A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dennis Fetters Mini 500



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old June 18th 04, 01:12 AM
Dennis Fetters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Ads
  #32  
Old June 18th 04, 01:21 AM
Bryan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #33  
Old June 18th 04, 02:36 AM
John Ammeter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #34  
Old June 18th 04, 03:02 AM
Barnyard BOb -
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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
  #35  
Old June 18th 04, 05:40 AM
C.D.Damron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.




  #36  
Old June 18th 04, 05:43 AM
C.D.Damron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[synonymous]


  #38  
Old June 18th 04, 08:16 AM
Hoppy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #39  
Old June 18th 04, 08:31 AM
Hoppy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #40  
Old June 18th 04, 02:27 PM
D.A.L
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"
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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mini Fly-In Drachten (EHDR) 5-6-7 juni Zier en van de Steenoven Home Built 0 May 28th 04 01:14 AM
fetters or fetter's booster? Cy Galley Home Built 11 March 12th 04 11:46 PM
Mini Imp Randall Robertson Home Built 0 November 25th 03 01:17 AM
mini copter strikes again tim Home Built 4 November 21st 03 01:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.