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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Hoppy wrote: Bryan wrote: 2-stroke engines can be just as if not more reliable than 4-strokes. Look at the big rigs on the road, a very large number of them are 2-stroke engines pulling very heavy loads for hundreds of thousands of miles. Yeah, 2-stroke diesels. Valves, not ported cylinder walls. Pressure lubrication, not diluted oil/fuel mist. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Heh, heh. Bryan is obviously correct... for as far as he cared to take the argument. I suspect the reason we haven't seen much of 2-stroke or 4-stroke aviation diesels with valves and pressure lubrication is that they've been heavy and more costly to manufacture than the gas 4-strokes we currently enjoy. Cheap gas in the past also played a large role. However, times are a changing, so stay tuned, eh? Kudos to you, Hoppy, for filling in the blanks. Barnyard BOb - born in the dark, but not last night. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
They'll fly if you throw 'em hard enough!
"Barnyard BOb -" wrote in message ... 2-stroke engines can be just as if not more reliable than 4-strokes. Look at the big rigs on the road, a very large number of them are 2-stroke engines pulling very heavy loads for hundreds of thousands of miles. It all comes down to engine design and installation. The fact that an engine is a 2-stroke has nothing to do with reliability! Bryan ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The REALLY big honking 2-stroke rigs on the road are... EMD locomotives built by GM So, what you say is definitely true and correct. However, pigs and locomotives have yet to fly. Barnyard BOb - retired Union Pacific RR |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis Fetters wrote in message m...
...snip... I was not smart enough to read the Rotax statement. Well Rich, I did read it. Better than that, I understand it as most people do and was able to see beyond it Iteresting that you have the abilty to "see beyond" the facts that don't fit your plans. Unfortunately, your customers lacked the abilty to "see beyond" your retoric and realize that the cute little helicopter was in fact beyond the abilty of even very experienced helicopter pilots to operate safely. Rich, there is no need to be mean or insulting to people. Which is why I have not been mean or insulting to anyone. If improperly installed a 4 stroke will fail too. I never stated a 4-store wouldn't fail. My statement said a 2-stoke was more likely to fail without warning then a 4-stoke. You appear to have "looked beyond" the without warning part. Rich |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
John,
Thank you for your kind post giving us your view. John Ammeter wrote: Dennis, I'm sure no one will doubt your ability to sell helicopters. You designed a product that would appeal to many people; in particular, to the new builder or pilot. It was "cute" and "sporty", to say the least.... Unfortunately, due to the very nature of your customer base, most of the new owner/builders had little or no real experience in building aircraft, let alone a helicopter with its many specific needs. Correct. 73% of our buyers had no helicopter experience whatsoever. 99% had no experience building a helicopter. 91% never built an aircraft of any kind. But, even with this great deal of inexperience most all were capable of building and flying the Mini-500. It is a simple helicopter to build and fly, yet still being a helicopter and unforgiving to neglect and to stupidity. Where you failed your customers was in failing to realize that you absolutely had to detail exactly how the 2 stroke Rotax was to be installed. Your failure was most likely due to your expectation that the builder would know more than they did... Thank you for your opinion, but I don't think that is the case. We had a very nice and detailed assembly manual. The parts were even designed to only fit one way. We had no problem with owners assembling the engine into the helicopter correctly. In fact I can't remember one that I saw incorrect. The problem came to the jetting, of which we gave out plenty of instructions, newsletters and advisories, but some customers simply refused to change the jetting. They would say "it flies fine in a hover with the stock jets, so I'll wait and see how it does in flight before I do any changing". Of course then, it was to late. We told them why and what would happen, but some of them did it anyway. Later we even started taking the jets out of the engine before we shipped it and made them buy jets using the same chart we always sent. We could not provide jets because of different altitudes. Remember most of the customers did what they should. It was only a few that didn't, but those are the ones you hear about. If/when you ever get back into the kit sales business I'd strongly suggest you hire someone to write the builders manual in such a way that even the newbie will know exactly what to do and how to do it. No thanks, I don't need the grief of dealing with the public. But, as I said, we had one of the best manuals out there. Time after time the FAA inspector would comment to the customer on how nice and detailed the manual was, and so would the customers. We sent a set to the FAA in OK, they said the same thing. But, there was a problem. We started to notice that most everyone we talked to at the air shows or on the phone were building according to the pictures and drawings, because they were so detailed, and ignoring all the written instruction. Even when it said at the first of each chapter "Read and understand this entire section before applying the directions". We sent out letters and did all we could to warn them about omitting even the simplest details. How many times did I tell a guy he should disassemble his Mini-500 and start again, but this time READ! Also, I'd suggest a motor that wasn't so dependant on EXACT jetting for dependability. When the motor worked as planned an FAA standard pilot could fly the helicopter... BUT, when a 200 pound pilot attempted to fly the helicopter at the 2500 foot elevation of Las Vegas and 80 degrees it was not possible to get out of ground effect. I was there and saw it... Well, the Rotax was not so dependent on exact jetting, just proper jetting. And again, most customers did fine, it was only a few we had problems with. You had summer jetting and winter jetting. Some failed to switch, and some failed to rejet to helicopter all together. Later we came out with the PEP system which took away the need of summer and winter jetting. So long as you put the proper PEP jetting in, you had no problems, no more engine failures after that. I have customers flying all over the world at those altitudes and weight, but there are other factors why a Mini-500 can't hover at that altitude. I had a Mini-500 customer at 180 pounds that couldn't fly at 500 feet. After inspecting it and finding a few adjustments, and pealing off the improper blade tape that ruined the laminar flow of the blades, it flew fine. But admittedly, the performance is not going to be good at 2500 feet. Remember, a Mini-500 with one pilot and full of fuel is fully loaded. You take a Brantly with two people and full of fuel and it's fully loaded, and it won't hover at 2500 feet either. But, with the introduction of the PEP, that added enough available power that you would perform very well at that altitude. I have owners using the PEP and flying from 6500 feet and loving it. But not all the customers complied with the mandatory PEP, and they still had some problems. It is a fact that a Mini-500 with all the latest upgrades fly fine, and still are. But I firmly believe that no one should continue flying any aircraft that no longer has factory support. I look at myself and can say I have failed in many things by wishing I would have done some thing better or differently. Hindsight is 20/20. I wish I would have made my factory on higher ground the first time, so I would have avoided loosing my factory in the floods of 93 and occurring all the expenses to start over. I wish I would have never gave Rick Stitt and Lee a job. I wish I would have never met that back stabbing Fred Stewart and sold him a kit. I wish I would have continued paying Jim Campbell every month for that worthless ad in his rag magazine so he wouldn't have turned on me like the dog he is. I wish I would have never designed the 0.001" bushings to be on the cotton picking inside of the check plates so head shifts wouldn't be such a pain in the ass!! But, unlike most people, I DID get off my ass and do something, and am still doing something, and I'll never regret that. So did I fail at anything? No, never failed, maybe could have done a few thing better, but never failed. Did I fail with Revolution Helicopter. No, we did an outstanding job against all odds. We did what few have been able to accomplish, and we are proud of that. We closed because we were defeated after a 2 year war with Stewart and his coolies, a small group of people that cheated and lied to everyone about us, while advertising in Kitplanes magazine they wanted to start their own helicopter company, so they needed us out of the way. Our ammunition could only be the truth. But you don't need fire to stop someone's sales, smoke will do if you keep it up long enough. In the end, Fred Stewart is the one that failed. He never could start his own helicopter company, or offer assistance to Mini-500 owners as he promised, and now he has a worthless Mini-500 with no factory support. He has no victory either, because there is no honor in stabbing a friend in the back, or defeating someone with lies. Again, thanks for your view, hope I put some light on mine. Sincerely, Dennis Fetters |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
C.D.Damron wrote:
Dennis, While the language is losing it specificity due to improper usage and the incorporation of distorted definitions in modern dictionaries, there is general agreement that the words, "fact", "truth", and "honesty" are not synonomous. You often select factual statements in an attempt to prove some larger truth or your own honesty. The omission of critical facts makes it possible to present factual statements while failing to be truthful or honest. C.D. I believe that is what I'm here about, but the other way around. It is some people here that are making posts that are incomplete so that they take on a bad meaning. That is a fact, just read my responses over the last few days. You are so proud of those FAA accident reports that reach a conclusion of pilot error. Both civil and military accident reports use a rather strict standard in establishing whether an accident was the result of pilot error. In short, the approach is to determine if the pilot could have done anything at any point to avoid an accident - EVEN IF FACTORS BEYOND THE PILOT'S CONTROL CONTRIBUTED TO THE SITUATION. As a result, poor design and production can significantly contribute to an accident that is eventually attributed to pilot error. Please, name some of those factors that the government forgot to mention. None of the accidents were caused by the design or flight characteristics of the Mini-500, how simple can that be? The helicopter had great flight characteristics compared to any helicopter. People love the way it fly's. Kin Armstrong of Kitplanes magazine did a flight review and said it had no bad characteristics, on the contrary he said it had very good flight characteristics. So if no parts failed that were installed properly and it flew fine, where is it the fault of the aircraft or it's designer if it crashes due to strictly pilot error or maintenance error, or stupidity? Pilot error is not some trump card you can throw down on the table. So yes, I think you are less than truthful or honest when you insist that pilot error absolves you of any responsibility. I'm not insisting, the reports are insisting. The facts are insisting. The cause of the accidents are insisting. I will be the first to stand up and say this accident is my fault, if it were. But if I did that would be a lie. Now, if it would make you feel better to hear me say so just because, forget it. I will if it was my fault, but it has not been my fault. If you want someone to be sacrificed just for the fun of it, then why don't you take the blame. Why not, your as guilty as I am. The realm of experimental aviation further complicates the validity of such accident reports. The reason for this is pretty obvious, the FAA is trained to investigate accidents involving certified aircraft. As a result, they will make assumptions about experimental aircraft based on their limited training and experience. For example, if I build a plane that is impossible to fly or a helicopter that cannot be auto-rotated, it is still very possible that an accident report could conclude that I was at fault for not avoiding a stall or not successfully performing an auto-rotation. Why? Because the FAA makes certain assumptions about experimental aircraft that are not supported by any basis in reality. Well if that were the case that the Mini-500 would not autorotate, then yes, that would be a serious design flaw and I would be responsible. But that is not the case, the Mini-500 autorotates better that most helicopters. When I have a little more time, I would be happy to rehash the lies. If you could just put forth one piece of evidence to substantiate your accusations would be very helpful in giving you something to argue about. But that has not been the case. So I'm afraid that what you are saying is worthless and lacking. Dennis Fetters |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Hoppy wrote:
Dennis Fetters wrote: "According to the Rotax representative, "...the modified tuning and non-conforming parts of the engine from stock configuration..." was not recommended; The Rotax guy refers to non-conforming from stock, non-recommended stuff... He later purchased the PEP exhaust from us, Isn't that one of the parts the Rotax guy was talking about? however, some modifications, such as the "PEP" exhaust system, were recommended and marketed by the helicopter kit manufacturer." Ah, that _is_ one of the parts. Rotax wouldn't recommend the PEP, but you recommended it. Actually, you mandated it. And marketed it, naturally. So what's your point? Did you just discover this or are you just way behind the rest of us? I don't mean that in an insulting way, but I'm really asking so I know. He crashed into the top of a 50 foot tree and fell nose first to his death. In time the PEP proved to be a deferent advantage for the Mini-500, so much that we made it mandatory to install. MANDATORY! Anyone else's mods were prohibited, by purchase contract and court order. Any new mods you wanted to sell, however, were "mandatory", by phony AD. When customers fell to their deaths, so what, you just shrugged it off. Yes, it became mandatory. Again, are you just now discovering this? I'm very sorry, but I don't get your point. As for the crash of Gil using the PEP, I hope you read the part were we begged him to follow instructions when he refused to do so, and we offered to buy the unit back when he refused to use the recommended jetting. So, what is the point you are trying to make? Rotax did sell Revolution Helicopter engines directly and specifically for the Mini-500. They were coerced, forced to. Oh yes, I told them I would fire each and every one of them. I'm sorry Hoppy`, but I can't help but get a chuckle out of that one. Dennis Fetters |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Hoppy wrote: Bryan wrote: 2-stroke engines can be just as if not more reliable than 4-strokes. Look at the big rigs on the road, a very large number of them are 2-stroke engines pulling very heavy loads for hundreds of thousands of miles. Yeah, 2-stroke diesels. Valves, not ported cylinder walls. Pressure lubrication, not diluted oil/fuel mist. 2-stroke gassers with big cylinders seize a lot, they just do. Except the Rotax in a CH-7, don't know why that worked out so well, when a Mini-500 with the same engine is crap. Almost all the CH-7 helicopters were built and test flown by the factory, not the customers. There are less than 100 CH-7's while there are over 500 Mini-500. Dennis Fetters |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Rich wrote:
Dennis Fetters wrote in message m... ...snip... I was not smart enough to read the Rotax statement. Well Rich, I did read it. Better than that, I understand it as most people do and was able to see beyond it Iteresting that you have the abilty to "see beyond" the facts that don't fit your plans. It's true, I don't ware blinders and I have a forward thinking mind. I and many others know why Rotax puts warnings on their engines. Who don't? Even food and rides has warnings. Please, be reasonable. Unfortunately, your customers lacked the abilty to "see beyond" your retoric and realize that the cute little helicopter was in fact beyond the abilty of even very experienced helicopter pilots to operate safely. So are you saying that every lite aircraft out there today has pilots that lack the ability to "see beyond"? Rich, please be fair and not so selective. Even today Mini-500's are flying with the same Rotax it started with and with no problems. The proof is historical now. It says that if you build and maintain your Mini-500 according to the latest factory instructions, your Mini-500 will fly as designed. History, fact. But, this may not be true in the future. I now have no way of knowing what potential and unforeseen problems may occur since there is no further factory continued testing. Rich, there is no need to be mean or insulting to people. Which is why I have not been mean or insulting to anyone. Then please allow me to apologize if I took you wrong. If improperly installed a 4 stroke will fail too. I never stated a 4-store wouldn't fail. My statement said a 2-stoke was more likely to fail without warning then a 4-stoke. You appear to have "looked beyond" the without warning part. Rich No, I didn't. In fact, if there was a proven reliable 4 stroke that had the power to weight needed, and was available new in-the-box at a rate of 5 a week at the time we designed and built the Mini-500, I would have probably used it. But there was nothing like that. The Rotax 582 was the best available engine, and still is running well. Sincerely, Dennis Fetters |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis Fetters wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote: 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 Sorry, but that isn't correct. I ran two-stroke motorcycles for years with no problems. Many outboard engines are two-strokes and they have excellent reliability records. I think the issues with two-strokes in aviation has been improper operation. Matt Well, sorry Matt, but my statements are right on. In fact, you just helped support exactly what I said. Thank you. I actually was trying to support your point, but you reply here messed up the thread so it appears I was replying to your message when I was actually replying to the reply to your message. Count the "carats" along the edge and you will see that you messed up the attribution chain. Matt |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
D.A.L wrote:
" 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. Why are you people not trying to shut down the gun manufactures or porsche or ferrari? They all produce/sell products to anybody who walks through their doors and have no conscience or even give a rats behind if those people go out and kill themselves or anybody else. Gun manufacturers even refuse to adjust the trigger presure so that children (who they know might or do have access) can'nt fire a bullet! I won't even talk about the tobaco or alchohol producers! You guys blame Dennis for the plight of people who 'know not what they do' and/or do not fully respect the dangers of aviation. Most people fully understand the dangers (like myself) and still wish to persue the freedom of flight. You need to do some homework. There have been many lawsuits attempting to shut down gun manufacturers. The trial lawyers are trying to make gun makers the next silicon implant/tobacco/asbestos class action sham. Matt |
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 |