Poultry in Motion wrote:
> This is as clear as I can make it:
> "Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you."

Ok, ask me. What do you want to know about the "Mini-500 prototype". It
was the first Mini-500 I built, so it was a prototype. What point are
you trying to make? Please just spell it out so we don't have to be
guessing. I'm not afraid to answer.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>> This is as clear as I can make it:
>> "Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you."
>
> Ok, ask me. What do you want to know about the "Mini-500 prototype". It
> was the first Mini-500 I built, so it was a prototype.

It's already known, I quoted your own words about it from an older post.
Your Mini-500 prototype was Cicare's CH-6.

> What point are you trying to make? Please just spell it out so we don't have to be
> guessing. I'm not afraid to answer.

This is simple -

"so I paid for the prototype to be sent here so I could fly it in the show"

"After the air show, we put the prototype into a storage building"

You're afraid to call Cicare's CH-6 your prototype any more.

Poultry in Motion wrote:
> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>
>> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>
>>> This is as clear as I can make it:
>>> "Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you."
>>
>>
>> Ok, ask me. What do you want to know about the "Mini-500 prototype".
>> It was the first Mini-500 I built, so it was a prototype.
>
>
> It's already known, I quoted your own words about it from an older post.
> Your Mini-500 prototype was Cicare's CH-6.
>
>> What point are you trying to make? Please just spell it out so we
>> don't have to be guessing. I'm not afraid to answer.
>
>
> This is simple -
>
> "so I paid for the prototype to be sent here so I could fly it in the show"
>
> "After the air show, we put the prototype into a storage building"
>
> You're afraid to call Cicare's CH-6 your prototype any more.

Oh that one, I guess you need to read!

That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said Cicare
didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were going to
use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was going to
live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up having to
design the Mini-500 all by myself without the use of Cicares' help or
his CH-6, so the CH-6 never was used as the prototype after all. So the
first Mini-500 prototype turned out to be the first one I built.

Its that simple, and I wrote that before, as I said you just have to read.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>
>>> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is as clear as I can make it:
>>>> "Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you."
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, ask me. What do you want to know about the "Mini-500 prototype".
>>> It was the first Mini-500 I built, so it was a prototype.
>>
>>
>> It's already known, I quoted your own words about it from an older
>> post. Your Mini-500 prototype was Cicare's CH-6.
>>
>>> What point are you trying to make? Please just spell it out so we
>>> don't have to be guessing. I'm not afraid to answer.
>>
>>
>> This is simple -
>>
>> "so I paid for the prototype to be sent here so I could fly it in the
>> show"
>>
>> "After the air show, we put the prototype into a storage building"
>>
>> You're afraid to call Cicare's CH-6 your prototype any more.
>
> Oh that one, I guess you need to read!
>
> That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said Cicare
> didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were going to
> use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was going to
> live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up having to
> design the Mini-500 all by myself...

.... and golly gosh what a coincidence, it came out almost just like a
CH-6 but I really designed it all by myself really.



Two helicopters came out of the CH-6:

The CH-7, a winner by all accounts.
Anyone not seen the picture of one lifting off carrying two more people
standing outside on the skids? Anyone like to?
I've seen two videos of them crashing, one appeared to be of a pilot
performing low-level idiocy and running way short of the bottom half of
a loop before the ground came up and smashed him. He walked away,
likewise the other CH-7 video crasher.

The Mini-500, a botched effort.
A small jockey-size pilot was hired to demo flight it at shows.
Factory's "PEP" pipe was effort to wring adequate performance out of
this dog.
Same Rotax engine, but necessary styling dictated that the engine be
enclosed. Famous for seizing.
Frame cracked under heavy vibes, so factory solution was to weld more
metal onto frame.

"Poultry in Motion" > wrote

> Factory's "PEP" pipe was effort to wring adequate performance out of this dog.

How about running the engine over 100% for normal operations. That's gotta be
good on it, don't 'cha think?

Oh, I know, you-know-who has an answer for that one, too.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Poultry in Motion" > wrote
>
>> Factory's "PEP" pipe was effort to wring adequate performance out of
>> this dog.
>
> How about running the engine over 100% for normal operations. That's
> gotta be good on it, don't 'cha think?

Why, yes. Stuff it into stifling hot compartment, add a Fetters
re-engineered cooling system, Fetters' pipe, Fetters' carb jetting, nail
the throttle, and it's all good.

Remember, Rotax's 100% isn't Fetters' 100%, those are two different
100%s. In fact, Rotax had to ask Dennis Fetters to please help them
design their engine. Dennis himself said that, so we know it is true.

> Oh, I know, you-know-who has an answer for that one, too.

Hmm. You mean planemanman, man?

Poultry in Motion wrote:
>> That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said
>> Cicare didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were
>> going to use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was
>> going to live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up
>> having to design the Mini-500 all by myself...
>
>
> ... and golly gosh what a coincidence, it came out almost just like a
> CH-6 but I really designed it all by myself really.

Any moron with half a brain can plainly see that there is a world of
difference between the Mini-500 and the CH-6 if they have seen both of
the workings and designs of each aircraft. Why can't you see that?

Cicare says they are different, and I say they are different. Now both
designers say they are different, so why is that such a leap for your
pea-brain to wrap itself around??

> Two helicopters came out of the CH-6:
>
> The CH-7, a winner by all accounts.
> Anyone not seen the picture of one lifting off carrying two more people
> standing outside on the skids? Anyone like to?
> I've seen two videos of them crashing, one appeared to be of a pilot
> performing low-level idiocy and running way short of the bottom half of
> a loop before the ground came up and smashed him. He walked away,
> likewise the other CH-7 video crasher.

The CH-7 is a fine helicopter.

> The Mini-500, a botched effort.
> A small jockey-size pilot was hired to demo flight it at shows.

I guess people with a brain can watch this and decide for themselves;

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4ZnR4SGabA>

> Factory's "PEP" pipe was effort to wring adequate performance out of
> this dog.

You really don't know what you are talking about. We didn't develop the
PEP for more power. But, for the problem the PEP cured, id did make more
power available, but that didn't mean you had to use it, nor did it hurt
if you did. Here is what I posted about the PEP before;

"Cold seizures in a Mini-500 have only happened when the pilot starts
the engine cold, and immediately lift into a climbing departure, and
then the engine will seize within 100 feet or so and not restart until
later after the piston cooled enough to allow it to do so. It plainly
states in the Pilots Operating Handbook to allow the engine temperature
to be sufficient enough to prevent this. If they allow it to happen,
it's Pilot error and was completely avoidable.

Some people at Rotax that were not familiar with helicopters and the
special demands misdiagnosed a Mini-500 engine seizure as a cold
seizure. In fact, the real problem was the exhaust system. By adding the
PEP system, we discovered that it reduced the exhaust back pressure. The
normal Rotax exhaust system was creating to much back pressure for
helicopter use, which made the need for summer and winter jet changing.
With the PEP, we only needed to jet it once, and there were no more
issues of people seizing the engine for simply forgetting to change from
summer to winter jetting. The point is, you need the PEP system. Before
the PEP exhaust system became mandatory for the Mini-500, the major
problem of seizing the Rotax could have completely been avoided.
Although most all the seizures were due to customers not changing the
jets, needles and needle jets to convert the engine to helicopter use,
it was the Rotax exhaust system that was causing the engine to be too
sensitive to the need of proper jetting. We discovered that the normal
jets that come with the engine for propeller use would not work for
helicopter use. It was explained why the jets needed to be converted
many times, but it is unbelievable how many owners refused to change the
jetting, which would definitely seize the engine. It got to the point
where we opened the Rotax box and removed the jetting, so that the
owners would have to apply the proper jetting. After doing that, the
engine seizures were reduced to only people refusing to change from
winter to summer jetting. The mandatory PEP did salve this, and there
were no more seizures after it was installed, except for people that
refused to follow the mandatory AD to add the PEP and its proper
jetting, or flew on the old pipe. It is untrue to say that the Mini-500
has suffered from cold seizures, except for the few cases where the
pilot simply ignored operational procedures.

The CH-7 Angel did not go to the trouble of fabricating their own
exhaust, but since it was basically a factory built flying aircraft,
they would install the proper jets and needles themselves, and test
flies the aircraft. Also the Angel was so expensive, that the only
customers that could afford them were already accomplished helicopter
pilots with more skills, and flying a factory built aircraft already set
up properly after construction, compared to the Mini-500 owners where
76% of them were not helicopter pilots, and/or had less than 50 hours in
helicopters when building and flying their Mini-500."


> Same Rotax engine, but necessary styling dictated that the engine be
> enclosed. Famous for seizing.

You REALLY don't know what you are talking about. Here is what I posted
about the Mini-500 Cooling System:

"The Mini-500 uses a fan powered directly off the engine, not the rotor
drive system, so in that way it will not rob power during an
autorotation. The cooling system absorbs only 1.7hp at hover to cool the
engine. The Mini-500 cooling system is one of the most efficient in any
other helicopter that I know of. In fact, on an 80F day it will hover
indefinitely and the water temperature will never exceed 160F. If you
load the aircraft down with enough weight where it will not lift off,
and hold full power, you can do so indefinitely and the water
temperature will never exceed 180F. On an 110F day with a tank of fuel
and a 200 pound pilot, the Mini-500 can hover indefinitely, and the
water temperature will never exceed 180F. In fact, during any of these
events, or during the entire flight of the Mini-500, you can remove the
pressure cap and the coolant will never boil out.

These are all proven facts and demonstrated countless times at air shows
around the world. The Mini-500 has never had a cooling problem of its
582 engine, even being fully enclosed, and runs cooler than other kit
helicopters, even though they are lighter, due to our superior cooling
systems design and ability to use the air off the cooling fan to blow
the air over the exhaust system to remove hot air from the engine
compartment. It is untrue to say the Mini-500 has a cooling problem."


> Frame cracked under heavy vibes, so factory solution was to weld more
> metal onto frame.

Again, here is what I said about the frame crack, as if a helicopter
never had a frame crack before:

"We conducted a complete resonance frequency test of the Mini-500. Each
assembly was checked for its frequency where it would naturally want to
oscillate, and this information was recorder. Afterwards, we could do a
complete spectrum analyses on any Mini-500, and look for peeks of
unacceptable vibrations. By knowing the RPM and natural frequency of
each component, we could determine problems before failure. It just so
happens that the mast assembly would resonate around 312 RPM’s, so we
issued a warning to owners not to dwell at that RPM and move on up to
90% RPM for the secondary warm-up period. The next RPM where the mast
assembly wanted to resonate was well above the operational 104% RPM, so
there were never any concerns.

(All diagrams deleted)

The Mini-500 was suffering from frame cracking that was occurring behind
the transmission. Please take a look at the first drawing, and you will
see that location marked with a green X.

What we finally discovered was that there were two different forces at
work causing the problem;

First, was the two-per-rev that was being produced in forward flight in
a motion that tended to rock the rotor system, mast and transmission
unit back and forward, as seen in the first drawing at letter “A”. This
action was occurring about 1100 times a minute and was transmitted down
the mast following the blue line, and then horizontally out to the two
arrows pointing up and down on each side of the transmission, which
indicates the direction of force translated on the frame in those areas.
This is not normally a problem, but in the case of the Mini-500, I
designed the frame improperly where this load was focused on the green X
in the first drawing, where the load was being translated into the
center of a tube. Notice that there is a bracket on that tube tying it
into another tube, but this just transmitted the loads to be expelled at
letter “C” in the center of another unsupported tube.

Second, we discovered that with each firing of an engine piston, the
drive belt was pulling down on the transmission large sprocket, as seen
in the first drawing with red lines and letter ”B”. This was hammering
at around 13200 a minute, and that force too was transmitted through the
transmission, and then through the frame and unloading on the area
marked by the green X.

That is way the frame was cracking. Now it needs to be fixed, but the
problem is that there are over 300 Mini-500 shipped that all need a fix.
We were shipping 5 to 6 complete Mini-500 kits a week. Designing and
building a new frame to send to everyone was out of the question,
because I could only build one frame a day, and that was just enough to
keep up with production.

Sure, I could have taken a month and duplicated my welding fixtures and
doubled my welding staff, and built two frames and day. But then owners
would have to wait up to a year and a half before we could send out over
300 frames. No, I needed to come up with something that didn't cost the
customer $4800 and took over a year to receive, and whatever it was it
had to work and solve all problems at one time.

That is when I came up with a system that would take the loads from the
two-per-rev, capture the force where it was generated, and distribute
those loads into the hard point in the frame that was all supported
through triangulation. This can be seen on the second drawing following
the blue lines. Notice that the blue line that represent the direction
of force across the tube where the green x was is no longer there. I was
successful to take all strain away from the problem area entirely. The
engine pulsing vibration was also handled the same way, along with an
added rubber isolation system on the transmission and up inside the mast
support, and with a new idler arm that was spring loaded.

By coming up with this fix, it not only solved all the problems, but
improved overall balancing of the rotor system, and the fix could be
manufactured fast and affordable. Although this was a major problem that
took some time to identify the cause, dream up the best solution,
prototype and test and finally produce and ship, before or after, no
Mini-500 had crashed due to a cracked frame."

Ok, so there was the problem, and that was my solution. Why do you still
bellyache about an old problems that was solved? Its not the first time
a helicopter had a design flaw that needed fixed. So all the Mini-500
owners and I got over it, why was it your problem, and why are you
complaining about it?

Keep those questions coming!! Its great you are helping me get the real
facts out there!

Morgans wrote:
> How about running the engine over 100% for normal operations. That's
> gotta be good on it, don't 'cha think?
>
> Oh, I know, you-know-who has an answer for that one, too.

You bet I do, after all, I know what I'm doing, and done it a lot.

I don't run the engine at 100% power. I run the engine at 100% RPM, that
different. So does ALL rotax powered helicopters. Here is what I posted
about that;
Rotax 582 for power:

"The Rotax 582 aircraft engine does not run “full bore” in a Mini-500.
That engine comes from a snowmobile, where it could run at 10,000rpm and
put out 110hp. It is de-rated by Rotax only by lowering the RPM for
aircraft use. So long as it is cooled to 180F and has proper jetting, it
will run even at full bore for hundreds and hundreds of hours. At this
reduced power level, this engine is designed to continuously operate at
that power level, and in some cases does so.

I have never had a Rotax two stroke engine just quite due to over
exertion out of nearly 2000 aircraft I have delivered. Those that did
failed, failed from mainly two reasons. Even after the owner fixed the
engine, the same failure would occur time and time again, because it was
not a problem with the engine, but the installation. 98% of all Rotax
engine failures are due to improper customer installation. The other 2%
are due to improper maintenance.

The Mini-500, as well as all helicopters that use any reciprocating
engine, run at full RPM, but that is not full bore, since a helicopter
reduces or increases its power setting to operate."

Keep the questions coming!

Poultry in Motion wrote:

> Morgans wrote:
>
>>
>> "Poultry in Motion" > wrote
>>
>>> Factory's "PEP" pipe was effort to wring adequate performance out of
>>> this dog.
>>
>>
>> How about running the engine over 100% for normal operations. That's
>> gotta be good on it, don't 'cha think?
> Why, yes. Stuff it into stifling hot compartment, add a Fetters
> re-engineered cooling system, Fetters' pipe, Fetters' carb jetting, nail
> the throttle, and it's all good.

Answered in last post to Morgans.

> Remember, Rotax's 100% isn't Fetters' 100%, those are two different
> 100%s. In fact, Rotax had to ask Dennis Fetters to please help them
> design their engine. Dennis himself said that, so we know it is true.

Yes they did. Rotax sent me the first water cooled 532 in the world, and
I was the first to get it to fly. Even after, I was the one that was
making the Rotax water cooled engines work the best and coolest.

My cooling systems were working so well, and other manufacturers were
having so much trouble that Rotax started having them call me to help
diagnose their problems. Later, Rotax changed its cooling methods and
temps to run the engine to the same as mine, which I had been doing two
years earlier.

So what's your point?

On Mar 30, 9:00*pm, Poultry in Motion > wrote:>
> Two helicopters came out of the CH-6:
>
> The CH-7, a winner by all accounts.
> Anyone not seen the picture of one lifting off carrying two more people
> standing outside on the skids? Anyone like to?
> I've seen two videos of them crashing, one appeared to be of a pilot
> performing low-level idiocy and running way short of the bottom half of
> a loop before the ground came up and smashed him. He walked away,
> likewise the other CH-7 video crasher.
>
> The Mini-500, a botched effort.
> A small jockey-size pilot was hired to demo flight it at shows.
> Factory's "PEP" pipe was effort to wring adequate performance out of
> this dog.
> Same Rotax engine, but necessary styling dictated that the engine be
> enclosed. Famous for seizing.
> Frame cracked under heavy vibes, so factory solution was to weld more
> metal onto frame.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The results say it all.

CH7 = "good machine".

Mini500 = "not so good", many people died. with additional $20k in
mods might be upgraded to "so so". Would you bet your ass on it?
Let's hope you don't lose that bet.

Do a search for Dennis Fetters and or mini500 here and on rotaryforum
and you'll see for yourself. This guy has admitted here that he has
threatened peolpe. I do believe that he threatened Mr. Ryerson.

I tried to email you PoultryInMotion, but it came back bounced. email
me at mini500 at hushmail.com

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>
>> Morgans wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Poultry in Motion" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Factory's "PEP" pipe was effort to wring adequate performance out of
>>>> this dog.
>>>
>>>
>>> How about running the engine over 100% for normal operations. That's
>>> gotta be good on it, don't 'cha think?
>> Why, yes. Stuff it into stifling hot compartment, add a Fetters
>> re-engineered cooling system, Fetters' pipe, Fetters' carb jetting,
>> nail the throttle, and it's all good.
>
> Answered in last post to Morgans.
>
>> Remember, Rotax's 100% isn't Fetters' 100%, those are two different
>> 100%s. In fact, Rotax had to ask Dennis Fetters to please help them
>> design their engine. Dennis himself said that, so we know it is true.
>
> Yes they did. Rotax sent me the first water cooled 532 in the world, and
> I was the first to get it to fly. Even after, I was the one that was
> making the Rotax water cooled engines work the best and coolest.
>
> My cooling systems were working so well, and other manufacturers were
> having so much trouble that Rotax started having them call me to help
> diagnose their problems. Later, Rotax changed its cooling methods and
> temps to run the engine to the same as mine, which I had been doing two
> years earlier.
>
> So what's your point?

Rotax did not WANT to be your engine supplier. They were coerced, you
threatened them.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>> How about running the engine over 100% for normal operations. That's
>> gotta be good on it, don't 'cha think?
>>
>> Oh, I know, you-know-who has an answer for that one, too.
>
> You bet I do, after all, I know what I'm doing, and done it a lot.

Sock puppetry?

> not a problem with the engine, but the installation. 98% of all Rotax
> engine failures are due to improper customer installation...

.... into the wrong helicopter. The same engine was okay when installed
into a CH-7


> The Mini-500, as well as all helicopters that use any reciprocating
> engine, run at full RPM, but that is not full bore, since a helicopter
> reduces or increases its power setting to operate."
>
> Keep the questions coming!

The PEP pipe narrowed the powerband, and when the engine "falls off" the
pipe, it ain't coming back again. Lawn Dart time.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>> That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said
>>> Cicare didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were
>>> going to use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was
>>> going to live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up
>>> having to design the Mini-500 all by myself...
>>
>>
>> ... and golly gosh what a coincidence, it came out almost just like a
>> CH-6 but I really designed it all by myself really.
>
> Any moron with half a brain can plainly see that there is a world of
> difference between the Mini-500 and the CH-6 if they have seen both of
> the workings and designs of each aircraft. Why can't you see that?

CH-6 was open cockpit, open engine bay, wide open for your inspection.
The half-brained will be fooled by the MD500 styling, which was your
contribution.

> Cicare says they are different, and I say they are different. Now both
> designers say they are different, so why is that such a leap for your
> pea-brain to wrap itself around??
>
>> Two helicopters came out of the CH-6:
>>
>> The CH-7, a winner by all accounts.
>> Anyone not seen the picture of one lifting off carrying two more
>> people standing outside on the skids? Anyone like to?

Don't be bashful.
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/5565/augwest.jpg

>> I've seen two videos of them crashing, one appeared to be of a pilot
>> performing low-level idiocy and running way short of the bottom half
>> of a loop before the ground came up and smashed him. He walked away,
>> likewise the other CH-7 video crasher.
>
> The CH-7 is a fine helicopter.

Yes, well, it doesn't have your fingerprints on it.

> By adding the
> PEP system, we discovered that it reduced the exhaust back pressure.

That makes no sense. You decided to change the pipe for no apparent
reason, and then discovered the effect?

> normal Rotax exhaust system was creating to much back pressure for
> helicopter use,

How did you already know that? You discovered the PEP reduced back
pressure after you added it, so what were you trying to accomplish by
changing pipes to begin with?

> With the PEP, we only needed to jet it once, and there were no more
> issues of people seizing the engine for simply forgetting to change from
> summer to winter jetting. The point is, you need the PEP system. Before
> the PEP exhaust system became mandatory for the Mini-500, the major
> problem of seizing the Rotax could have completely been avoided.

Could have been avoided by Rotax's refusal to supply you engines.

> We discovered that the normal
> jets that come with the engine for propeller use would not work for
> helicopter use.

Jeezus, you ****head. Cicare could have told you that and saved you the
exercise of killing customers.

It was explained why the jets needed to be converted
> many times, but it is unbelievable how many owners refused to change the
> jetting, which would definitely seize the engine. It got to the point
> where we opened the Rotax box and removed the jetting, so that the
> owners would have to apply the proper jetting. After doing that, the
> engine seizures were reduced to only people refusing to change from
> winter to summer jetting. The mandatory PEP did salve this, and there
> were no more seizures after it was installed, except for people that
> refused to follow the mandatory AD to

There was no mandatory PEP and no mandatory AD. You know that.

> The CH-7 Angel did not go to the trouble of fabricating their own
> exhaust, but since it was basically a factory built flying aircraft,
> they would install the proper jets and needles themselves, and test
> flies the aircraft.

Your story makes no sense. Obviously no POS PEP was ever necessary.

> Also the Angel was so expensive, that the only
> customers that could afford them were already accomplished helicopter
> pilots with more skills, and flying a factory built aircraft already set
> up properly after construction, compared to the Mini-500 owners where
> 76% of them were not helicopter pilots, and/or had less than 50 hours in
> helicopters when building and flying their Mini-500."

You always knew who you were selling to.

>> Same Rotax engine, but necessary styling dictated that the engine be
>> enclosed. Famous for seizing.
>
> You REALLY don't know what you are talking about. Here is what I posted
> about the Mini-500 Cooling System:
>
> "The Mini-500 uses a fan powered directly off the engine, not the rotor
> drive system, so in that way it will not rob power during an
> autorotation.

So what? Cicare chose Fiat radiators and electric fans. Same Rotax
engine, and your installations were seizing, not his. Why was that?

...

> (All diagrams deleted)
>
> The Mini-500 was suffering from frame cracking that was occurring behind
> the transmission. Please take a look at the first drawing, and you will
> see that location marked with a green X.

Why don't you write answers that make sense? Do you think that
copy/paste with "All diagrams deleted" and then telling us to look at
that location marked with a green X means anything?

> What we finally discovered was that there were two different forces at
> work causing the problem;
>
> First, was the two-per-rev that was being produced in forward flight in
> a motion that tended to rock the rotor system, mast and transmission
> unit back and forward, as seen in the first drawing at letter “A”. This
> action was occurring about 1100 times a minute and was transmitted down
> the mast following the blue line, and then horizontally out to the two
> arrows pointing up and down on each side of the transmission, which
> indicates the direction of force translated on the frame in those areas.
> This is not normally a problem, but in the case of the Mini-500, I
> designed the frame improperly where this load was focused on the green X
> in the first drawing, where the load was being translated into the
> center of a tube. Notice that there is a bracket on that tube tying it
> into another tube, but this just transmitted the loads to be expelled at
> letter “C” in the center of another unsupported tube.
>
> Second, we discovered that with each firing of an engine piston, the
> drive belt was pulling down on the transmission large sprocket, as seen
> in the first drawing with red lines and letter ”B”. This was hammering
> at around 13200 a minute, and that force too was transmitted through the
> transmission, and then through the frame and unloading on the area
> marked by the green X.
>
> That is way the frame was cracking. Now it needs to be fixed, but the
> problem is that there are over 300 Mini-500 shipped that all need a fix.

No, the problem is that Cicare is gone now, you F**Ked up the frame to
fit the required styling, and your customers are already abandoning you.

> We were shipping 5 to 6 complete Mini-500 kits a week. Designing and
> building a new frame to send to everyone was out of the question,
> because I could only build one frame a day, and that was just enough to
> keep up with production.

You were way over your head.

> Sure, I could have taken a month and duplicated my welding fixtures and
> doubled my welding staff, and built two frames and day. But then owners
> would have to wait up to a year and a half before we could send out over
> 300 frames. No, I needed to come up with something that didn't cost the
> customer $4800 and took over a year to receive, and whatever it was it
> had to work and solve all problems at one time.

Sounds desperate.

> That is when I came up with a system that would take the loads from the
> two-per-rev, capture the force where it was generated, and distribute
> those loads into the hard point in the frame that was all supported
> through triangulation. This can be seen on the second drawing following
> the blue lines. Notice that the blue line that represent the direction

Hello? Are you talking to us, or doodling pictures somewhere else?

> of force across the tube where the green x was is no longer there. I was
> successful to take all strain away from the problem area entirely. The
> engine pulsing vibration was also handled the same way, along with an
> added rubber isolation system on the transmission and up inside the mast
> support, and with a new idler arm that was spring loaded.
>
> By coming up with this fix, it not only solved all the problems, but
> improved overall balancing of the rotor system, and the fix could be
> manufactured fast and affordable. Although this was a major problem that
> took some time to identify the cause, dream up the best solution,
> prototype and test and finally produce and ship, before or after, no
> Mini-500 had crashed due to a cracked frame."
>
> Ok, so there was the problem, and that was my solution. Why do you still
> bellyache about an old problems that was solved? Its not the first time
> a helicopter had a design flaw that needed fixed. So all the Mini-500
> owners and I got over it, why was it your problem, and why are you
> complaining about it?
>
> Keep those questions coming!! Its great you are helping me get the real
> facts out there!

Amazing.