetters
>
>
> In that case how could a sudden engine stop cause a crash? Last I heard
> helicopter training includes autorotations.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


That is correct Dan, all proper and full training includes
autorotations. If you are referring to the crash that involved the
university professor, I can only guess what happened. First, he modified
the horizontal stabilizer, which is very important for interring a
proper autorotation. But, I couldn't say if that was a factor or not. It
could be as simple as he didn't enter into a proper autorotation, or he
failed to enter into one at all. The only real known fact is the
helicopter did not enter an autorotation for one reason or another, but
the Mini-500 can perform autorotations if the pilot commands it to do
so, and if it dose not have any modifications that would affect it from
doing so.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters