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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
The OTHER Kevin in San Diego wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:56:33 GMT, Dennis Fetters wrote: I rarely do so, and then only when it's factual. There is already some history with Beavis and his out of line comments. But, few else here hesitate to insult me. I don't see you standing up to them. Why? double standards? I hope not. Don't know of any history between you two and frankly, I couuld give a rat's ass about any. That's between you two. As it should be... Along with anything else not concerning you about me. Dennis Fetters |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis Fetters wrote:
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 And, of course, complexity explains all of the deaths in your generation of Air Command gyroplanes. They were banned in Britain, and your successors, thankfully, have worked very hard to overcome the deadly design flaws in your machines. You are so full of **** I can't believe it. Go peddle your wares somewhere else. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
So, let's see where we're at...
The sappy letter (only for Jim, wink-wink) was indeed yours. Next, you cry out "You have absolutely no respect for anyone" "the big difference between you and me is respect for others." Shiver commends your "rationale and logical manner, devoid of rants and cursing." And your impeccably gracious reply contains: "not like Uglysport or Angle helicopters" Uncalled for, childish name calling against two other kit heli manufacturers. See, folks? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
As for the guy that originally asked the question about places to buy Mini-500 parts, no, there is nowhere to purchase parts. Most sincerely, Dennis Fetters Parts at Muna's Treasures on eBay Certainly you ain't most sincere |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Wendell wrote:
Dennis Fetters wrote: Dave Jackson wrote: 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 And, of course, complexity explains all of the deaths in your generation of Air Command gyroplanes. They were banned in Britain, and your successors, thankfully, have worked very hard to overcome the deadly design flaws in your machines. I have posted about this before, in case you didn't read. I went to Britain myself and set a person up as our Air Command dealer. Some mouths after I had left, that dealer took it upon himself, without my knowledge, to turn his Commander customers loose after only 5 hours of training, even after I told them before they need a minimum of 20 hours, and then strict supervision afterwards. The result was some of his low time customers tried to fly on very windy days, and that wind caused circumstances that exceeded their ability to fly the gyroplane with the experience they possessed, causing them to loose control and crash. Afterwards, the dealer was contacted by the CAA and asked why he would release his customers only after 5 hours of training. The CAA also sent me a letter asking what we recommended the training time should be. The dealer asked me to tell the CAA 5 hours, but I refused, and told them what we told the dealer originally. The dealer felt betrayed, and to avoid legal circumstances left the country. The CAA will not allow a kit aircraft to fly without dealer representation, and had no choice but to ground the fleet. Before all this, I was made an offer to sell the Commander business. At that same time I was already working on the Mini-500, and decided to sell the Commander line. If I would not have sold the Commander line, then I would have took the time to reestablish a new dealer in Britain and help with the crash investigation, and the fleet would not have been grounded. But, since I sold the company, it was up to the new owners to do that, and they never did. So, the meaning of your statement above is not actually in the light you tried to present it. As a matter of fact, you can go to any gyroplane air show and see original Air Command gyroplanes that are 25 years old, still flying with the newest designs, and keeping up or staying ahead. There is no better testament of the design than that. You are so full of **** I can't believe it. Go peddle your wares somewhere else. Maybe so. But I'm not here belittling myself by cursing and name calling, unless the shoe fits. I'm not here making statements out of context to portray a false meaning, like you are. So, be careful Peter, even if you're making the standards you are still being judged. Where will it put you on your totem poll? Dennis Fetters |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Selling on Ebay | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 34 | May 28th 04 06:29 PM |
Selling my Garmin Pilot III Aviation GPS and MORE on ebay | Cecil E. Chapman | Products | 0 | January 29th 04 12:44 AM |
Airplane Parts on Ebay Vac Reg Valves, Fuel Floats, O-200 Spider, Fuel Injection Valve | Bill Berle | Home Built | 0 | January 26th 04 07:48 AM |
Airplane Parts on Ebay Vac Reg Valves, Fuel Floats, O-200 Spider, Fuel Injection Valve | Bill Berle | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 26th 04 07:48 AM |
Airplane Parts on Ebay Vac Reg Valves, Fuel Floats, O-200 Spider, Fuel Injection Valve | Bill Berle | Owning | 0 | January 26th 04 07:48 AM |