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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |