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

Richard Riley wrote:
I'll defend him to this extent...SNIPPED
...resulted in it's demise.

http://tinypic.com/i6z390.jpg

Same engine, same design, better manufacture much better performance.
The mini500 is a copy of this design (Mr. Cicarre' CH7) w/ a miniature
MD500 body on it and different skids, but everything else was the same.
If you look at the above picture, you can see that the chopper is
capable with that engine.

I'll qualiy my earlier statements:

Richard Riley wrote:
I'll defend him to this extent...SNIPPED
...resulted in it's demise.


http://tinypic.com/i6z390.jpg

Same engine, same design, MUCH better manufacture MUCH better
performance. The mini500 is a copy of this design (Mr. Cicarre' CH7)
w/ a miniature MD500 body on it and different skids, but everything
else was the same with exception that the Mini was manufactured and
overseen BY Fetters. Where Mr. Cicarre actually knew what he was
doing. If you look at the above picture, you can see that the chopper
is capable with that engine.

Richard Riley wrote:
It's also possible that engine outs in the CH7 have more often
resulted in survivable landings, perhaps due to the different shell,
and THAT's why we don't hear about them. Just speculating.

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.

It is quality issue, and aviation is very unforgiving of bad quality.

Flyingmonk wrote:
but what good does it do for your departed friend to keep eating a dead horse in this ng?


It tells the truth, so people such as yourself who didn't know, will
know. Hopefully it will save future customers of Denise from loosing
their money and/or their health and their life.


Well, it certainly hasn't convinced me of anything.

Matt

Helper wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

Most seem to just foam at the mouth a lot and make accusations that
they can't back up


Haha, okay I've wiped all of the foam off of my mouth. I'll back up my
accusations with this link...

http://tinyurl.com/bub5s

You'll find two discussions in rec.aviation rotorcraft:

One started by Dennis posing as "planeman" lashing out at everyone who
replies, then Dennis' gracious reply to himself, then Dennis posting
again as "planeman" and thanking himself.

The other started by Dennis as Dennis, becoming Dennis posting as
"planeman" praising himself.

when he calls their bluff.


Bluff?

About a claim made in a brochure and then no brochure could be found.

Matt

Flyingmonk wrote:

Richard Riley wrote:

I'll defend him to this extent...SNIPPED
...resulted in it's demise.


http://tinypic.com/i6z390.jpg

Same engine, same design, better manufacture much better performance.
The mini500 is a copy of this design (Mr. Cicarre' CH7) w/ a miniature
MD500 body on it and different skids, but everything else was the same.
If you look at the above picture, you can see that the chopper is
capable with that engine.


Then what is the difference between the two designs that causes the
engine to work well in one and not in the other? Is the mini-500 much
heavier?

Matt

Flyingmonk wrote:

I'll qualiy my earlier statements:

Richard Riley wrote:

I'll defend him to this extent...SNIPPED
...resulted in it's demise.



http://tinypic.com/i6z390.jpg

Same engine, same design, MUCH better manufacture MUCH better
performance. The mini500 is a copy of this design (Mr. Cicarre' CH7)
w/ a miniature MD500 body on it and different skids, but everything
else was the same with exception that the Mini was manufactured and
overseen BY Fetters. Where Mr. Cicarre actually knew what he was
doing. If you look at the above picture, you can see that the chopper
is capable with that engine.


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.

Matt

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On 5 Dec 2005 23:31:28 -0800, "Flyingmonk" wrote:


If the two are really the same except for the body,

Don't you think that enclosing the engine has consequences?

Beyond that, maybe the CH-7 manufacturers provide a little more guidance on
the care and feeding of your Rotax.

"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".

Did you miss the rest of the conversation? The part about Cicare yanking
his prototype, his plans, and support, leaving Fetters to design, build, and
test a new helicopter in a year and half, minus lost time due to flooding.
The timeline tells the real story behind the Mini-500 if you are unwilling
to dismiss the experiences of owners and employees of the Revolution.


Fetters has stopped trying to argue that his design was well tested and now
offers a rationale for not testing his design adequately. Namely, it would
have taken too much time and money. It was a lot cheaper to make big
claims, verbally and in Revolution literature.

Given the success of the CH-6 prototype and the CH-7, I think Fetters came
pretty close to getting it right. I think that more engineering, quality
control, and testing could have yielded a much better craft.

Thank you, well put from some one else trying to learn something. But
find it difficult to see facts for the smoke from flared nostrils