A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dennis Fetters Mini 500



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 17th 04, 04:46 AM
C.D.Damron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dennis Fetters" wrote in message
m...
C.D.Damron wrote:
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.



Dennis,

From time to time, you show up on this forum to defend yourself against
defamation. You are nothing, if not persistent.

There is a record of the truths you have selectively presented and the lies
that you cannot escape. It is interesting that the truths you present are
as damaging as any of your lies.

It is true that pilot error has been officially attributed to most, if not
all, Mini-500 accidents and fatalities. You might actually believe that
this absolves your design and production of any responsibility. If this is
the case, you are probably the only one to share this view. I would contend
that you are factual, but far from honest when you rest your case on this
bit of aviation trivia.

I would be happy to explain myself further, but you know exactly what I'm
talking about. You have heard it before from myself, others, and your own
conscience.

Beyond this "truth" you like to present, there is no problem documenting
your lies and deceit. I would be happy to reveal them, in detail.














Ads
  #22  
Old June 17th 04, 06:04 PM
Dennis Fetters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

KB,
Thank you for your well spoken opinion. Opinions are always welcome when
put across in a civilized professional manner as you have done. I with
more people had your manners.


Kyle Boatright wrote:
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.



Actually, I personally attended the advanced Rotax engine maintenance
and installation courses in Vernon BC Canada, along with later sending
several of my employees to the school. I was the first human to fly a
Rotax powered Gyroplane, and I received the first 532 Rotax ever shipped
to the aviation industry, and the first to fly a 532 Rotax on any kind
of aircraft. I'm the one that showed Rotax the way to cool the liquid
cooled engines at 160F when they said it was OK to run them at 210F.
They sent me their first 582 rotax and I was the first to fly it in any
type of aircraft. They sent me the first engines because they knew I
could make them work and report back when something needed to be
changed. When ever there was a problem I was the one that inspected the
engines, and I did this many, many times. In almost all cases it was not
the engines fault, that is after Rotax overcome a few unforeseen startup
problems.
I have plenty of knowledge about Rotax engines and how to make them work
and what makes them fail.


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.



There is a reason. I have found over my years of working and flying
Rotax, that literally 98% of all Rotax engine failures is installation.
Even today, here at my airport people bring their airplane or
helicopters to me when their Rotax has a problem. In every case it has
been installation problems, either designed wrong by the factory or
modified by the builder. In every case after I rebuild the engine I must
redesign the engine mounting and cooling system. In every case that
airplane or helicopter performs better, runs cooler and has no further
problems.

How many times have you seen someone cook a Rotax engine, send it in and
have it rebuilt, and put it back in the aircraft without changing the
installation? About every time! Well, what should you then expect to
happen? The engine quits again, duh! Stupid Rotax!! This is from many
factory designed installations that are poorly conceived, and customers
that fail to follow instructions. Think about it. This dude spends years
building an airplane kit, gets the airframe done and it looks beautiful!
But then he gets impatient and ****-installs the engine because he wants
to go fly now. How many times have I seen this happen!

The engine will only run as good as the installation and maintenance
performed. Period. Same goes for a 4 stroke, but since 4 strokes are
more expensive and fewer they seem to be more respected and more care is
provided.


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



With hindsight being 20-20, I find it hard to argue that point. The
2-stroke Rotax in a Mini-500 has and is functioning very well with those
that properly install it with the proper jetting and PEP exhaust, and
operate and maintain it as designed. The problem has been with, as you
call it, the "dumb masses". It was defiantly wrong of me to think that
ordinary people had the ability and discipline to properly build, fly
and apply maintenance to a helicopter. The fault had not been the
helicopter, because it even today performs just fine, but in the hands
of most people it is beyond their reach.

I provided an affordable helicopter kit that would perform as our
factory ships performed if assembled correctly, maintained and
modifications added as ours were. I provided excellent instructions, up
do date web site, news letters, AD notifications and daily assistance on
the phone. I provided constant factory testing and developments to keep
ahead. We held the tail rotor gearboxes from customers until they
provided proof of instruction, and so on. We had factory maintenance and
building courses and offered free inspections to anyone that came to the
factory or an airshow with their Mini-500. We did more than any factory
I know of to help the customer succeed.

I did everything I could think of, and many things other people thought
of to make a successful project. We make a great kit helicopter, the
best ever made. The opportunity was there for anyone that wanted it, the
American way. We made it available to those that thought they had the
right stuff to build and fly a helicopter, and at an affordable price.
It was in their choice if they thought they could do it, we tried to
filter out the ones we knew couldn't, but that was all we could do.
Mostly, people were successful, but it only took a few bad apples to
give people like Fred Stewart and his coolies the ammunition they needed
to succeed in helping to shut our factory down, but only after 2 long
years of fighting.

Now, am I to blame for others that failed to follow instructions, made
modifications and flying stupid, resulting in a crash? decide for
yourself. I really don't care what people think. I know what I did and I
know how I feel about it. That is all that matters. And if anyone of you
think you could do it better, don't just talk about it, prove it.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters



  #23  
Old June 17th 04, 06:11 PM
Dennis Fetters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rich wrote:
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



Rich,
It is true what the manual said. It says that in every Rotax manual for
every airplane, balloon, gyroplane, hovercraft and other helicopter out
there flying. A statement like you made is only meant to be slanderous
and mean, but lacks any foundation. Everyone knows that Rotax puts that
in every manual simply for liability reasons because or their lack of
ability to oversee all installation operations. In reality every engine
in the world is subject to the same possible fate.

Dennis Fetters

  #24  
Old June 17th 04, 06:29 PM
Dennis Fetters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C.D.Damron wrote:
"Dennis Fetters" wrote in message
m...

C.D.Damron wrote:
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.




Dennis,

From time to time, you show up on this forum to defend yourself against
defamation. You are nothing, if not persistent.



I never show up until someone comes here an makes an incorrect
statement. I will always set the record straight.


There is a record of the truths you have selectively presented and the lies
that you cannot escape. It is interesting that the truths you present are
as damaging as any of your lies.



Then post it here. If there is a record it should be easy to copy and
paste it here. Do it.


It is true that pilot error has been officially attributed to most, if not
all, Mini-500 accidents and fatalities. You might actually believe that
this absolves your design and production of any responsibility.



If that has been the case, and it has, then why wouldn't it? Is there
something that you know that the inspectors don't? Please, tell us.


If this is
the case, you are probably the only one to share this view. I would contend
that you are factual, but far from honest when you rest your case on this
bit of aviation trivia.



You don't make since. You say that I am probably factual, but not
honest. How can someone do that? I give the facts and withhold nothing.
I don't even make the determinations of the outcome of an accident, but
I'm not honest when I quote from a government report? Please explain that.


I would be happy to explain myself further, but you know exactly what I'm
talking about. You have heard it before from myself, others, and your own
conscience.



No, I don't know. I'm inviting you to tell me and the world right here
today. You will not do so, because you don't know what you're talking
about. I'm inviting you to expose me. You can't because your statements
are false.


Beyond this "truth" you like to present, there is no problem documenting
your lies and deceit. I would be happy to reveal them, in detail.



I guess I can only repeat what I said above. Please, please back up what
you said with something I have omitted. Please do that, and if it's true
I will admit so and apologize to the newsgroup world! This is it, your
time to shine, you day of potential glory in life to prove me wrong.
Grab the ring, take the leap, go for the gusto. Don't miss the boat.
Let's have it! Are you all talk, or can you stand behind your words with
some facts?

Dennis Fetters

  #25  
Old June 17th 04, 07:42 PM
EmailMe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Excerpt from Dennis Fetters post:

__________________________________________________ ____

Bill Phillips: 1. What about running the Rotax at 104% continuously?
Rotax itself does not warrant this engine in this application. The
manual states that the rpm for 104% should only be used for 5 minutes,
yet the Mini 500 will not fly with most people in it unless it's run
at
104%, which is nearly 6800 rpm. Rotax says maximum continuous is 6500
rpm. There is simply no margin left at 6500 rpm, and the engine is not
designed to be run at 6800 rpm for more than 5 minutes.

Ken Armstrong: RPM limits are usually related to the possibility of
overheating. In my Mini 500 flying--including extensive hovering where
the engine works hardest--heat was well within the green.

Dennis Fetters: Statement No. 1 is totally incorrect. First, Rotax
does
warrant the 582 engines used in the Mini 500 and always has. Next, the
Rotax manual mentioned is for airplane or propeller installations
only!
Helicopters are very different and use the power and rpm in a
different
manner. All helicopters run their engines at 100 to 104% rpm while
constantly changing the power settings.
So at 104% rpm at cruise flight, the power required and used is about
70%, a normal usage. Operating at 104% rpm will not hurt the Rotax
engine in the least bit. In fact, it works better running it at a
continuous rpm and varying the power level. This will result in more
stable exhaust gas temperatures, more constant engine running
temperatures, and less carbon buildup. To date, there has not been a
single Rotax engine failure in a Mini 500 due to the overexertion of
the
engine.

__________________________________________________ _


The post above contains the statement "First, Rotax does
warrant the 582 engines used in the Mini 500 and always has."

Yet, the the following was entered by the NTSB investigating an
engine-out fatality in November 1998 which was 1 year previous to Mr.
Fetters statement.

https://extranet.nasdac.faa.gov/pls/..._BRIEF_REPORT?
EV_ID=20001211X11436&AC_VAR=FALSE&ENG_VAR=FALSE&IN J_VAR=FALSE
&FT_VAR=FALSE&OCC_VAR=FALSE&WTHR_VAR=FALSE&PNARR_V AR=FALSE
&FNARR_VAR=FALSE&CNARR_VAR=FALSE&NARR_VAR=mini%205 00

"Although the kit helicopter was built according to plans, the engine
manufacturer did not recommend several of the engine modifications
found on the accident helicopter. Additionally, the engine
manufacturer did not recommend the installation of this model engine
in the helicopter and published the following warning with the engine
manual: 'This engine, by its design is subject to sudden stoppage.
Engine stoppage can result in crash landings, forced landings or no
power landings. Such crash landings can lead to serious bodily injury
or death.'"

Is it normal for Rotax to "not recommend" an engine for a particlar
aircraft yet to also still "warrant" its use in that same aircraft ?

Thanks
  #26  
Old June 17th 04, 09:47 PM
Dennis Fetters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

EmailMe wrote:
The post above contains the statement "First, Rotax does
warrant the 582 engines used in the Mini 500 and always has."

Yet, the the following was entered by the NTSB investigating an
engine-out fatality in November 1998 which was 1 year previous to Mr.
Fetters statement.

https://extranet.nasdac.faa.gov/pls/..._BRIEF_REPORT?
EV_ID=20001211X11436&AC_VAR=FALSE&ENG_VAR=FALSE&IN J_VAR=FALSE
&FT_VAR=FALSE&OCC_VAR=FALSE&WTHR_VAR=FALSE&PNARR_V AR=FALSE
&FNARR_VAR=FALSE&CNARR_VAR=FALSE&NARR_VAR=mini%205 00

"Although the kit helicopter was built according to plans, the engine
manufacturer did not recommend several of the engine modifications
found on the accident helicopter. Additionally, the engine
manufacturer did not recommend the installation of this model engine
in the helicopter and published the following warning with the engine
manual: 'This engine, by its design is subject to sudden stoppage.
Engine stoppage can result in crash landings, forced landings or no
power landings. Such crash landings can lead to serious bodily injury
or death.'"

Is it normal for Rotax to "not recommend" an engine for a particlar
aircraft yet to also still "warrant" its use in that same aircraft ?

Thanks



Email, you forgot to post the part of that report that said:

"According to the Rotax representative, "...the modified tuning and
non-conforming parts of the engine from stock configuration..." was not
recommended; however, some modifications, such as the "PEP" exhaust
system, were recommended and marketed by the helicopter kit manufacturer."

This report you posted comes from the Gil Armbruster crash, and has
already been reported on and further explained on what happened to cause
that crash. Gil was a friend of ours, and everyone knows how much Gil
liked to modify and experiment with his Mini-500. He later purchased the
PEP exhaust from us, one of the first ones to do so. He refused to use
the factory recommended jetting and wanted to experiment on his own. He
convinced himself that the system needed smaller main jets for high EGT
adjustments in hover, and I tried to explain to him it needed different
needles and needle jets for cruse adjustments and main jets were only
for full power, as we sent him. I begged him to use our jetting system
and explained why. I offered to buy back the PEP but no deal. Time
proved I was right and Gil was wrong. His engine seized because the main
jet was to small. It was good in a hover but when he pulled in more
power in flight the main jet could only allow so much fuel and it caused
the engine to lean out and seize.
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.

Rotax did sell Revolution Helicopter engines directly and specifically
for the Mini-500. Rotax did warranty the Engine. Now, what was the point
you were trying to make here?

Dennis Fetters

  #27  
Old June 17th 04, 10:07 PM
Cam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Good on Ya Dennis.

A two stroke engine "CAN" be just as reliable as any other engine with more
than one moving part!
If it is designed and used correctly..

Cam


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



Rich,
It is true what the manual said. It says that in every Rotax manual for
every airplane, balloon, gyroplane, hovercraft and other helicopter out
there flying. A statement like you made is only meant to be slanderous
and mean, but lacks any foundation. Everyone knows that Rotax puts that
in every manual simply for liability reasons because or their lack of
ability to oversee all installation operations. In reality every engine
in the world is subject to the same possible fate.

Dennis Fetters



  #28  
Old June 17th 04, 11:36 PM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kyle Boatright wrote:

"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.


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

  #29  
Old June 17th 04, 11:45 PM
Rich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dennis Fetters wrote in message om...

Rich wrote:

The truth is it's really stupid to design, sell, or fly a helicopter
powered by a small 2-stroke engine.


Rotax Operators Manual, page 4-2 "Warning: This engine, by its design,
is subject to sudden stoppage".

Evidently, you didn't read that far.


A statement like you made is only meant to be slanderous and mean


Which statement?

All my statements are shown above. The first one is based on the 2nd.
The 2nd is straight out of the Rotax manual. And the third is
pointing out that maybe you didn't read the manual, for if you did,
you'd have realized the first.


Everyone knows that Rotax puts that in every manual simply for
liability reasons because


Were you at the meeting with Rthe otax people when they were writing
the manual? Because if you weren't then you don't "know" this. I
personally belive what the manual says for two reasons. 1) It was
written by the people that made the engine, and 2) history has shown
that the rotax engines do in fact stop without warning.

And while any engine may in fact strop functioning at any time, the
reality is, a 2-stroke is much more likely to quit without much
warning then a 4-stroke.

Rich
  #30  
Old June 18th 04, 12:50 AM
Dennis Fetters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.

You see, the majority of people buy a motorcycle ready to run, set up
correctly by the factory. Same as outboard engines, they're already in
the boat and set up by the factory. As I said, if you have proper
installation the 2 stroke runs without problems.

On kit built aircraft, nearly all of the engines are installed by the
public, never by the factory. And nearly all of the engines installed in
kit built aircraft are done so not according to factory instructions, or
improper factory installations. So they have a higher rate of failure.

2 strokes are very much in aviation, and will be for a long time.

So again, thank you for helping make my point, couldn't have done better
myself.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 11:46 PM
Mini Imp Randall Robertson Home Built 0 November 25th 03 01:17 AM
mini copter strikes again tim Home Built 4 November 21st 03 01:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.