Mini-500 parts selling on eBay

"planeman" wrote in message
oups.com...
I see Mini-500 helicopters selling on eBay, but much less these days.
Is there someone in the marketplace that can sell me parts if I was
compelled to buy the incomplete one selling now?



Despite what you may read below. This is a dnagerous machine.
So unless you have 1000+ hours or rotorcraft time and know enough
to know why youd want to put yourself in peril, take you money and
invest it in training in a non-experimental helicopter.

Bart

Its incredible how much false information you can get on the newsgroups.
Persons who have never owned and flown a Mini-500 have nothing to offer
but opinion from a extreme distance. It means nothing at all to those
that really need to know. It is also pointless to get an opinion from a
person with an axe to grind or that feels he has been swindled by
someone with more brains than he has or at least the ability to use what
he has more efficiently..
Persons who allow themselves to be indoctrinated by ignoramuses often
become what they learn from. It is very evident in these forums.
My Mini-500 was so easy to operate a caveman (with 20 hours of training)
could do it. The only way to operate a helicopter safely is with in the
design parameters. Then even that is no guarantee but it improves your
safety factor.Very skilled and qualified pilots have operated outside
these parameters and have been injured or killed. Sometimes pilots are
killed by misjudgment or taking an ever so slight chance that they will
be okay. Picking a bad emergency landing site killed two Sacramento
sheriff's officers this month. Had it been a Mini-500 it would surely
have been to blame because the unknowledgeable person would have been
quick to blame it. I guess it boils down to who has more realistic
advise for you, the manufacturer or the newsgroup detractor. A profound
analysis in itself I would think. Think about it, read about it and form
a conclusion based on reason. Or not, its a matter of free agency.

"Clear the area before departure" "Look both ways before crossing the
street" yada yada, or hell just knock on wood!

"B4RT" wrote in message
...
snipped


Despite what you may read below. This is a dnagerous machine.
So unless you have 1000+ hours or rotorcraft time and know enough
to know why youd want to put yourself in peril, take you money and
invest it in training in a non-experimental helicopter.

Bart

Jim wrote:

Its incredible how much false information you can get on the newsgroups.

Well Jim I congratulate you heartily.

You are one of the very, very, very few people who have ever come into
this newsgroup who has anything good to say about the Mini 500.

My Mini-500 was so easy to operate a caveman
(with 20 hours of training) could do it.

So I would presume that since this is such a joy to own and operate
that you must still have yours.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind telling the group approximately how many
hours you have flying your Mini 500.

Now I know there are a few people out there that have put some hours on
their machines. And some of those are people who have done some
extensive modifications to make them safer to fly.

Unfortunately whether it was poor design, poor building, poor parts,
poor piloting, poor weather, or just poor judgement, it appears that
many of the Mini 500s seem to have suffered from various types of
accidents, some of which resulted in the deaths of the pilot.

Now Jim I am not being mean nor am I trying to be snotty.

The fact is that if you have had good success with your machine, still
have it in flying condition, and are generally happy with it's
performance, then I do heartily congratulate you on your ability to
enjoy as a hobby, what many in this newsgroup would like to do
themselves.

That being said I invite you to come back to this group and describe in
some detail your experiences with the machine.

Not only from a builders perspective, but that as a pilot owner
operator and as the owner mechanic.

I'm sure many in this group would be interested in reading your
comments.

I know I would.

Dear Jim,

I tried to email this to you privately, but it returned. So, I'll post
it here as a privet email. Those who read it are reading something not
meant for anyone but Jim.


Dear Jim,


Thank you for your post, I'm happy to read what you said, but it will
only cause you problems. These people live by "do not confuse the issues
with the facts, we already made up our minds". They are mostly crippled
with blinders, and unable to comprehend the facts. I only post here in
rebuttal against what these few robot minded people parrot, and then
only for those with open minds and hearts to have an opportunity to at
least read the other side. Then, they can make up their own minds.

It is a burden I bare alone, and no need for you to suffer by trying to
say something contrary to what they want all others to believe. If all
happy Mini-500 owners were as brave and forthright as you, and would
stand and fight back, then it would be a victory, but that will never
happen. Thank you for the bit of kindness, but you do not deserve their
wrath.

Most sincerely,

Dennis Fetter

Jim wrote:

Its incredible how much false information you can get on the newsgroups.
Persons who have never owned and flown a Mini-500 have nothing to offer
but opinion from a extreme distance. It means nothing at all to those
that really need to know. It is also pointless to get an opinion from a
person with an axe to grind or that feels he has been swindled by
someone with more brains than he has or at least the ability to use what
he has more efficiently..
Persons who allow themselves to be indoctrinated by ignoramuses often
become what they learn from. It is very evident in these forums.
My Mini-500 was so easy to operate a caveman (with 20 hours of training)
could do it. The only way to operate a helicopter safely is with in the
design parameters. Then even that is no guarantee but it improves your
safety factor.Very skilled and qualified pilots have operated outside
these parameters and have been injured or killed. Sometimes pilots are
killed by misjudgment or taking an ever so slight chance that they will
be okay. Picking a bad emergency landing site killed two Sacramento
sheriff's officers this month. Had it been a Mini-500 it would surely
have been to blame because the unknowledgeable person would have been
quick to blame it. I guess it boils down to who has more realistic
advise for you, the manufacturer or the newsgroup detractor. A profound
analysis in itself I would think. Think about it, read about it and form
a conclusion based on reason. Or not, its a matter of free agency.

"Clear the area before departure" "Look both ways before crossing the
street" yada yada, or hell just knock on wood!

"B4RT" wrote in message
...

snipped


Despite what you may read below. This is a dnagerous machine.
So unless you have 1000+ hours or rotorcraft time and know enough
to know why youd want to put yourself in peril, take you money and
invest it in training in a non-experimental helicopter.

Bart

Dennis Fetters wrote:
Dear Jim,

I tried to email this to you privately, but it returned. So, I'll post
it here as a privet email. Those who read it are reading something not
meant for anyone but Jim.

Riiiight.

Important message, for Jim... only for Jim...

Dear Jim,


Thank you for your post, I'm happy to read what you said, but it will
only cause you problems. These people live by "do not confuse the issues
with the facts, we already made up our minds". They are mostly crippled
with blinders, and unable to comprehend the facts. I only post here in
rebuttal against what these few robot minded people parrot, and then
only for those with open minds and hearts to have an opportunity to at
least read the other side. Then, they can make up their own minds.

It is a burden I bare alone, and no need for you to suffer by trying to

I'm getting all weepy.

say something contrary to what they want all others to believe. If all
happy Mini-500 owners were as brave and forthright as you, and would
stand and fight back, then it would be a victory, but that will never
happen. Thank you for the bit of kindness, but you do not deserve their
wrath.

I need a tissue sniff

Most sincerely,

Dennis Fetter

You spelled your name wrong.

Scratch, Kevin and cloudster,

You have absolutely no respect for anyone, and now you prove that you
have no respect for yourselves.

As for you making fun of someone's typo's and spellchecker oversights,
it only proves my point. I have to type 10 times the amount as any of
you to post my answers. And this is only a small part of my day. It's
only the law of averages that I will overlook something. Setting my
technical accomplishes aside, the big difference between you and me is
respect for others. I would not discredit myself by making fun of
someone's grammatical errors, as you would to yourselves.

I'm glad I had to post this private email to Jim, because it shows
people the true nature of my detractors. When you make fun of someone's
sincere expressions of gratitude as you did, it shows people the dark
side of your hearts, and shows them the evil behind what you do, and
then they know that you have the ability to say anything, no matter if
it's true or not. Because we all know what hate can make someone do, or
say.

During this same time, you have proven to all of us that you don't know
what you're talking about, and that you are just being disrespectful for
the sick fun of it. You have had nothing to do with a Mini-500, nor have
you ever done business with me. You have nothing to complain about, and
no bone to pick with me. You do it because the faceless newsgroups allow
you to make unjust fun of others. You are worse than the bully on the
block. At least he has the gonads to face the ones he attacks. The one
person that appears on the newsgroup in defense of his Mini-500 is
attacked and ridiculed. No wonder they stay away, who can blame them.

But on the other hand, I must thank you. When people like you make
untrue comments about the Mini-500 and myself, it gives me the
opportunity to not only post the truth, but to expose the nature of the
people making the untrue comments, which only adds to my credibility and
others education on the subject. In this way, you help me by allowing
the conversations to continue, and providing the forum to post my side
in direct response to your inaccurate allegations and parroting of false
roomers. You are unwittingly helping me, and I couldn't do it without
you. Keep up the good work, boys.

Dennis Fetters


Scratch wrote:

Dennis Fetters wrote:

Dear Jim,

I tried to email this to you privately, but it returned. So, I'll post
it here as a privet email. Those who read it are reading something not
meant for anyone but Jim.


Riiiight.

Important message, for Jim... only for Jim...

Dear Jim,


Thank you for your post, I'm happy to read what you said, but it will
only cause you problems. These people live by "do not confuse the
issues with the facts, we already made up our minds". They are mostly
crippled with blinders, and unable to comprehend the facts. I only
post here in rebuttal against what these few robot minded people
parrot, and then only for those with open minds and hearts to have an
opportunity to at least read the other side. Then, they can make up
their own minds.

It is a burden I bare alone, and no need for you to suffer by trying to


I'm getting all weepy.

say something contrary to what they want all others to believe. If all
happy Mini-500 owners were as brave and forthright as you, and would
stand and fight back, then it would be a victory, but that will never
happen. Thank you for the bit of kindness, but you do not deserve
their wrath.


I need a tissue sniff

Most sincerely,

Dennis Fetter


You spelled your name wrong.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Greeter at Wal Mart, growing flowers at a greenhouse, running a
manufacturing plant, retired.....??????

I'm curious as you can see.

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

B4RT wrote;
So unless you have 1000+ hours or [of] rotorcraft time..

For the homebuilder; is that 1000 hours of flying experience, or 1000 hours
of maintenance experience, or perhaps 1000 hours of experience in
manufacturing and assembling rotorcraft?

It is said that the Sikorsky Sea King requires 7-12 hours of maintenance for
every hour of flying.
http://www.canoe.ca/mb2/messages/cnewsf/994-2.html

Maybe the maintained experience is the most important.for safe flight????
Just a question.

Dave Jackson wrote:

B4RT wrote;

So unless you have 1000+ hours or [of] rotorcraft time..


For the homebuilder; is that 1000 hours of flying experience, or 1000 hours
of maintenance experience, or perhaps 1000 hours of experience in
manufacturing and assembling rotorcraft?


Dave, from my experience, that sounds about right.

If Kit aircraft had the same laws backing them as certified aircraft,
then people would by law have to build and maintain their aircraft to
factory standards, and in most cases that would vastly reduce the
accident rate.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters