Dennis Fetters Mini 500

Brad Mallard wrote:
I will put a little two cents in here. I was actually finishing a
Metallurgical Engineering degree at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa
a few years ago when the Areospace Engineering Department actually bought a
kit as a project for the department.

I was actually following along the process of construction because I had
planned for quite some time to build one as well. I kept notes on the
progress and talked with the select individuals chosen to actually construct
the craft. The Areospace department had only one instructor that was
helicopter rated and there is only one seat in this chopper, so it was never
a question of who was going to fly the bird.

According to the FAA report of the National Transportation Board ID #
ATL01A003 it says " On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a
University of Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided
with the ground and burst into flames."

This guy had thousands of logged hours, and numerous aviation ratings
including Commercial Helicopter and a repairman experimental aircraft
builder certificate. My thoughts of building a helicopter quit that day...

The full report can be read at www.ntsb.gov
"Jay" wrote in message
om...


Fetters wrote:
This is a little part of the problem here Brad. People don't tell the
complete story. In that way it will make a point opposite of what really
happened. Why would you do that? Here, lets go into the true, full facts:

************
On October 3, 2000, at 0856 central daylight time, a University of
Alabama Mini-500 Experimental Helicopter, N6165T, collided with the
ground and burst into flames while on approach to the Tuscaloosa
Municipal Airport, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. cut

According to the airport control tower operator, the helicopter had
completed three to four circuits in closed traffic to taxiway golf.
While on the downwind leg, the controller believed that the helicopter
had a sudden loss of engine power and began to descend. The tower
received no communications and the helicopters rotor rpm decreased and
appeared to stop before impact. Crash fire rescue trucks were on the
scene and the post-crash fire was extinguished within minutes.
****************


Fetters wrote:
Why did the engine quit? according to our files I do know that the
helicopter did not have all the mandatory AD's installed and should not
have been flying at all. I do know that the helicopter did not have the
mandatory PEP exhaust system installed which eliminated the need of
jetting after ambient temperature changes. I also know that he had left
the stock Rotax jetting in the engine and ignored our instructions to
change it from airplane jetting to helicopter jetting, which would cause
the engine to lean out and seize in a decent, as all of our advisories
and instructions said would happen. He also never even once signed and
returned a single AD notice as required.


***************
cut
According to the aircraft logbook, on September 28, 2000, the pilot had
modified the helicopters horizontal stabilizer by cutting off part of
the stabilizer behind mounting plates number 88 and number 98, and
removed the winglets. The pilot flew 10 traffic patterns in new
configuration. He noted in the logbook "less objectionable side to side
shaking, but balance still indicates vertical 1.5 ips in climb."
However, according to the FAA, this modification was not approved as
required by the experimental aircraft operating limitations.
cut
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The loss of engine power for undetermined reasons, and the pilot's
unapproved airframe modification that resulted in the loss of flight
control during the emergency descent.
*******************


Fetters wrote:
OK, now where was this the helicopters fault? The man was flying a kit
helicopter he built that didn't have the up-to-date mandatory upgrades,
he had the wrong jetting and he modified a sensitive part of the
airframe that directly allows proper entrance into an autorotation, and
he did not enter a proper autorotation after the engine quit, if he even
could after the modification. The FAA determined that it was pilot
error, who could disagree?

I hope this clears up any misconceptions from inadequate posting of
partial information.

Dennis Fetters

Fetters wrote:


Your answers are well rehearsed.

I'll summarize:

1) Accident reports conclude pilot error, Fetters is not responsible.

2) Builders did not comply with build instructions or AD's, Fetters is not
responsible.


Don't come here for a Baptism, Fetters, you won't get it. A few of us know
the truth.

C.D.Damron wrote:
Fetters wrote:



Your answers are well rehearsed.


But true answers. What more would you want? Isn't that what really
matters? Is the facts so hard to swallow? Why do you feel the need to
imply something else?


I'll summarize:

1) Accident reports conclude pilot error, Fetters is not responsible.

2) Builders did not comply with build instructions or AD's, Fetters is not
responsible.


Don't come here for a Baptism, Fetters, you won't get it. A few of us know
the truth.


Nor do I want it from you or anyone else here. Honestly, you don't
deserve to give it. I know the truth, that's all that matters.

A few of you say you know the truth? Well, what is that? Was this last
accident talked about without the full facts the "truth" you say you
know about? The real truth is that there still has been no deaths in a
Mini-500 that was the fault of the design or flight characteristics. For
some reason you may not like that answer, but it is the truth!

I will adjust that statement. Now that there is no factory support, I do
fear that there will someday be accidents due to the lack of sustained
testing that occurred on a daily bases at the factory to stay ahead of
unforeseen problems, thus why we came out with a few AD's in the past.
That is why I recommend all Mini-500 activity be stopped.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters

I'm not implying something else, I'm saying something else.

You parse words with the best of them. You pick and choose among the many
truths related to the record of your aircraft.


"Dennis Fetters" wrote in message
...
But true answers. What more would you want? Isn't that what really
matters? Is the facts so hard to swallow? Why do you feel the need to
imply something else?

C.D.Damron wrote:
I'm not implying something else, I'm saying something else.

You parse words with the best of them. You pick and choose among the many
truths related to the record of your aircraft.


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.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters


"Dennis Fetters" wrote in message
...

But true answers. What more would you want? Isn't that what really
matters? Is the facts so hard to swallow? Why do you feel the need to
imply something else?

"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.

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

Dennis Fetters wrote in message m...

Your answers are well rehearsed.


But true answers. What more would you want? Isn't that what really
matters? Is the facts so hard to swallow? Why do you feel the need to
imply something else?

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

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 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.

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