Dennis Fetters Mini 500

Dennis Fetters wrote in message om...

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

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

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

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 wrote in message m...

...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

Rich wrote:
Dennis Fetters wrote in message m...


...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

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
om...

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

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

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

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