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

In article .com,
"Flyingmonk" wrote:

The CH-7's blades were better, they didn't bow like a banana. The were
bowing forward as you go farther from the root of the blades. This
changed the pivot point for the baldes, imagine taking a straight
bladed sword and rotating it, the tip and the rest of the sword stays
at the pivot point. Now imagine taking a curved sword and rotating it
the same way, you'll notice that the tip stays at the pivot point, but
the remainder of the sword will rise or fall due to the curve.

The CH-7's blades were fabricated better, they were more uniform or
should I say more consistent than what Denise was able to produce.
Being more uniform, and of the shape that they were designed, they were
easier to track and balance. This resulted in a smoother flying ship.
Denise couldn't get the blades to come out as designed. They were not
consistent they bowed where they shouldn't have and all this resulted
in problems when trying to track and balance the blades. I remember
that Gill had a hard time getting the baldes to fly smoothly.

I think this fact alone(bad blades) resulted in inefficient rotor
system, Unlike propellers, the blades of a helicopter changes pitch
continously, this resulted in "shaking" or unsmooth helicopter. The
shaking caused the frames to crack! Again, instead of addressing the
problem (bad blades), Denise added more metal to the frame in an
attempt to beef up the area prone to cracking.

Since the blades were not as efficient as the CH-7's blades, the engine
had to work much harder to get the same lift. That's where Denise came
up with the bandaid fix again, the PEP kit. Instead of tackling the
blade problem, he overworked the engine by PEPing it up. CH-7s didn't
need to be PEPed up.

That's my two cents worth.

Sir, I hope you will not feel singled out by me, but how does abusing
the man's name lend credibility to what appears to be a reasonably
scholarly hypothesis? This is only one example of what I mean when I say
I don't give much credence to either Mr. Fetters or his detractors.
Sarcasm, rudeness, disrespect, arrogance, snottiness, and all the other
exhibits of hostility that permeate both sides of this discussion - and
so many others here - may bring self-righteous snickers to the
like-minded, but do *nothing* to persuade your opponents or the neutral
lurkers.