I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!

Wasn't it the same designer as the Rotorway?

C.D.Damron wrote:
"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".

I don't think either side has much credibility in an absolute sense. I
was simply observing that neither side appears to have much.

Matt

Darrel Toepfer wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

This makes no sense at all. Exactly what did the mini-500 design do
to hobble the engine? If the designs are essentially the same, then
the engine isn't going to know the difference. If the performance
really was dramatically different, then SOMETHING had to be
dramatically different between the designs. And saying that one was
overseen by one person and one by a different person, isn't a design
difference.


Gearing ratio of the transmission? Put the engine into more of a cruise
range instead of WOT...

Gearing doesn't materially change the power output of the engine, unless
you are geared way out of range so that the engine can't achieve a
reasonable RPM.

Matt

:Mr. Cicarre and the later Ch-7 Angel's manufacturer's had better
:quality manufacturing facility and personnel than Fetters did. Fetters
:had problems with blades that bowed like a banana, rfames that cracked,
:bearings that gave out...etc.

And these problems killed engines?

A vibrating rotating system takes a lot more power to achieve a RPM than the
same system without vibration.

The common thread in the saga of the mini 500, is that there were many
poorly manufactured and machined parts, and that the vibrations were nearly
impossible to eliminate.

So you take the same design without vibrations; without vibrations because
parts are machined to higher tolerances, an perhaps some key parts are
"stouter" but of the same basic design.

Now the engine does not have to run overstressed (because of the lack of
vibrations), it will continue to run reliably. Parts don't fail because
they are not shaken to failure.

Accepting this premise is contingent on accepting that a non vibrating
system will run more RPM's with the same power compared to a vibrating
system. It is true, but I don't have time to look up cites, right now.
--
Jim in NC

Richard wrote:
Read any of VDubber's brilliant posts.

I always do... He is one of the best in RAH.

The story behind the Mini link above was that it could barely manage a hover in Las Vegas on an apparently cool day...

Bad Water Bill is not a light weight you know?

The Helicycle looks like a pretty good mini Jetranger to me.

I was just about to say the same thing.

Wasn't it the same designer as the Rotorway?

Yep!

Flyingmonk wrote:
The story behind the Mini link above was that it could barely manage a hover in Las Vegas on an apparently cool day...

Bad Water Bill is not a light weight you know?

I've met him out at NLV... I delivered a crawfish-a-too-fay stuffed
deboned chicken and a few pounds of boudin to Martin and the crew at
Aero Supercharger Solutions...

("Flyingmonk" wrote)
[snip]
Dennis is not very bright. He's not even bright enough to know that he
could be traced. He's not even bright enough to go back and remove his
posts. He calls his critics idiots, but what an idiot he is. Too
stupid to even go back and erase evidence.


How does one do this ...remove old posts and erase evidence?

Curious.


Montblack