I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!!

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...

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.

Flyingmonk wrote:
Richard Riley wrote:
I'll defend him to this extent...SNIPPED
...resulted in it's demise.
http://tinypic.com/i6z390.jpg

Same engine, same design, better manufacture much better performance.
The mini500 is a copy of this design (Mr. Cicarre' CH7) w/ a miniature
MD500 body on it and different skids, but everything else was the same.
If you look at the above picture, you can see that the chopper is
capable with that engine.

Then what is the difference between the two designs that causes the
engine to work well in one and not in the other? Is the mini-500 much
heavier?

Matt

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.

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:45:18 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Then what is the difference between the two designs that causes the
engine to work well in one and not in the other? Is the mini-500 much
heavier?

Matt

Matt, I seem to remember that the engine was required to run at 110
percent rated power. I also remember that Rotax did not recommend
that their engine be run at such power settings.

I also remember something about having to have some kind of special
exhaust system in order to achieve the 110% rating.

Corky Scott

"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.

You are totally missing the extreme emotions associated with this issue.
People have had friend's lives snuffed out, in their eyes, due to this man's
kit. There is no logic that can be associated in this discussion, and
nobody involved really gives a sh*t whether you or others have a warm fuzzy
feeling about the thread. Get it?
--
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...

"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

Flyingmonk wrote:
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.

Good ol'Glen. He used to be a Mini-500 supporter too, even had a pic on
his site of Fetters sitting in Miss Nina. And then the big picture
started to emerge.

I found this comment in the Mini-500 owners list:
"I am working on further improving the airflow in the engine compartment
for cooling, this is a still a problem."

In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

"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.

You are totally missing the extreme emotions associated with this issue.
People have had friend's lives snuffed out, in their eyes, due to this man's
kit. There is no logic that can be associated in this discussion, and
nobody involved really gives a sh*t whether you or others have a warm fuzzy
feeling about the thread. Get it?

By whose authority do you speak for everyone else in the group? The
gentleman to whom I replied has already posted a thank you to me and an
edited version of his comments. I also note that he subsequently
separated his personal rage from his intellectual assessments.

As far as logic being associated with the discussion, there seem to be
quite a few here who are attempting to discuss the facts rationally and
intelligently. My point is, for those who are *genuinely attempting* to
discuss the topic logically, and convince others of the merits of their
arguments, mixing personal hostility into the discussion is
counterproductive.

On the other hand, if your sole objective is to vent rage, please go
ahead. I have no quarrel with that or with you. I am *not* missing the
extreme emotions as you suggest. I understand them and I have compassion
for those who have lost friends and family. And if my comments have
stirred your pain or anger, I'm sorry, as that is not my intention.