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
  #51  
Old June 19th 04, 01:43 AM
Dennis Fetters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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

Ads
  #52  
Old June 19th 04, 02:33 PM
Cy Galley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



  #53  
Old June 19th 04, 05:49 PM
Dennis Fetters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #54  
Old June 19th 04, 06:00 PM
John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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





  #56  
Old June 19th 04, 09:01 PM
Dennis Fetters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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







  #57  
Old June 19th 04, 09:45 PM
ahlbebuck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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:


  #58  
Old June 20th 04, 12:20 AM
Dennis Fetters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #59  
Old June 20th 04, 11:28 AM
John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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









  #60  
Old June 20th 04, 07:24 PM
Dennis Fetters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?


 




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 09:27 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.