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.

Smitty Two wrote:
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.

Fetters is one of very very few people that makes my blood boil.
Normally I'm a very docile person. I lost a friend, Gil Armbruster, An
FAA executive with 10s of thousands of hours of flight time, in the
mini500. Gil was a metoculous builder. Fetters is blamed his accident
on pilot error. Which is correct, Gil's accident was due to pilot
error, his error was choosing the mini500.

Flyingmonk wrote:

Fetters is one of very very few people that makes my blood boil.
Normally I'm a very docile person. I lost a friend, Gil Armbruster, An
FAA executive with 10s of thousands of hours of flight time, in the
mini500. Gil was a metoculous builder. Fetters is blamed his accident
on pilot error. Which is correct, Gil's accident was due to pilot
error, his error was choosing the mini500.

Gil had around 200 hours in the Mini, which seems to be its life limit
for airframe and pilot...

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
Gil had around 200 hours in the Mini, which seems to be its life limit
for airframe and pilot...

Thank you for the correction Darrel. It was a typo, I meant write:

FAA executive with 10s of thousands of hours of flight time, and almost 200 hrs in the mini500.

Flyingmonk wrote:

Thank you for the correction Darrel. It was a typo, I meant write:

FAA executive with 10s of thousands of hours of flight time, and almost 200 hrs in the mini500.

I understood ya, just didn't want anyone else to be confused...

"Darrel Toepfer" wrote

I understood ya, just didn't want anyone else to be confused...

chuckle I didn't even catch it.

It would be truly remarkable if anyone had tens of thousands in a Mini.
Supernatural, shall we say? g
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

chuckle I didn't even catch it.

It would be truly remarkable if anyone had tens of thousands in a Mini.
Supernatural, shall we say? g

That was the only phunnie part of this whole thing...

I'd say if we weren't here to say otherwise, bFetters would have the
numbers in Zzzzoom proportions...

The CH-7's blades were better, they didn't bow like a banana. The
Mini500's blades were bowing forward as you go from the root to tip.
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 pivots
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 as
well as the root, 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 Fetters 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.
Fetters couldn't get the blades to come out as designed. They were not
consistent, they bowed where they shouldn't have and 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, with bad blades, this resulted in "shaking" or unsmooth
helicopter. The shaking caused the frames to crack! Again, instead
of addressing the problem (bad blades), Fetters 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 Fetters
came up with the bandaid fix, 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.

Smitty Two wrote:

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.

First of all, I want to thank you for pointing that out. You are
correct, I have rewritten it:

Cicarre's CH-7's blades were better, they didn't bow like a banana.
The Mini500's blades were bowing forward as you go from the root to
tip. 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 pivots 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 as well as the root, 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 Fetters 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.
Fetters couldn't get the blades to come out as designed. They were not
consistent, they bowed where they shouldn't have and 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 as it goes around the vertical shaft, with bad blades, this
resulted in "shaking" or unsmooth helicopter. The shaking caused the
frames to crack! Again, instead of addressing the problem (bad
blades), Fetters 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 Fetters
came up with the bandaid fix, 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.

In addition, Glen Ryerson, who built and flown the CH-7 "Miss Nina" in
PA, didn't have any trouble tracking and balancing his blades.