Dear Sir,

Thank you for your kind post, and taking the time to do so.

Shiver wrote:
Well Dennis I've certainly read my share of Mini 500 stories over the
years.

As a lurker I can't make any comments because I like many have no
direct knowledge of the facts or issues regarding the history of RCI.

BUT ----- I will give you full credit for coming into this newsgroup
numerous time and presenting your point of view good bad or indifferent
in a rationale and logical manner, devoid of rants and cursing.


Thank you, I try.


Hindsight being 20/20 vision I'm sure that if you had to do it over
again you would have done many things different.


As with anything...

I feel that my biggest mistake was assuming anyone could build, operate
and maintain a kit helicopter. I was wrong there, very few can do so,
even with the certified helicopters. Our assembly manual was excellent.
Very nice exploded drawings, pictures and step by step instructions. The
common mistake that about 90% of the Mini-500 builders made was the
same; they didn't read the instructions and only followed the drawings
and pictures. Believe it or not, but true. This lead to many common
mistakes, from not heating the parts before installation to missing
parts. I can't tell you how many times an owner would come to the
factory with his Mini-500 for the free inspection we offered, only to
hold out his hand and ask why he had extra parts, and always after he
had 40 hours of flight time on his Mini-500. They most all came to the
factory after something was going wrong, and it was always a simple
overlooked procedure or something assembled wrong, and always after they
flew it until it broke. Some aircraft were so far out of balance that
they shock themselves apart in only 40 hours, and only because the
builder didn't bother to balance it, or did it wrong and ignored the
fact that he did it wrong.

On the other hand, we had some design problems that had to be addressed.
Since we were shipping 5 to 6 complete kits a week, and since the
average time for the builder to complete the kit and fly 40 hours was
about 4 months, we could have shipped 80 or more aircraft by the time we
received word of a problem a builder may be encountering. So by that
time, it's a major deal, not like Uglysport or Angle helicopters that
have only sent out a handful of aircraft over a long time. So this also
made the situation seem worse because it involved much more people.

What would I have done differently using hindsight? I would have tripled
the price of the Mini-500 and sold much less of them to people that can
actually afford to own a helicopter, and built it under our complete
supervision. Then I could have had a much smaller factory with less
overhead, and fewer customers that would have paid more, and maintenance
or improvement costs would have not mattered to them so much, because
they could afford it, like in the commercial aircraft field. It would
have just been too bad for someone that wanted a helicopter but couldn't
afford one, which the Mini-500 did fit the bill.


Being a curious person I'd like two ask a few questions.


I would be honored.


Since a lot of these machines suffered from engine failure regardles
of how they were supposed to be set up or run, what did the engine
manufacture say, or what was their position on these failure.


The engine manufacturer always read our reports, but they never
pretended to understand the needs of helicopters. They just supplied the
engines. They were concerned but satisfied with the reasons of the
failures, and supported our continuing effort to make the builder follow
instructions or find ways to make the engine more resilient to misuse.

As we learned and experimented, this was done with the mandatory
addition of the Power Enhancement Package system, "PEP" for short. That
was a tuned exhaust system that moved the power band up to operational
RPM's where a helicopter operated. That not only took care of the low
rotor RPM's that our low time pilots were having by increasing the
torque, but gave the helicopter more overall performance, and reduced
the exhaust back pressure which made it much less sensitive to EGT
change, and took away the need to rejet for density altitude changes.
And yet, even with all it offered, not even half of the Mini-500 owners
installed the PEP in their aircraft, and they continued having failures
due to the reasons above, while the PEP Mini-500's are still performing
well. You can led a horse ot water, but you can't make him drink.


And why didn't you change engines to either a different manufacturer or
a higher horsepower. I'm not trying to put you on the spot because I
know there was a lot of controversy regarding the engines being used
and how they were being run at high rpm.


Back in 1990, when I first started the Mini-500 project, there was only
one engine manufacturer that could provide 5 engines "new-in-the-box a
week", that had a performance history, and had service all around the
world. That was Rotax. The Mini-500 was designed around the 582 Rotax
engine. There was nothing else available. That is still as true today as
15 years ago.

The 582 Rotax is a good choice for the Mini-500. It has the power
necessary to do the job, at the price people will pay. The engine was
only ran at 6600 RPM's, which is still a 100% duty cycle for the engine
at 70% power reduction. Remember, the same engine in the snowmobile
industry will produce 110 hp at 8500 rpm's. Rotax simply derated the
engine for aircraft by lowering the RPM's. If you look at the power
charts of the snowmobile, the output HP at 6500 rpm is 64HP. No Rotax in
a Mini-500 has ever failed due to overexertion, if operated properly.
Only to improper installation or improper (or lack of) maintenance. It
is the finest light-aircraft engine ever made.

Also in the light-aircraft industry, 98% of all Rotax failures are due
to poor installation or inadequate maintenance. If you want a
bulletproof idiot-proof engine, buy an O-200.

The Rotax was, and is still the only choice of engine for the Mini-500
size helicopter, for the price people want to afford. Some people have
tried to replace the engine with something else, and all have failed.
Even the Solar APU engines will never work as intended. They burn more
fuel than you can carry, have no explosion proof protection, and the low
duty cycle makes them burn out quickly. They are not turbine engines,
they are merely self-propelled turbochargers meant to power generators
and pumps. To this day no one has been successful, except me with the
Rotax engine.


And if you don't mind..... what are you personally doing these days.


I have a Research and Development business where I design and build
rotorcraft of various types for customers around the world. I'm doing
what I want, and that's not to have to deal with people any longer. I
have found that large businesses and governments have much more money to
spend.

If you would like, I would be happy to send you some pictures of my
previous accomplishment, the Star-Lite UAV helicopter, and the new
helicopter I'm designing and building for another customer.

Again, thank you for asking, and I hope I was able to answer your
questions effectively.

Most sincerely,

Dennis Fetters