"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
About a claim made in a brochure and then no brochure could be found.

Matt, a number of us have seen the brochures in question. After ten years,
it isn't surprising that they aren't on the top of the desk anymore. I'll
try to find a copy. In the meantime, I guess you think Fetters maintains
his credibility, right? Even if I was wrong, what do you think "designed
for a 2000 TBO" was supposed to mean?. Does it mean something different
than "2000 TBO"? I've never seen anybody in the aviation community use the
verbage, "designed, but not tested, to achieve 2000 TBO".

Did you miss the rest of the conversation? The part about Cicare yanking
his prototype, his plans, and support, leaving Fetters to design, build, and
test a new helicopter in a year and half, minus lost time due to flooding.
The timeline tells the real story behind the Mini-500 if you are unwilling
to dismiss the experiences of owners and employees of the Revolution.


Fetters has stopped trying to argue that his design was well tested and now
offers a rationale for not testing his design adequately. Namely, it would
have taken too much time and money. It was a lot cheaper to make big
claims, verbally and in Revolution literature.

Given the success of the CH-6 prototype and the CH-7, I think Fetters came
pretty close to getting it right. I think that more engineering, quality
control, and testing could have yielded a much better craft.