If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Brad Mallard wrote:
The guy is dead from a Mini 500. Brad, That's really putting it in a way that makes it sound like it was the helicopters fault when it was not. We're all adults, is it to much to be fair here? The man is dead because he was attempting to fly a "helicopter" that was not correctly built, not correctly jetted, and had been modified in a manner that could have adversely affected it's flight characteristics, and he did not properly autorotate after he had an engine failure due to his own failure to follow simple instructions. That is the proper and fair description. It's sad to see someone die in a completely preventable accident. Couldn't that happen in any helicopter design with the same scenario, right? Sincerely, Dennis Fetters "Dennis Fetters" wrote in message m... Brad Mallard wrote: I will put a little two cents in here. I was actually finishing a Metallurgical Engineering degree at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa a few years ago when the Areospace Engineering Department actually bought a kit as a project for the department. I was actually following along the process of construction because I had planned for quite some time to build one as well. I kept notes on the progress and talked with the select individuals chosen to actually construct the craft. The Areospace department had only one instructor that was helicopter rated and there is only one seat in this chopper, so it was never a question of who was going to fly the bird. According to the FAA report of the National Transportation Board ID # ATL01A003 it says " On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a University of Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided with the ground and burst into flames." This guy had thousands of logged hours, and numerous aviation ratings including Commercial Helicopter and a repairman experimental aircraft builder certificate. My thoughts of building a helicopter quit that day... The full report can be read at www.ntsb.gov "Jay" wrote in message e.com... Fetters wrote: This is a little part of the problem here Brad. People don't tell the complete story. In that way it will make a point opposite of what really happened. Why would you do that? Here, lets go into the true, full facts: ************ On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a University of Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided with the ground and burst into flames while on approach to the Tuscaloosa Municipal Airport, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. cut According to the airport control tower operator, the helicopter had completed three to four circuits in closed traffic to taxiway golf. While on the downwind leg, the controller believed that the helicopter had a sudden loss of engine power and began to descend. The tower received no communications and the helicopters rotor rpm decreased and appeared to stop before impact. Crash fire rescue trucks were on the scene and the post-crash fire was extinguished within minutes. **************** Fetters wrote: Why did the engine quit? according to our files I do know that the helicopter did not have all the mandatory AD's installed and should not have been flying at all. I do know that the helicopter did not have the mandatory PEP exhaust system installed which eliminated the need of jetting after ambient temperature changes. I also know that he had left the stock Rotax jetting in the engine and ignored our instructions to change it from airplane jetting to helicopter jetting, which would cause the engine to lean out and seize in a decent, as all of our advisories and instructions said would happen. He also never even once signed and returned a single AD notice as required. *************** cut According to the aircraft logbook, on September 28, 2000, the pilot had modified the helicopters horizontal stabilizer by cutting off part of the stabilizer behind mounting plates number 88 and number 98, and removed the winglets. The pilot flew 10 traffic patterns in new configuration. He noted in the logbook "less objectionable side to side shaking, but balance still indicates vertical 1.5 ips in climb." However, according to the FAA, this modification was not approved as required by the experimental aircraft operating limitations. cut The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: The loss of engine power for undetermined reasons, and the pilot's unapproved airframe modification that resulted in the loss of flight control during the emergency descent. ******************* Fetters wrote: OK, now where was this the helicopters fault? The man was flying a kit helicopter he built that didn't have the up-to-date mandatory upgrades, he had the wrong jetting and he modified a sensitive part of the airframe that directly allows proper entrance into an autorotation, and he did not enter a proper autorotation after the engine quit, if he even could after the modification. The FAA determined that it was pilot error, who could disagree? I hope this clears up any misconceptions from inadequate posting of partial information. Dennis Fetters |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
C.D.Damron wrote:
Fetters wrote: Your answers are well rehearsed. But true answers. What more would you want? Isn't that what really matters? Is the facts so hard to swallow? Why do you feel the need to imply something else? I'll summarize: 1) Accident reports conclude pilot error, Fetters is not responsible. 2) Builders did not comply with build instructions or AD's, Fetters is not responsible. Don't come here for a Baptism, Fetters, you won't get it. A few of us know the truth. Nor do I want it from you or anyone else here. Honestly, you don't deserve to give it. I know the truth, that's all that matters. A few of you say you know the truth? Well, what is that? Was this last accident talked about without the full facts the "truth" you say you know about? The real truth is that there still has been no deaths in a Mini-500 that was the fault of the design or flight characteristics. For some reason you may not like that answer, but it is the truth! I will adjust that statement. Now that there is no factory support, I do fear that there will someday be accidents due to the lack of sustained testing that occurred on a daily bases at the factory to stay ahead of unforeseen problems, thus why we came out with a few AD's in the past. That is why I recommend all Mini-500 activity be stopped. Sincerely, Dennis Fetters |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not implying something else, I'm saying something else.
You parse words with the best of them. You pick and choose among the many truths related to the record of your aircraft. "Dennis Fetters" wrote in message ... But true answers. What more would you want? Isn't that what really matters? Is the facts so hard to swallow? Why do you feel the need to imply something else? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
C.D.Damron wrote:
I'm not implying something else, I'm saying something else. You parse words with the best of them. You pick and choose among the many truths related to the record of your aircraft. Pick and choose what? Truth is truth. Facts are facts. Please, please show me what I omitted that would make what I said untrue or the fault of the aircraft, in any case or crash. Please show me proof of your accusation. Please prove yourself right. I sincerely invite you to do so. The problem I just finished proving again was that some people here do just what you accuse me of doing. They said a Mini crashed and implied it was the fault of the aircraft. I showed that was wrong and nor some of you are upset I did so, and I've done it time and time again, without distorting or omitting any fact. Please prove otherwise. Sincerely, Dennis Fetters "Dennis Fetters" wrote in message ... But true answers. What more would you want? Isn't that what really matters? Is the facts so hard to swallow? Why do you feel the need to imply something else? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Brad Mallard wrote:
The guy is dead from a Mini 500. Really? Sounds like he is dead from not following the manufacturer's recommendations. It is sad that he is dead, but stupidity can be fatal, especially when it occurs in relation to aviation. Matt |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis Fetters wrote in message m...
Your answers are well rehearsed. But true answers. What more would you want? Isn't that what really matters? Is the facts so hard to swallow? Why do you feel the need to imply something else? The truth is it's really stupid to design, sell, or fly a helicopter powered by a small 2-stroke engine. Anyone dumb enough to fly it kills only themselves. Anyone dumb enough to design and sell them should feel somewhat responsible for those who die in them. Rich |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Rich wrote:
The truth is it's really stupid to design, sell, or fly a helicopter powered by a small 2-stroke engine. Anyone dumb enough to fly it kills only themselves. Anyone dumb enough to design and sell them should feel somewhat responsible for those who die in them. Rich Why? the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered engines quit because it failed from over excursion. Not one Rotax in a Mini-500 failed from the engine wearing out, ever. The only failures that ever occurred was from failure to jet the engine according to instructions, using poor fuel below 86 octane, or running out of fuel, or improper coolant mix or leak, but never the fault of the engine. Nothing beats the power to weight of a 2-stroke and the ease of maintenance. It was the right engine. So where is this the fault of the designer or the aircraft? It was made plan in instructions, AD's and advisories not to make these mistakes. We flew the factory helicopters hundreds of hours to prove the design worked. Sure there were some development problems, but each one was solved and made available. The truth is that the engine worked well. Like it or not, your comments are unfounded, uninformed, based on lack of experience and unappreciated. Dennis Fetters |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
..
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Brad Mallard wrote: The guy is dead from a Mini 500. Really? Sounds like he is dead from not following the manufacturer's recommendations. It is sad that he is dead, but stupidity can be fatal, especially when it occurs in relation to aviation. Matt I think we all need to blame gravity, or maybe the earth, or maybe the adventurous spirit of man. He chose to do what he did. Freedom is a wonderful thing. It does have its responsibilities though. Ignorance can be bliss, and it can kill you. -- Dan D. http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Dennis Fetters" wrote in message ... Rich wrote: The truth is it's really stupid to design, sell, or fly a helicopter powered by a small 2-stroke engine. Anyone dumb enough to fly it kills only themselves. Anyone dumb enough to design and sell them should feel somewhat responsible for those who die in them. Rich Why? the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered engines quit because it failed from over excursion. Not one Rotax in a Mini-500 failed from the engine wearing out, ever. The only failures that ever occurred was from failure to jet the engine according to instructions, using poor fuel below 86 octane, or running out of fuel, or improper coolant mix or leak, but never the fault of the engine. Nothing beats the power to weight of a 2-stroke and the ease of maintenance. It was the right engine. So where is this the fault of the designer or the aircraft? It was made plan in instructions, AD's and advisories not to make these mistakes. We flew the factory helicopters hundreds of hours to prove the design worked. Sure there were some development problems, but each one was solved and made available. The truth is that the engine worked well. Like it or not, your comments are unfounded, uninformed, based on lack of experience and unappreciated. Dennis Fetters Dennis, Your statement "the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered engines quit because it failed from over excursion (sic)" may be correct, but I doubt that you have the tear-down reports and expert knowledge to *prove* the claim. To me, the bigger issue is the one Rich alluded to - 2 stroke engines are notoriously unreliable compared to their 4 stroke cousins. ALL of the ultralight guys I know with more than a couple of hundred hours behind 2 strokes have suffered engine events. Seized engines, partially seized engines, exhaust failures that lead to power loss, etc. Because of the reliability issue, 2 stroke engines are simply not suitable for helicopter power plants. You know that, as does anyone else who is familiar with the history of 2 stroke engines. Now, if you wanted to build and fly your own 2 stroke powered heli, that's fine, but kitting the thing and selling it to the dumb masses just isn't right. Presumably, the target buyer for a 2 stroke powered kit helicopter is either a big-time risk taker or is simply ignorant of the risks involved. KB |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis Fetters wrote in message m...
The truth is it's really stupid to design, sell, or fly a helicopter powered by a small 2-stroke engine. Why? the trouble has never been that one of our Rotax powered engines quit because it failed from over excursion Like it or not, your comments are unfounded, uninformed, based on lack of experience and unappreciated. Rotax Operators Manual, page 4-2 "Warning: This engine, by its design, is subject to sudden stoppage". Evidently, you didn't read that far. Rich |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mini Fly-In Drachten (EHDR) 5-6-7 juni | Zier en van de Steenoven | Home Built | 0 | May 28th 04 01:14 AM |
fetters or fetter's booster? | Cy Galley | Home Built | 11 | March 12th 04 10:46 PM |
Mini Imp | Randall Robertson | Home Built | 0 | November 25th 03 12:17 AM |
mini copter strikes again | tim | Home Built | 4 | November 21st 03 12:47 AM |