Threatened by Dennis Fetter

Barnyard BOb wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Dennis Fetters
wrote:

Poultry in Motion wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to
follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion.
Actually, I don't want any person to "steer" public opinion concerning
the Mini-500 helicopter. I only want the facts to steer public opinion,
and that is why we spent the time to compile all FAA accident reports
along with what we knew about the case, and put together one of the most
complete accident analyses reports even done on a kit-built aircraft.


Dennis.

In your defense...
I don't believe most folks know how to take you to task because they
don't have a clue about the facts and how the FAA determines them...
just like you lament.

For my money, every death in a Mini-500 was preventable had the
pilot exercised proper judgment, caution and treated the Miin-500
as the lethal weapon I personally believe it to be.

In my opinion, everyone that died in a Mini-500 had no one to
blame but themselves. They all made mistakes where there is
almost no margin for error if you want to see the sun rise the
next day.

Do I endorse the Mini-500 as an inherently safe chopper?
Not on your friggin' life!!!!! [Literally]


Barnyard BOb - 55 years of licensed powered flight

I recently started monitoring rec.aviation.homebuilt again, after being
run off quite a few years ago by the level of abrasive comment there.
Some of that seemed to focus on some homebuilt helicopter.

Now I see again some harangue of a helicopter homebuild designer, and
his self-defense efforts. Could this STILL be the same feud?


Here's my take.
The very first successful powered aircraft designers managed to kill the
designated representative of their most important and desired customer -
the US Army. They were then greeted as heroes when they took their
design abroad.

Should I even mention that the British aviation authorities turned up
their noses at the quality of the construction and design detail on the
Flyer models? And THESE were the folks who were the recipients of the
historic Flyer, so Lord knows how badly the Wrights felt they were
treated by their fellow Americans, in comparison.

Anybody, ANYBODY who is bold enough to design an aircraft - a helicopter
no less - deserves my great respect and admiration - and IF I expect any
more bold souls (or suckers, depending on your point of view) to step up
to the plate, I had better not harangue the ones who have succeeded in
putting something they designed into the air. They did not ever claim
(or if they did they shouldn't have) that their design or kit was bound
to be as safe as a certified design. I personally have seen companies
spend millions in that particular effort - before going down the tubes.

Take Home Message: if you think some hapless aircraft designer is
underhand, peculiar or sneaky, you never studied Wilbur and Orville.

Think twice before venting your spleen. Be kind - it's a thankless task.
You have heard how to make a million in aviation - by starting with five
million. So show some gratitude for people who have tried - successful
or unsuccessful - like the Wright designers. Bury the hatchet.

Then the people who know a couple of things, like Barnaby, like the
plane electronics man, like several others, might feel they can
contribute without feeling undermined and threatened.

There. I said it. Have at it.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK
(Don't tell ME I'm a sock-puppet)

Dan Camper wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:02:11 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:

Jim is a clever guy. He knows that the two posts referenced above were
typed at the same computer, and he gave you a fair opportunity to plant
doubt in his mind. Do you need a full explanation of why you just
failed, Dennis, or can you figure it out yourself?

He ain't that clever, no one is.

I thought it clever. The precise question asked, and Fetters' answer,
confirm that Fetters is "planeman" and there was not someone else using
Fetters' name.

"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
news
Barnyard BOb wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Dennis Fetters
wrote:

Poultry in Motion wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to
follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion.
Actually, I don't want any person to "steer" public opinion concerning
the Mini-500 helicopter. I only want the facts to steer public opinion,
and that is why we spent the time to compile all FAA accident reports
along with what we knew about the case, and put together one of the most
complete accident analyses reports even done on a kit-built aircraft.


Dennis.

In your defense...
I don't believe most folks know how to take you to task because they
don't have a clue about the facts and how the FAA determines them...
just like you lament.

For my money, every death in a Mini-500 was preventable had the pilot
exercised proper judgment, caution and treated the Miin-500
as the lethal weapon I personally believe it to be.

In my opinion, everyone that died in a Mini-500 had no one to
blame but themselves. They all made mistakes where there is
almost no margin for error if you want to see the sun rise the next day.

Do I endorse the Mini-500 as an inherently safe chopper?
Not on your friggin' life!!!!! [Literally]


Barnyard BOb - 55 years of licensed powered flight

I recently started monitoring rec.aviation.homebuilt again, after being
run off quite a few years ago by the level of abrasive comment there.
Some of that seemed to focus on some homebuilt helicopter.

Now I see again some harangue of a helicopter homebuild designer, and his
self-defense efforts. Could this STILL be the same feud?


Here's my take.
The very first successful powered aircraft designers managed to kill the
designated representative of their most important and desired customer -
the US Army. They were then greeted as heroes when they took their
design abroad.

Should I even mention that the British aviation authorities turned up
their noses at the quality of the construction and design detail on the
Flyer models? And THESE were the folks who were the recipients of the
historic Flyer, so Lord knows how badly the Wrights felt they were treated
by their fellow Americans, in comparison.

Anybody, ANYBODY who is bold enough to design an aircraft - a helicopter
no less - deserves my great respect and admiration - and IF I expect any
more bold souls (or suckers, depending on your point of view) to step up
to the plate, I had better not harangue the ones who have succeeded in
putting something they designed into the air. They did not ever claim (or
if they did they shouldn't have) that their design or kit was bound to be
as safe as a certified design. I personally have seen companies spend
millions in that particular effort - before going down the tubes.

Take Home Message: if you think some hapless aircraft designer is
underhand, peculiar or sneaky, you never studied Wilbur and Orville.

Think twice before venting your spleen. Be kind - it's a thankless task.
You have heard how to make a million in aviation - by starting with five
million. So show some gratitude for people who have tried - successful or
unsuccessful - like the Wright designers. Bury the hatchet.

Then the people who know a couple of things, like Barnaby, like the plane
electronics man, like several others, might feel they can contribute
without feeling undermined and threatened.

There. I said it. Have at it.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK
(Don't tell ME I'm a sock-puppet)

Brian: There is more than a little truth in what you say. I'm a retired EE
(that now have a stack of ME reference works and helicopter design texts)
and have several ME friends that have noted that good helicopter design
involves quite a bit more than just "Wet Thumb" knowledge. That said, I
recently jointly wrote an article for our magazine (Experimental Helo)
commenting on some of the mechanical design found in some parts of a
helicopter transmission. We found the total absence, in some cases, of the
normal fillets in shafts diameter changes, which created some very high
concentration factors, the lack of adequate pre-load on some bearings, and
in one case a "botched" machine operation that left a nasty looking area on
a main rotor shaft. The obvious lack of Quality Control on these parts and
the fact that you would have to disassemble the transmission and use an
optical comparator to measure the fillets, makes it difficult for a
prospective kit buyer to analyze the quality of the kit components. And
that assumes that you had the knowledge and experience to look. Another
thing noted by a friend is that the normal accident investigation of an
experimental helicopter crash usually involves NTSB people with little
experience with that particular design and, if available, a representative
from the kit mfr. Now it is possibly true that every kit mfr. rep is not
biased to find pilot responsibility vs material failure, but I'm sure that
it is in their best "Short Term" interest to find it that way. I know of
some fatigue failures of shafts in areas where inadequate fillets were
present, where the failure was attributed to something that the
pilot/mechanic had done and the lack of adequate fillets got ignored.
Dennis Fetters did own up to some design errors. This gives him at least
one thumbs up. There have been others in the game that would avoid
admitting a mistake if you held their feet to the fire. Accident rates for
experimental helos can be very misleading. Claims of having X hundred ships
out there flying for Y years doesn't address the average hours on the ships
at accident time. The fatigue life of helicopter parts tends to be much
shorter if there is any excessive vibration. Especially with high stress
concentrations and landings not of the soft variety.
It would be of great interest if we could have some neutral people with
extensive engineering and practial experience review the present set of
designs and quality of components that are out there now flying about.
I once saw a coaxial helicopter built by an older gentleman that had no
collective control. It was throttle up and throttle down. There was a lot
of use of emt conduit tubing used along with a 4 cyl water cooled car
engine that the cylic was required to pitch and roll to achieve control.
He asked me if I would be interested in the role of test pilot....I declined
saying that I was not qualified. (under my breath I said that I was only
fearless and was missing one important requirement). However, he was not
setting on the sidelines just telling everyone how to do it. He went and
did it. If he lives thru it he will be a lot smarter than he was before and
his initative is something that seems to be disappearing in our society.
BTW are you familiar with the experimental helo fly-in that occurs every
year near Cleveland OK? I believe it is Oct 1-5 this year. It is a good
show.

Stuart Fields wrote:
"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
news
Barnyard BOb wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Dennis Fetters
wrote:

Poultry in Motion wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to
follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion.
Actually, I don't want any person to "steer" public opinion concerning
the Mini-500 helicopter. I only want the facts to steer public opinion,
and that is why we spent the time to compile all FAA accident reports
along with what we knew about the case, and put together one of the most
complete accident analyses reports even done on a kit-built aircraft.

Dennis.

In your defense...
I don't believe most folks know how to take you to task because they
don't have a clue about the facts and how the FAA determines them...
just like you lament.

For my money, every death in a Mini-500 was preventable had the pilot
exercised proper judgment, caution and treated the Miin-500
as the lethal weapon I personally believe it to be.

In my opinion, everyone that died in a Mini-500 had no one to
blame but themselves. They all made mistakes where there is
almost no margin for error if you want to see the sun rise the next day.

Do I endorse the Mini-500 as an inherently safe chopper?
Not on your friggin' life!!!!! [Literally]


Barnyard BOb - 55 years of licensed powered flight
I recently started monitoring rec.aviation.homebuilt again, after being
run off quite a few years ago by the level of abrasive comment there.
Some of that seemed to focus on some homebuilt helicopter.

Now I see again some harangue of a helicopter homebuild designer, and his
self-defense efforts. Could this STILL be the same feud?


Here's my take.
The very first successful powered aircraft designers managed to kill the
designated representative of their most important and desired customer -
the US Army. They were then greeted as heroes when they took their
design abroad.

Should I even mention that the British aviation authorities turned up
their noses at the quality of the construction and design detail on the
Flyer models? And THESE were the folks who were the recipients of the
historic Flyer, so Lord knows how badly the Wrights felt they were treated
by their fellow Americans, in comparison.

Anybody, ANYBODY who is bold enough to design an aircraft - a helicopter
no less - deserves my great respect and admiration - and IF I expect any
more bold souls (or suckers, depending on your point of view) to step up
to the plate, I had better not harangue the ones who have succeeded in
putting something they designed into the air. They did not ever claim (or
if they did they shouldn't have) that their design or kit was bound to be
as safe as a certified design. I personally have seen companies spend
millions in that particular effort - before going down the tubes.

Take Home Message: if you think some hapless aircraft designer is
underhand, peculiar or sneaky, you never studied Wilbur and Orville.

Think twice before venting your spleen. Be kind - it's a thankless task.
You have heard how to make a million in aviation - by starting with five
million. So show some gratitude for people who have tried - successful or
unsuccessful - like the Wright designers. Bury the hatchet.

Then the people who know a couple of things, like Barnaby, like the plane
electronics man, like several others, might feel they can contribute
without feeling undermined and threatened.

There. I said it. Have at it.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK
(Don't tell ME I'm a sock-puppet)

Brian: There is more than a little truth in what you say.

Of course there is. That is a common quality of the commonplace and
cliché. Brian has regurgitated the obvious for us.

Contrary to Brian's romantic story of dogged determination and spirit,
Dennis Fetters was not bold enough to design a helicopter. He was bold
enough to rip off one Augusto Cicare's work.

A series of Cicare's helicopters evolved over several years.

The Mini-500 went from nothing to ready in under a year. Dennis took
what he wanted, and sent his ex-business buddy Cicare packing. The
helicopter that Dennis has referred to in the past as his Mini-500
Prototype was Cicare's CH-6.

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:37:47 -0700, Poultry in Motion
wrote:


Contrary to Brian's romantic story of dogged determination and spirit,
Dennis Fetters was not bold enough to design a helicopter. He was bold
enough to rip off one Augusto Cicare's work.

A series of Cicare's helicopters evolved over several years.

The Mini-500 went from nothing to ready in under a year. Dennis took
what he wanted, and sent his ex-business buddy Cicare packing. The
helicopter that Dennis has referred to in the past as his Mini-500
Prototype was Cicare's CH-6.

if that were really the case wouldnt Cicare have sued him for a patent
breach? Cicare's control system is a patented design.



in line with the original poster's comments Mignet was flying the Flea
during the fatal accident period in england, but flying more
conservatively. he never died in a flea while others less conservative
did. Mignet never encountered the fatal tuck despite flying his flea
for many hours and even crossing the english channel in one.

I think a lot of people are as dumb as dog**** when it comes to
aircraft. there seems to be little actual appreciation of the
difference between an experimental design and a certified design.
sometimes they die finding out.

it pays to remember that the designer may never have encountered the
fault in an experimental design.
Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:37:47 -0700, Poultry in Motion
wrote:


Contrary to Brian's romantic story of dogged determination and spirit,
Dennis Fetters was not bold enough to design a helicopter. He was bold
enough to rip off one Augusto Cicare's work.

A series of Cicare's helicopters evolved over several years.

The Mini-500 went from nothing to ready in under a year. Dennis took
what he wanted, and sent his ex-business buddy Cicare packing. The
helicopter that Dennis has referred to in the past as his Mini-500
Prototype was Cicare's CH-6.

if that were really the case wouldnt Cicare have sued him for a patent
breach? Cicare's control system is a patented design.

Cicare is in Argentina, what's he going to do? Especially when Fetters
beat him to the punch and obtained his own patent first?

Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you.

in line with the original poster's comments Mignet was flying the Flea
during the fatal accident period in england, but flying more
conservatively. he never died in a flea while others less conservative
did. Mignet never encountered the fatal tuck despite flying his flea
for many hours and even crossing the english channel in one.

I think a lot of people are as dumb as dog**** when it comes to
aircraft. there seems to be little actual appreciation of the
difference between an experimental design and a certified design.
sometimes they die finding out.

Fetters hawked the thing to the entry-level Popular Mechanics crowd, as
a cheap time builder, requiring only 40-60 hours to go from the box into
the air. And he blamed them for their inexperience and for his company's
failure. They were naive to believe that Fetters could issue ADs, and
decree that his factory upgrades for their machines were mandatory.

it pays to remember that the designer may never have encountered the
fault in an experimental design.

Dennis may not have encountered faults in *the Mini-500 prototype*

Stealth Pilot

BTW, it's so damned cute how Brian renamed this thread! An exact fit,
but not how he imagined.

This is an open challenge, and request to Mr. Agusto Cicare, so will
someone in touch please let him know;

I have all the personal correspondence between Mr. Cicare and myself,
where we are begging him to comply with our agreements, and I have all
of his responses in response. These correspondence include the fact that
he cut a parallel deal with someone else at the same time he was dealing
with us, and show that he was the one procrastinating and asking to
change our deal. This correspondence proves my side of the all following
accounts below.

Mr. Cicare, I formally request that you email me a scanned and signed
letter giving me permission to release our private correspondence to the
world, so that this matter can be concluded, and history set straight.

I have not posted it before, even at great cost to me personally,
because I am an honorable person that would not stoop to the level of
publishing private correspondence without permission. So, now I want to
finally give my side of this account the proof, so give me permission.



I also give you permission to release all private correspondence you may
have from me, as well.

Dennis Fetters


Now, will that be enough to convince you all? He will not accept the
challenge, because it will prove him wrong.


Poultry in Motion wrote:
Of course there is. That is a common quality of the commonplace and
cliché. Brian has regurgitated the obvious for us.

Contrary to Brian's romantic story of dogged determination and spirit,
Dennis Fetters was not bold enough to design a helicopter. He was bold
enough to rip off one Augusto Cicare's work.

A series of Cicare's helicopters evolved over several years.

The Mini-500 went from nothing to ready in under a year. Dennis took
what he wanted, and sent his ex-business buddy Cicare packing. The
helicopter that Dennis has referred to in the past as his Mini-500
Prototype was Cicare's CH-6.

But now, to answer this false allegation;

This a fabricated bunch of bull, nothing even close to being the truth.

First, I was never alone 5 minutes with the Cicare prototype. Even then,
I never seen the inside of anything. Now, if anyone thinks that I can
take a tape measure and in moments sneaking around in the dark take down
enough information from the Cicare prototype to turn around an built the
Mini-500 within one year.......

then that is about the greatest compliments of an engineering feat that
can be bestowed on an individual. I thank you from the deepest part of
my heart for thinking I would be good or smart enough to accomplish
this, but I do not deserve such a compliment.

Lets be realistic, for just a moment at least..

1. I never was alone with the Cicare prototype to do this.

2. How would I have opened up the transmissions and other complex parts
to see them to copy during the dark of night, and without Cicare
noticing the next morning?

3. It was more than 2 years before I flew the first Mini-500.

4. We had a flood in 1993 where we lost everything.

5. It was a year after that until I shipped the first customers machine.

Honestly, anyone that has looked at a Cicare machine, such as the CH-7,
can see that there is little in common of the two designs. If you think
so, you are either an idiot, a liar or you have never been close enough
to see the differences. Which of these are you?

Do you choose to ignore the fact that it was ordered in a court in his
own country of Argentina that the control systems and aircraft were
different, and not in violation of each other?

Do you choose to ignore the fact that after the court ruling Mr. Cicare
also published the same thing himself, admitting the systems and
aircraft were different and were not violating each others rights?

I posted this on another forum;
"Its a shame that you don't tell the story like it really happened. I
was the one that invested all the money with Cicare to bring him, his
wife and prototype to the USA to demo in Oshkosh. We made a deal, I
lived up to every part of that deal, only to have Cicare not live up to
his part, and then to make contacts in the USA from my expense and end
up cutting another deal with someone else parallel to the one he had
with me. How dirty is that? Wait, it gets worse. He makes a deal with my
Italian Mini-500 distributor, and all along I don't know so I'm still
sending that distributer interested people that saw my advertising for
the next year, that I paid for, and then converting them over to Cicare
customers. Yea, who got ripped off here? Me."

It's already been posted here before, but now that you brought up the
subject again, here is the history about what happened, for those new
people that would like to know the real truth, and not what some
big-mouth blow-hard makes up;

Cicare and the Mini-500:

I also posted this of the account:
"There is no secret about the dealings I had with Mr. Cicare. Even
though it’s all documented facts, some people try to make it sound like
a big conspiracy that RHCI is trying to cover up. That’s not the case at
all, but naturally we no longer place the information about our early
involvement in present day brochures. I’ll explain what took place,
while making the story as brief as possible. As many of you know, before
I started RHCI, I had a company called Air Command and produced the
Commander gyroplanes. Then, Air Command sold 97% of all gyroplanes being
built in the world, and shipped 1100 aircraft. I was already a
commercial rated helicopter pilot, and gaining and interest in designing
a helicopter. In the fall of 1989 I received a call from a man in
California called Hugo Zucarelli, who explained to me that he had a
friend in Argentina that had built a small helicopter, and he was doing
him a favor by looking for someone to build them. Finally, I received a
video of the Cicare prototype flying, and it gained my attention. After
many phone conversations with Mr. Cicare, my wife Laura and I traveled
to Argentina in the spring or 1990 to see his machine. I flew the
prototype, and with my evaluation informed Mr. Cicare that I would be
interested to build them, but only if we redesigned it by improving the
design in many areas, and enclosing it with a cabin. He then agreed to a
deal as to where I would buy the prototype, sell my present company Air
Command and start a new company to build the helicopter. In this new
company Mr. Cicare would own part of it, and be paid a commission for
every helicopter shipped. His part would be to provide his prototype,
rights to his Argentine patent on his control system, and come to the
USA to help me redesign the helicopter and put it into production. All
was agreed to. Next, to my surprise, Mr. Zucarelli called me and asked
for a large commission for setting us up to make a deal! So much for
doing a friend a favor, and he never mentioned anything like that
before. Both Mr. Cicare and I turned him down. I came back to the USA,
and started with what I could do. First we needed money, and I needed to
find an investor to help us out. We also wrote the contract for the deal
we had agreed to and sent it to him to sign. Now the 1990 Oshkosh was
coming up fast, so I paid for the prototype to be sent here so I could
fly it in the show. This would help bring an investor to the table and
allow us to raise the money to pay the $30,000 for the prototype and all
the expenses for the development. After the air show, we put the
prototype into a storage building, and Mr. Cicare had the only key. We
never had access after that to the prototype. The air show did the job,
and I was able to find some people ready to jump. Now came the trouble.
First, Mr. Cicare would not sign the contract, and none of the investors
would do anything until that happened. Next, Mr. Cicare was supposed to
come to the USA and help me in the design of the new helicopter, which
he never did. This also made the development of the Mini-500 take much
longer without his help or the prototype. Add to that, I had to invest
my own personal finances to get Revolution going. I couldn’t get outside
investors, because time after time we would lose any potential investors
from the reluctance of Mr. Cicare to sign the contract. He wanted to now
change the deal after he saw the response from Oshkosh, which I was
reluctant to do since I was putting all of the investment and work into
the deal. Next, we found out that Mr. Cicare was dealing behind our back
with a separate deal with a company then called Helicraft. He was
selling them the plans and rights to his previous design of the CH-5!
This was competition we didn’t count on, and a direct conflict of
interest. I was in trouble. I sold my only source of making a living,
Air Command, and put my personal money into the Mini-500, and because of
the contract and conflict of interest situation, no more people were
interested in investing. I then gave Mr. Cicare an ultimatum......
Cancel the deal with Helicraft, and sign the contract by January 15,
1991, or I would have to do the project without him. Simply, the
deadline came and went with only the comment from him that I could not
do it on my own. The deal was off, and I was on my own with a helicopter
project that I not only financed and designed all by myself, but without
the benefit of the prototype to even look at. Later, I even redesigned
and improved the control system to the point that it was different
enough to merit it’s own patent #5,163,815, issued Nov. 17, 1992. This
is not the end of the story. We found out later that Mr. Hugo Zucarelli
was visiting Italy, and noticed an ad from our distributor there, Mr.
Barbero of Ellisport. Mr. Zucarelli approached them and convinced them
to make a deal with Mr. Cicare and build their own helicopter, the CH-7.
Well, as you know this is what did happen. After, Mr. Cicare applied for
a patent on his control design and was issued #5,165,854 on Nov. 24,
1992. I found out later that the original idea for this control system
was not invented by Mr. Cicare! It was, and is being used on the Kaman
helicopters. The difference is that on the Kaman, the controls operate
trim tabs on the tips of the rotors. Still, there was enough difference
between all three that they all merited their own patents. Later, I
received another call followed by a fax from Mr. Zucarelli asking me to
reconsider a deal with Mr. Cicare, because the deal was falling apart in
Italy. Come to find out, Mr. Zucarelli hit them up for a commission for
setting the deal up, and the Barbero’s took offense to it in a big way.
Also, they told Mr. Cicare that unless he stopped RHCI from building the
Mini-500, they would stop their deal with him. After he finished helping
them put the CH-7 into production, they did just that, and to this day
Mr. Cicare has only got the money for the prototype and nothing more
from Ellisport. The rest is history. I still respect Mr. Cicare for his
own accomplishments. I truly wish it would have worked out with him, I
could have finished the project much faster and with a lot less of my
money invested. Deals come and go, there’s nothing new about that. It
was out of my hands to make him sign, so I continued with the project
rather than go bankrupt because he changed his mind."

Poultry in Motion wrote:
wrote:
if that were really the case wouldnt Cicare have sued him for a patent
breach? Cicare's control system is a patented design.

Cicare is in Argentina, what's he going to do? Especially when Fetters
beat him to the punch and obtained his own patent first?

As said in another post, Cicare did sue, and lost, in his own country.

I quote:

"Do you choose to ignore the fact that it was ordered in a court in his
own country of Argentina that the control systems and aircraft were
different, and not in violation of each other?"

"Do you choose to ignore the fact that after the court ruling Mr. Cicare
also published the same thing himself, admitting the systems and
aircraft were different and were not violating each others rights?"

So I guess that shoots what you said all the hell.

Fetters hawked the thing to the entry-level Popular Mechanics crowd, as
a cheap time builder, requiring only 40-60 hours to go from the box into
the air. And he blamed them for their inexperience and for his company's
failure. They were naive to believe that Fetters could issue ADs, and
decree that his factory upgrades for their machines were mandatory.

Well, I'm sorry to say that mostly that was the fact. Sure, as I said I
did make some design mistakes, but I provided the fix. The rest were
assembly mistakes of the owners.

Lets not forget about the majority of Mini-500 that were assembled well,
and many still flying even today.

it pays to remember that the designer may never have encountered the
fault in an experimental design.


Dennis may not have encountered faults in *the Mini-500 prototype*

Ohhh, Plenty of faults. It was a learning experience. Changed a lot of
stuff. The first ones out the door had what we thought was a workable
design. But, like all helicopters, we found out that some changes were
needed, and we provided these changes for free, or at our direct cost.

BTW, it's so damned cute how Brian renamed this thread! An exact fit,
but not how he imagined.

Isn't it about time that someone makes the motion that I must be Brian
posting for myself under another name? I though that was standard SOP?

Dennis Fetters wrote:
Poultry in Motion wrote:
wrote:
if that were really the case wouldnt Cicare have sued him for a patent
breach? Cicare's control system is a patented design.

Cicare is in Argentina, what's he going to do? Especially when Fetters
beat him to the punch and obtained his own patent first?

As said in another post, Cicare did sue, and lost, in his own country.

I quote:

"Do you choose to ignore the fact that it was ordered in a court in his
own country of Argentina that the control systems and aircraft were
different, and not in violation of each other?"

"Do you choose to ignore the fact that after the court ruling Mr. Cicare
also published the same thing himself, admitting the systems and
aircraft were different and were not violating each others rights?"

So I guess that shoots what you said all the hell.

"what's he going to do?" can be shot anywhere you want. It's good to
know that Cicare tried anyway.

So,
"Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you."
Remember?

Fetters hawked the thing to the entry-level Popular Mechanics crowd,
as a cheap time builder, requiring only 40-60 hours to go from the box
into the air. And he blamed them for their inexperience and for his
company's failure. They were naive to believe that Fetters could issue
ADs, and decree that his factory upgrades for their machines were
mandatory.

Well, I'm sorry to say that mostly that was the fact. Sure, as I said I
did make some design mistakes ...

Wherever you left The Fetters Touch on a CH-6 became design mistakes.
...

Dennis may not have encountered faults in *the Mini-500 prototype*

Ohhh, Plenty of faults. It was a learning experience. Changed a lot of
stuff. The first ones out the door had what we thought was a workable
design. But, like all helicopters, we found out that some changes were
needed, and we provided these changes for free, or at our direct cost.

This is as clear as I can make it:
"Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you."

BTW, it's so damned cute how Brian renamed this thread! An exact fit,
but not how he imagined.

Isn't it about time that someone makes the motion that I must be Brian
posting for myself under another name? I though that was standard SOP?

Brian didn't type his post on your computer. "planeman" did.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
This is an open challenge, and request to Mr. Agusto Cicare, so will
someone in touch please let him know;

Try Glenn Ryerson
http://www.3cats.com/helicopter/
He knows both you and Cicare well.
...
Contrary to Brian's romantic story of dogged determination and spirit,
Dennis Fetters was not bold enough to design a helicopter. He was bold
enough to rip off one Augusto Cicare's work.

A series of Cicare's helicopters evolved over several years.

The Mini-500 went from nothing to ready in under a year. Dennis took
what he wanted, and sent his ex-business buddy Cicare packing. The
helicopter that Dennis has referred to in the past as his Mini-500
Prototype was Cicare's CH-6.

But now, to answer this false allegation;

This a fabricated bunch of bull, nothing even close to being the truth.

"I came back to the USA, and started with what I could do. First we
needed money, and I needed to find an investor to help us out. We also
wrote the contract for the deal we had agreed to and sent it to him to
sign. Now the 1990 Oshkosh was coming up fast, so I paid for the
prototype to be sent here so I could fly it in the show. This would help
bring an investor to the table and allow us to raise the money to pay
the $30,000 for the prototype and all the expenses for the development.
After the air show, we put the prototype into a storage building, and
Mr. Cicare had the only key. We never had access after that to the
prototype."
http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/e6653542c044a2ef

First, I was never alone 5 minutes with the Cicare prototype. Even then,
I never seen the inside of anything. Now, if anyone thinks that I can
take a tape measure and in moments sneaking around in the dark take down
enough information from the Cicare prototype to turn around an built the
Mini-500 within one year.......

You had lots of time. And you took Cicare's CH-6 away on a trailer after
the airshow. He retrieved it later.