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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Victimizing Aircraft Designers - An American Specialty? (was Fetters)
Barnyard BOb wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Dennis Fetters wrote: Poultry in Motion wrote: Jim Logajan wrote: It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion. Actually, I don't want any person to "steer" public opinion concerning the Mini-500 helicopter. I only want the facts to steer public opinion, and that is why we spent the time to compile all FAA accident reports along with what we knew about the case, and put together one of the most complete accident analyses reports even done on a kit-built aircraft. Dennis. In your defense... I don't believe most folks know how to take you to task because they don't have a clue about the facts and how the FAA determines them... just like you lament. For my money, every death in a Mini-500 was preventable had the pilot exercised proper judgment, caution and treated the Miin-500 as the lethal weapon I personally believe it to be. In my opinion, everyone that died in a Mini-500 had no one to blame but themselves. They all made mistakes where there is almost no margin for error if you want to see the sun rise the next day. Do I endorse the Mini-500 as an inherently safe chopper? Not on your friggin' life!!!!! [Literally] Barnyard BOb - 55 years of licensed powered flight I recently started monitoring rec.aviation.homebuilt again, after being run off quite a few years ago by the level of abrasive comment there. Some of that seemed to focus on some homebuilt helicopter. Now I see again some harangue of a helicopter homebuild designer, and his self-defense efforts. Could this STILL be the same feud? Here's my take. The very first successful powered aircraft designers managed to kill the designated representative of their most important and desired customer - the US Army. They were then greeted as heroes when they took their design abroad. Should I even mention that the British aviation authorities turned up their noses at the quality of the construction and design detail on the Flyer models? And THESE were the folks who were the recipients of the historic Flyer, so Lord knows how badly the Wrights felt they were treated by their fellow Americans, in comparison. Anybody, ANYBODY who is bold enough to design an aircraft - a helicopter no less - deserves my great respect and admiration - and IF I expect any more bold souls (or suckers, depending on your point of view) to step up to the plate, I had better not harangue the ones who have succeeded in putting something they designed into the air. They did not ever claim (or if they did they shouldn't have) that their design or kit was bound to be as safe as a certified design. I personally have seen companies spend millions in that particular effort - before going down the tubes. Take Home Message: if you think some hapless aircraft designer is underhand, peculiar or sneaky, you never studied Wilbur and Orville. Think twice before venting your spleen. Be kind - it's a thankless task. You have heard how to make a million in aviation - by starting with five million. So show some gratitude for people who have tried - successful or unsuccessful - like the Wright designers. Bury the hatchet. Then the people who know a couple of things, like Barnaby, like the plane electronics man, like several others, might feel they can contribute without feeling undermined and threatened. There. I said it. Have at it. Brian Whatcott Altus OK (Don't tell ME I'm a sock-puppet) |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Threatened by Dennis Fetter
Dan Camper wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:02:11 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote: Jim is a clever guy. He knows that the two posts referenced above were typed at the same computer, and he gave you a fair opportunity to plant doubt in his mind. Do you need a full explanation of why you just failed, Dennis, or can you figure it out yourself? He ain't that clever, no one is. I thought it clever. The precise question asked, and Fetters' answer, confirm that Fetters is "planeman" and there was not someone else using Fetters' name. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Victimizing Aircraft Designers - An American Specialty? (was Fetters)
"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message news Barnyard BOb wrote: On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Dennis Fetters wrote: Poultry in Motion wrote: Jim Logajan wrote: It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion. Actually, I don't want any person to "steer" public opinion concerning the Mini-500 helicopter. I only want the facts to steer public opinion, and that is why we spent the time to compile all FAA accident reports along with what we knew about the case, and put together one of the most complete accident analyses reports even done on a kit-built aircraft. Dennis. In your defense... I don't believe most folks know how to take you to task because they don't have a clue about the facts and how the FAA determines them... just like you lament. For my money, every death in a Mini-500 was preventable had the pilot exercised proper judgment, caution and treated the Miin-500 as the lethal weapon I personally believe it to be. In my opinion, everyone that died in a Mini-500 had no one to blame but themselves. They all made mistakes where there is almost no margin for error if you want to see the sun rise the next day. Do I endorse the Mini-500 as an inherently safe chopper? Not on your friggin' life!!!!! [Literally] Barnyard BOb - 55 years of licensed powered flight I recently started monitoring rec.aviation.homebuilt again, after being run off quite a few years ago by the level of abrasive comment there. Some of that seemed to focus on some homebuilt helicopter. Now I see again some harangue of a helicopter homebuild designer, and his self-defense efforts. Could this STILL be the same feud? Here's my take. The very first successful powered aircraft designers managed to kill the designated representative of their most important and desired customer - the US Army. They were then greeted as heroes when they took their design abroad. Should I even mention that the British aviation authorities turned up their noses at the quality of the construction and design detail on the Flyer models? And THESE were the folks who were the recipients of the historic Flyer, so Lord knows how badly the Wrights felt they were treated by their fellow Americans, in comparison. Anybody, ANYBODY who is bold enough to design an aircraft - a helicopter no less - deserves my great respect and admiration - and IF I expect any more bold souls (or suckers, depending on your point of view) to step up to the plate, I had better not harangue the ones who have succeeded in putting something they designed into the air. They did not ever claim (or if they did they shouldn't have) that their design or kit was bound to be as safe as a certified design. I personally have seen companies spend millions in that particular effort - before going down the tubes. Take Home Message: if you think some hapless aircraft designer is underhand, peculiar or sneaky, you never studied Wilbur and Orville. Think twice before venting your spleen. Be kind - it's a thankless task. You have heard how to make a million in aviation - by starting with five million. So show some gratitude for people who have tried - successful or unsuccessful - like the Wright designers. Bury the hatchet. Then the people who know a couple of things, like Barnaby, like the plane electronics man, like several others, might feel they can contribute without feeling undermined and threatened. There. I said it. Have at it. Brian Whatcott Altus OK (Don't tell ME I'm a sock-puppet) Brian: There is more than a little truth in what you say. I'm a retired EE (that now have a stack of ME reference works and helicopter design texts) and have several ME friends that have noted that good helicopter design involves quite a bit more than just "Wet Thumb" knowledge. That said, I recently jointly wrote an article for our magazine (Experimental Helo) commenting on some of the mechanical design found in some parts of a helicopter transmission. We found the total absence, in some cases, of the normal fillets in shafts diameter changes, which created some very high concentration factors, the lack of adequate pre-load on some bearings, and in one case a "botched" machine operation that left a nasty looking area on a main rotor shaft. The obvious lack of Quality Control on these parts and the fact that you would have to disassemble the transmission and use an optical comparator to measure the fillets, makes it difficult for a prospective kit buyer to analyze the quality of the kit components. And that assumes that you had the knowledge and experience to look. Another thing noted by a friend is that the normal accident investigation of an experimental helicopter crash usually involves NTSB people with little experience with that particular design and, if available, a representative from the kit mfr. Now it is possibly true that every kit mfr. rep is not biased to find pilot responsibility vs material failure, but I'm sure that it is in their best "Short Term" interest to find it that way. I know of some fatigue failures of shafts in areas where inadequate fillets were present, where the failure was attributed to something that the pilot/mechanic had done and the lack of adequate fillets got ignored. Dennis Fetters did own up to some design errors. This gives him at least one thumbs up. There have been others in the game that would avoid admitting a mistake if you held their feet to the fire. Accident rates for experimental helos can be very misleading. Claims of having X hundred ships out there flying for Y years doesn't address the average hours on the ships at accident time. The fatigue life of helicopter parts tends to be much shorter if there is any excessive vibration. Especially with high stress concentrations and landings not of the soft variety. It would be of great interest if we could have some neutral people with extensive engineering and practial experience review the present set of designs and quality of components that are out there now flying about. I once saw a coaxial helicopter built by an older gentleman that had no collective control. It was throttle up and throttle down. There was a lot of use of emt conduit tubing used along with a 4 cyl water cooled car engine that the cylic was required to pitch and roll to achieve control. He asked me if I would be interested in the role of test pilot....I declined saying that I was not qualified. (under my breath I said that I was only fearless and was missing one important requirement). However, he was not setting on the sidelines just telling everyone how to do it. He went and did it. If he lives thru it he will be a lot smarter than he was before and his initative is something that seems to be disappearing in our society. BTW are you familiar with the experimental helo fly-in that occurs every year near Cleveland OK? I believe it is Oct 1-5 this year. It is a good show. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Victimizing Aircraft Designers - An American Specialty? (wasFetters)
Stuart Fields wrote:
"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message news Barnyard BOb wrote: On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Dennis Fetters wrote: Poultry in Motion wrote: Jim Logajan wrote: It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion. Actually, I don't want any person to "steer" public opinion concerning the Mini-500 helicopter. I only want the facts to steer public opinion, and that is why we spent the time to compile all FAA accident reports along with what we knew about the case, and put together one of the most complete accident analyses reports even done on a kit-built aircraft. Dennis. In your defense... I don't believe most folks know how to take you to task because they don't have a clue about the facts and how the FAA determines them... just like you lament. For my money, every death in a Mini-500 was preventable had the pilot exercised proper judgment, caution and treated the Miin-500 as the lethal weapon I personally believe it to be. In my opinion, everyone that died in a Mini-500 had no one to blame but themselves. They all made mistakes where there is almost no margin for error if you want to see the sun rise the next day. Do I endorse the Mini-500 as an inherently safe chopper? Not on your friggin' life!!!!! [Literally] Barnyard BOb - 55 years of licensed powered flight I recently started monitoring rec.aviation.homebuilt again, after being run off quite a few years ago by the level of abrasive comment there. Some of that seemed to focus on some homebuilt helicopter. Now I see again some harangue of a helicopter homebuild designer, and his self-defense efforts. Could this STILL be the same feud? Here's my take. The very first successful powered aircraft designers managed to kill the designated representative of their most important and desired customer - the US Army. They were then greeted as heroes when they took their design abroad. Should I even mention that the British aviation authorities turned up their noses at the quality of the construction and design detail on the Flyer models? And THESE were the folks who were the recipients of the historic Flyer, so Lord knows how badly the Wrights felt they were treated by their fellow Americans, in comparison. Anybody, ANYBODY who is bold enough to design an aircraft - a helicopter no less - deserves my great respect and admiration - and IF I expect any more bold souls (or suckers, depending on your point of view) to step up to the plate, I had better not harangue the ones who have succeeded in putting something they designed into the air. They did not ever claim (or if they did they shouldn't have) that their design or kit was bound to be as safe as a certified design. I personally have seen companies spend millions in that particular effort - before going down the tubes. Take Home Message: if you think some hapless aircraft designer is underhand, peculiar or sneaky, you never studied Wilbur and Orville. Think twice before venting your spleen. Be kind - it's a thankless task. You have heard how to make a million in aviation - by starting with five million. So show some gratitude for people who have tried - successful or unsuccessful - like the Wright designers. Bury the hatchet. Then the people who know a couple of things, like Barnaby, like the plane electronics man, like several others, might feel they can contribute without feeling undermined and threatened. There. I said it. Have at it. Brian Whatcott Altus OK (Don't tell ME I'm a sock-puppet) Brian: There is more than a little truth in what you say. Of course there is. That is a common quality of the commonplace and cliché. Brian has regurgitated the obvious for us. Contrary to Brian's romantic story of dogged determination and spirit, Dennis Fetters was not bold enough to design a helicopter. He was bold enough to rip off one Augusto Cicare's work. A series of Cicare's helicopters evolved over several years. The Mini-500 went from nothing to ready in under a year. Dennis took what he wanted, and sent his ex-business buddy Cicare packing. The helicopter that Dennis has referred to in the past as his Mini-500 Prototype was Cicare's CH-6. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Victimizing Aircraft Designers - An American Specialty? (was Fetters)
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:37:47 -0700, Poultry in Motion
wrote: Contrary to Brian's romantic story of dogged determination and spirit, Dennis Fetters was not bold enough to design a helicopter. He was bold enough to rip off one Augusto Cicare's work. A series of Cicare's helicopters evolved over several years. The Mini-500 went from nothing to ready in under a year. Dennis took what he wanted, and sent his ex-business buddy Cicare packing. The helicopter that Dennis has referred to in the past as his Mini-500 Prototype was Cicare's CH-6. if that were really the case wouldnt Cicare have sued him for a patent breach? Cicare's control system is a patented design. in line with the original poster's comments Mignet was flying the Flea during the fatal accident period in england, but flying more conservatively. he never died in a flea while others less conservative did. Mignet never encountered the fatal tuck despite flying his flea for many hours and even crossing the english channel in one. I think a lot of people are as dumb as dog**** when it comes to aircraft. there seems to be little actual appreciation of the difference between an experimental design and a certified design. sometimes they die finding out. it pays to remember that the designer may never have encountered the fault in an experimental design. Stealth Pilot |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Victimizing Aircraft Designers - An American Specialty? (wasFetters)
Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:37:47 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote: Contrary to Brian's romantic story of dogged determination and spirit, Dennis Fetters was not bold enough to design a helicopter. He was bold enough to rip off one Augusto Cicare's work. A series of Cicare's helicopters evolved over several years. The Mini-500 went from nothing to ready in under a year. Dennis took what he wanted, and sent his ex-business buddy Cicare packing. The helicopter that Dennis has referred to in the past as his Mini-500 Prototype was Cicare's CH-6. if that were really the case wouldnt Cicare have sued him for a patent breach? Cicare's control system is a patented design. Cicare is in Argentina, what's he going to do? Especially when Fetters beat him to the punch and obtained his own patent first? Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you. in line with the original poster's comments Mignet was flying the Flea during the fatal accident period in england, but flying more conservatively. he never died in a flea while others less conservative did. Mignet never encountered the fatal tuck despite flying his flea for many hours and even crossing the english channel in one. I think a lot of people are as dumb as dog**** when it comes to aircraft. there seems to be little actual appreciation of the difference between an experimental design and a certified design. sometimes they die finding out. Fetters hawked the thing to the entry-level Popular Mechanics crowd, as a cheap time builder, requiring only 40-60 hours to go from the box into the air. And he blamed them for their inexperience and for his company's failure. They were naive to believe that Fetters could issue ADs, and decree that his factory upgrades for their machines were mandatory. it pays to remember that the designer may never have encountered the fault in an experimental design. Dennis may not have encountered faults in *the Mini-500 prototype* Stealth Pilot BTW, it's so damned cute how Brian renamed this thread! An exact fit, but not how he imagined. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Victimizing Aircraft Designers - An American Specialty? (wasFetters)
This is an open challenge, and request to Mr. Agusto Cicare, so will
someone in touch please let him know; I have all the personal correspondence between Mr. Cicare and myself, where we are begging him to comply with our agreements, and I have all of his responses in response. These correspondence include the fact that he cut a parallel deal with someone else at the same time he was dealing with us, and show that he was the one procrastinating and asking to change our deal. This correspondence proves my side of the all following accounts below. Mr. Cicare, I formally request that you email me a scanned and signed letter giving me permission to release our private correspondence to the world, so that this matter can be concluded, and history set straight. I have not posted it before, even at great cost to me personally, because I am an honorable person that would not stoop to the level of publishing private correspondence without permission. So, now I want to finally give my side of this account the proof, so give me permission. I also give you permission to release all private correspondence you may have from me, as well. Dennis Fetters Now, will that be enough to convince you all? He will not accept the challenge, because it will prove him wrong. Poultry in Motion wrote: Of course there is. That is a common quality of the commonplace and cliché. Brian has regurgitated the obvious for us. Contrary to Brian's romantic story of dogged determination and spirit, Dennis Fetters was not bold enough to design a helicopter. He was bold enough to rip off one Augusto Cicare's work. A series of Cicare's helicopters evolved over several years. The Mini-500 went from nothing to ready in under a year. Dennis took what he wanted, and sent his ex-business buddy Cicare packing. The helicopter that Dennis has referred to in the past as his Mini-500 Prototype was Cicare's CH-6. But now, to answer this false allegation; This a fabricated bunch of bull, nothing even close to being the truth. First, I was never alone 5 minutes with the Cicare prototype. Even then, I never seen the inside of anything. Now, if anyone thinks that I can take a tape measure and in moments sneaking around in the dark take down enough information from the Cicare prototype to turn around an built the Mini-500 within one year....... then that is about the greatest compliments of an engineering feat that can be bestowed on an individual. I thank you from the deepest part of my heart for thinking I would be good or smart enough to accomplish this, but I do not deserve such a compliment. Lets be realistic, for just a moment at least.. 1. I never was alone with the Cicare prototype to do this. 2. How would I have opened up the transmissions and other complex parts to see them to copy during the dark of night, and without Cicare noticing the next morning? 3. It was more than 2 years before I flew the first Mini-500. 4. We had a flood in 1993 where we lost everything. 5. It was a year after that until I shipped the first customers machine. Honestly, anyone that has looked at a Cicare machine, such as the CH-7, can see that there is little in common of the two designs. If you think so, you are either an idiot, a liar or you have never been close enough to see the differences. Which of these are you? Do you choose to ignore the fact that it was ordered in a court in his own country of Argentina that the control systems and aircraft were different, and not in violation of each other? Do you choose to ignore the fact that after the court ruling Mr. Cicare also published the same thing himself, admitting the systems and aircraft were different and were not violating each others rights? I posted this on another forum; "Its a shame that you don't tell the story like it really happened. I was the one that invested all the money with Cicare to bring him, his wife and prototype to the USA to demo in Oshkosh. We made a deal, I lived up to every part of that deal, only to have Cicare not live up to his part, and then to make contacts in the USA from my expense and end up cutting another deal with someone else parallel to the one he had with me. How dirty is that? Wait, it gets worse. He makes a deal with my Italian Mini-500 distributor, and all along I don't know so I'm still sending that distributer interested people that saw my advertising for the next year, that I paid for, and then converting them over to Cicare customers. Yea, who got ripped off here? Me." It's already been posted here before, but now that you brought up the subject again, here is the history about what happened, for those new people that would like to know the real truth, and not what some big-mouth blow-hard makes up; Cicare and the Mini-500: I also posted this of the account: "There is no secret about the dealings I had with Mr. Cicare. Even though it’s all documented facts, some people try to make it sound like a big conspiracy that RHCI is trying to cover up. That’s not the case at all, but naturally we no longer place the information about our early involvement in present day brochures. I’ll explain what took place, while making the story as brief as possible. As many of you know, before I started RHCI, I had a company called Air Command and produced the Commander gyroplanes. Then, Air Command sold 97% of all gyroplanes being built in the world, and shipped 1100 aircraft. I was already a commercial rated helicopter pilot, and gaining and interest in designing a helicopter. In the fall of 1989 I received a call from a man in California called Hugo Zucarelli, who explained to me that he had a friend in Argentina that had built a small helicopter, and he was doing him a favor by looking for someone to build them. Finally, I received a video of the Cicare prototype flying, and it gained my attention. After many phone conversations with Mr. Cicare, my wife Laura and I traveled to Argentina in the spring or 1990 to see his machine. I flew the prototype, and with my evaluation informed Mr. Cicare that I would be interested to build them, but only if we redesigned it by improving the design in many areas, and enclosing it with a cabin. He then agreed to a deal as to where I would buy the prototype, sell my present company Air Command and start a new company to build the helicopter. In this new company Mr. Cicare would own part of it, and be paid a commission for every helicopter shipped. His part would be to provide his prototype, rights to his Argentine patent on his control system, and come to the USA to help me redesign the helicopter and put it into production. All was agreed to. Next, to my surprise, Mr. Zucarelli called me and asked for a large commission for setting us up to make a deal! So much for doing a friend a favor, and he never mentioned anything like that before. Both Mr. Cicare and I turned him down. I came back to the USA, and started with what I could do. First we needed money, and I needed to find an investor to help us out. We also wrote the contract for the deal we had agreed to and sent it to him to sign. Now the 1990 Oshkosh was coming up fast, so I paid for the prototype to be sent here so I could fly it in the show. This would help bring an investor to the table and allow us to raise the money to pay the $30,000 for the prototype and all the expenses for the development. After the air show, we put the prototype into a storage building, and Mr. Cicare had the only key. We never had access after that to the prototype. The air show did the job, and I was able to find some people ready to jump. Now came the trouble. First, Mr. Cicare would not sign the contract, and none of the investors would do anything until that happened. Next, Mr. Cicare was supposed to come to the USA and help me in the design of the new helicopter, which he never did. This also made the development of the Mini-500 take much longer without his help or the prototype. Add to that, I had to invest my own personal finances to get Revolution going. I couldn’t get outside investors, because time after time we would lose any potential investors from the reluctance of Mr. Cicare to sign the contract. He wanted to now change the deal after he saw the response from Oshkosh, which I was reluctant to do since I was putting all of the investment and work into the deal. Next, we found out that Mr. Cicare was dealing behind our back with a separate deal with a company then called Helicraft. He was selling them the plans and rights to his previous design of the CH-5! This was competition we didn’t count on, and a direct conflict of interest. I was in trouble. I sold my only source of making a living, Air Command, and put my personal money into the Mini-500, and because of the contract and conflict of interest situation, no more people were interested in investing. I then gave Mr. Cicare an ultimatum...... Cancel the deal with Helicraft, and sign the contract by January 15, 1991, or I would have to do the project without him. Simply, the deadline came and went with only the comment from him that I could not do it on my own. The deal was off, and I was on my own with a helicopter project that I not only financed and designed all by myself, but without the benefit of the prototype to even look at. Later, I even redesigned and improved the control system to the point that it was different enough to merit it’s own patent #5,163,815, issued Nov. 17, 1992. This is not the end of the story. We found out later that Mr. Hugo Zucarelli was visiting Italy, and noticed an ad from our distributor there, Mr. Barbero of Ellisport. Mr. Zucarelli approached them and convinced them to make a deal with Mr. Cicare and build their own helicopter, the CH-7. Well, as you know this is what did happen. After, Mr. Cicare applied for a patent on his control design and was issued #5,165,854 on Nov. 24, 1992. I found out later that the original idea for this control system was not invented by Mr. Cicare! It was, and is being used on the Kaman helicopters. The difference is that on the Kaman, the controls operate trim tabs on the tips of the rotors. Still, there was enough difference between all three that they all merited their own patents. Later, I received another call followed by a fax from Mr. Zucarelli asking me to reconsider a deal with Mr. Cicare, because the deal was falling apart in Italy. Come to find out, Mr. Zucarelli hit them up for a commission for setting the deal up, and the Barbero’s took offense to it in a big way. Also, they told Mr. Cicare that unless he stopped RHCI from building the Mini-500, they would stop their deal with him. After he finished helping them put the CH-7 into production, they did just that, and to this day Mr. Cicare has only got the money for the prototype and nothing more from Ellisport. The rest is history. I still respect Mr. Cicare for his own accomplishments. I truly wish it would have worked out with him, I could have finished the project much faster and with a lot less of my money invested. Deals come and go, there’s nothing new about that. It was out of my hands to make him sign, so I continued with the project rather than go bankrupt because he changed his mind." |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Victimizing Aircraft Designers - An American Specialty? (wasFetters)
Poultry in Motion wrote:
wrote: if that were really the case wouldnt Cicare have sued him for a patent breach? Cicare's control system is a patented design. Cicare is in Argentina, what's he going to do? Especially when Fetters beat him to the punch and obtained his own patent first? As said in another post, Cicare did sue, and lost, in his own country. I quote: "Do you choose to ignore the fact that it was ordered in a court in his own country of Argentina that the control systems and aircraft were different, and not in violation of each other?" "Do you choose to ignore the fact that after the court ruling Mr. Cicare also published the same thing himself, admitting the systems and aircraft were different and were not violating each others rights?" So I guess that shoots what you said all the hell. Fetters hawked the thing to the entry-level Popular Mechanics crowd, as a cheap time builder, requiring only 40-60 hours to go from the box into the air. And he blamed them for their inexperience and for his company's failure. They were naive to believe that Fetters could issue ADs, and decree that his factory upgrades for their machines were mandatory. Well, I'm sorry to say that mostly that was the fact. Sure, as I said I did make some design mistakes, but I provided the fix. The rest were assembly mistakes of the owners. Lets not forget about the majority of Mini-500 that were assembled well, and many still flying even today. it pays to remember that the designer may never have encountered the fault in an experimental design. Dennis may not have encountered faults in *the Mini-500 prototype* Ohhh, Plenty of faults. It was a learning experience. Changed a lot of stuff. The first ones out the door had what we thought was a workable design. But, like all helicopters, we found out that some changes were needed, and we provided these changes for free, or at our direct cost. BTW, it's so damned cute how Brian renamed this thread! An exact fit, but not how he imagined. Isn't it about time that someone makes the motion that I must be Brian posting for myself under another name? I though that was standard SOP? |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Victimizing Aircraft Designers - An American Specialty? (wasFetters)
Dennis Fetters wrote:
Poultry in Motion wrote: wrote: if that were really the case wouldnt Cicare have sued him for a patent breach? Cicare's control system is a patented design. Cicare is in Argentina, what's he going to do? Especially when Fetters beat him to the punch and obtained his own patent first? As said in another post, Cicare did sue, and lost, in his own country. I quote: "Do you choose to ignore the fact that it was ordered in a court in his own country of Argentina that the control systems and aircraft were different, and not in violation of each other?" "Do you choose to ignore the fact that after the court ruling Mr. Cicare also published the same thing himself, admitting the systems and aircraft were different and were not violating each others rights?" So I guess that shoots what you said all the hell. "what's he going to do?" can be shot anywhere you want. It's good to know that Cicare tried anyway. So, "Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you." Remember? Fetters hawked the thing to the entry-level Popular Mechanics crowd, as a cheap time builder, requiring only 40-60 hours to go from the box into the air. And he blamed them for their inexperience and for his company's failure. They were naive to believe that Fetters could issue ADs, and decree that his factory upgrades for their machines were mandatory. Well, I'm sorry to say that mostly that was the fact. Sure, as I said I did make some design mistakes ... Wherever you left The Fetters Touch on a CH-6 became design mistakes. ... Dennis may not have encountered faults in *the Mini-500 prototype* Ohhh, Plenty of faults. It was a learning experience. Changed a lot of stuff. The first ones out the door had what we thought was a workable design. But, like all helicopters, we found out that some changes were needed, and we provided these changes for free, or at our direct cost. This is as clear as I can make it: "Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you." BTW, it's so damned cute how Brian renamed this thread! An exact fit, but not how he imagined. Isn't it about time that someone makes the motion that I must be Brian posting for myself under another name? I though that was standard SOP? Brian didn't type his post on your computer. "planeman" did. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Victimizing Aircraft Designers - An American Specialty? (wasFetters)
Dennis Fetters wrote:
This is an open challenge, and request to Mr. Agusto Cicare, so will someone in touch please let him know; Try Glenn Ryerson http://www.3cats.com/helicopter/ He knows both you and Cicare well. ... Contrary to Brian's romantic story of dogged determination and spirit, Dennis Fetters was not bold enough to design a helicopter. He was bold enough to rip off one Augusto Cicare's work. A series of Cicare's helicopters evolved over several years. The Mini-500 went from nothing to ready in under a year. Dennis took what he wanted, and sent his ex-business buddy Cicare packing. The helicopter that Dennis has referred to in the past as his Mini-500 Prototype was Cicare's CH-6. But now, to answer this false allegation; This a fabricated bunch of bull, nothing even close to being the truth. "I came back to the USA, and started with what I could do. First we needed money, and I needed to find an investor to help us out. We also wrote the contract for the deal we had agreed to and sent it to him to sign. Now the 1990 Oshkosh was coming up fast, so I paid for the prototype to be sent here so I could fly it in the show. This would help bring an investor to the table and allow us to raise the money to pay the $30,000 for the prototype and all the expenses for the development. After the air show, we put the prototype into a storage building, and Mr. Cicare had the only key. We never had access after that to the prototype." http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/e6653542c044a2ef First, I was never alone 5 minutes with the Cicare prototype. Even then, I never seen the inside of anything. Now, if anyone thinks that I can take a tape measure and in moments sneaking around in the dark take down enough information from the Cicare prototype to turn around an built the Mini-500 within one year....... You had lots of time. And you took Cicare's CH-6 away on a trailer after the airshow. He retrieved it later. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Airlines Threatened With Scheduling Restrictions | Gig 601XL Builder | Piloting | 1 | October 15th 07 07:13 PM |
G.W. Fetter | N8KDV | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 28th 04 02:54 PM |
G.W. Fetter | N8KDV | Piloting | 0 | January 28th 04 02:46 PM |