Threatened by Dennis Fetter

On Mar 31, 12:15*am, Poultry in Motion wrote:
Dennis Fetters wrote:
Poultry in Motion wrote:
Dennis Fetters wrote:
Yes, indeed Mr. Ryerson knows him well, he was the first one to
publish on his website the letter where Mr. Cicare admitted that the
two designs were different.

Never seen that. Did see pictures of you and your pal Glenn together.
Even a picture of you seated in "Miss Nina", Glenn's CH-7 Angel. Yes,
he owned your competitor's helicopter, not one of yours. But he was an
enthusiastic supporter of them all, including Mimi-500s.

Sorry you didn't pay more attention. I guess it you would have been more
informed of the real facts, you would not have showed everyone here on
the newsgroup how very little you know about everything you have talked
about related to me or the Mini-500. They all know now!

Then suddenly, all articles and pictures of Mini-500s, the entire
section, was pulled from the site. Replaced by a note that, due to
threats received, ( *UNMENTIONABLE* ) helicopters could no longer
appear on the site.

I don't run Glenns' website, he does, and I'm not privy to the reasons
why he does what he does.

Of course you are. You threatened him. He was your friend and defender,
but you dumped the friendship because he was too honest for you to deal
with. He spoke what was on his mind. He was direct in his criticism of
the Italians who built his CH-7, and that was after he'd been their
guest. Glenn got to know all the players personally, didn't he? You
needed to shut him up before he learned more about you.





So what's your point? This is exactly what I said. You just backed up
my side of the event?

Point --- Cicare's CH-6 helicopter was the Mini-500 prototype.

Answered on your other post;

"Oh that one, I guess you need to read!
That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said Cicare
didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were going to
use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was going to
live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up having to
design the Mini-500 all by myself without the use of Cicares' help or
his CH-6, so the CH-6 never was used as the prototype after all. So the
first Mini-500 prototype turned out to be the first one I built.
Its that simple, and I wrote that before, as I said you just have to read."

I'm full of questions.

As we are showing here, that's not all...

Yes, insight too.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ask him who else he threatened in rotaryforum.com He was warned about
threatening people there a few times by the mods.

in limbo wrote:
On Mar 31, 12:15 am, Poultry in Motion wrote:
Dennis Fetters wrote:
Poultry in Motion wrote:
Dennis Fetters wrote:
Yes, indeed Mr. Ryerson knows him well, he was the first one to
publish on his website the letter where Mr. Cicare admitted that the
two designs were different.
Never seen that. Did see pictures of you and your pal Glenn together.
Even a picture of you seated in "Miss Nina", Glenn's CH-7 Angel. Yes,
he owned your competitor's helicopter, not one of yours. But he was an
enthusiastic supporter of them all, including Mimi-500s.
Sorry you didn't pay more attention. I guess it you would have been more
informed of the real facts, you would not have showed everyone here on
the newsgroup how very little you know about everything you have talked
about related to me or the Mini-500. They all know now!
Then suddenly, all articles and pictures of Mini-500s, the entire
section, was pulled from the site. Replaced by a note that, due to
threats received, ( *UNMENTIONABLE* ) helicopters could no longer
appear on the site.
I don't run Glenns' website, he does, and I'm not privy to the reasons
why he does what he does.
Of course you are. You threatened him. He was your friend and defender,
but you dumped the friendship because he was too honest for you to deal
with. He spoke what was on his mind. He was direct in his criticism of
the Italians who built his CH-7, and that was after he'd been their
guest. Glenn got to know all the players personally, didn't he? You
needed to shut him up before he learned more about you.





So what's your point? This is exactly what I said. You just backed up
my side of the event?
Point --- Cicare's CH-6 helicopter was the Mini-500 prototype.
Answered on your other post;
"Oh that one, I guess you need to read!
That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said Cicare
didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were going to
use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was going to
live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up having to
design the Mini-500 all by myself without the use of Cicares' help or
his CH-6, so the CH-6 never was used as the prototype after all. So the
first Mini-500 prototype turned out to be the first one I built.
Its that simple, and I wrote that before, as I said you just have to read."
I'm full of questions.
As we are showing here, that's not all...
Yes, insight too.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ask him who else he threatened in rotaryforum.com He was warned about
threatening people there a few times by the mods.

Dennis, who else???

Fetters once threatened (and sued) a Mini-500 customer, Joe Rinke,
because Rinke began solving the Mini's problems. Rinke's activities
would have upset the RHCI business model, which relied on keeping
customers tightly controlled and dependent on Fetters alone for all
support. They were permitted to have helicopters only as good as Fetters
was willing, or able, to make them. No outside development, no outside
parts allowed. Fetters told them what to buy, and told them when it
would be mandatory.

in limbo wrote:

Ask him who else he threatened in rotaryforum.com He was warned about
threatening people there a few times by the mods.

Why don't you ask me?

Someone on our forum was being an a-hole and mouthy to me. You know,
basically just like you brain-dead a-holes' do.

I didn't threaten him. I promised him that when I seen him I was going
to give him a good old fashion, and well deserved punch in the nose. You
know, like someone deserves when they are antagonizing someone. But, I
did it on the forum where everyone could see my intentions, and not
sneaking behind everyone with private emails. If I believe in something
I don't hide the fact that I do.

Since then, that person has calmed down and got off my back, and we have
been having very pleasant and constructive conversations on the forum,
and I read what he has to say in his posts with great interest.

In article ,
Dennis Fetters wrote:

I didn't threaten him. I promised him that when I seen him I was going
to give him a good old fashion, and well deserved punch in the nose. You
know, like someone deserves when they are antagonizing someone. But, I
did it on the forum where everyone could see my intentions, and not
sneaking behind everyone with private emails. If I believe in something
I don't hide the fact that I do.

I have basically no interest in the subject matter covered in this
thread, but this paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Saying that you
will carry out a harmful action against someone, such as punching them
in the nose, is the very DEFINITION of a threat.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

"Dennis Fetters" wrote in message
...
in limbo wrote:

Ask him who else he threatened in rotaryforum.com He was warned about
threatening people there a few times by the mods.

Why don't you ask me?

Someone on our forum was being an a-hole and mouthy to me. You know,
basically just like you brain-dead a-holes' do.

I didn't threaten him. I promised him that when I seen him I was going to
give him a good old fashion, and well deserved punch in the nose. You
know, like someone deserves when they are antagonizing someone. But, I did
it on the forum where everyone could see my intentions, and not sneaking
behind everyone with private emails. If I believe in something I don't
hide the fact that I do.

Since then, that person has calmed down and got off my back, and we have
been having very pleasant and constructive conversations on the forum, and
I read what he has to say in his posts with great interest.

Geez guys, get a room.

You're clearly the only ones that give a **** about this tiny bit of world
history, why can't you just email each other.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
snip
I didn't threaten him. I promised him that when I seen him I was going
to give him a good old fashion, and well deserved punch in the nose. You
know, like someone deserves when they are antagonizing someone.

Now that is childish.

I'm no lawyer, but isn't conveying a threat on line a federal felony?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Maxwell wrote:
"Dennis Fetters" wrote in message
...

in limbo wrote:


Ask him who else he threatened in rotaryforum.com He was warned about
threatening people there a few times by the mods.

Why don't you ask me?

Someone on our forum was being an a-hole and mouthy to me. You know,
basically just like you brain-dead a-holes' do.

I didn't threaten him. I promised him that when I seen him I was going to
give him a good old fashion, and well deserved punch in the nose. You
know, like someone deserves when they are antagonizing someone. But, I did
it on the forum where everyone could see my intentions, and not sneaking
behind everyone with private emails. If I believe in something I don't
hide the fact that I do.

Since then, that person has calmed down and got off my back, and we have
been having very pleasant and constructive conversations on the forum, and
I read what he has to say in his posts with great interest.


Geez guys, get a room.

You're clearly the only ones that give a **** about this tiny bit of world
history, why can't you just email each other.

Speeeest! Maxwell..... Just in case you don't realize it, I'm not the
one asking the questions.... I'm just the one answering the questions.

It you don't like the questions being asked, then discuss that with the
ones asking the questions.

What? You guys around here so busy with this dyeing newsgroups that your
lacking band-width?????? LOL!

Poultry in Motion wrote:
That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said
Cicare didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were
going to use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was
going to live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up
having to design the Mini-500 all by myself...


... and golly gosh what a coincidence, it came out almost just like a
CH-6 but I really designed it all by myself really.

Any moron with half a brain can plainly see that there is a world of
difference between the Mini-500 and the CH-6 if they have seen both of
the workings and designs of each aircraft. Why can't you see that?

Cicare says they are different, and I say they are different. Now both
designers say they are different, so why is that such a leap for your
pea-brain to wrap itself around??

Two helicopters came out of the CH-6:

The CH-7, a winner by all accounts.
Anyone not seen the picture of one lifting off carrying two more people
standing outside on the skids? Anyone like to?
I've seen two videos of them crashing, one appeared to be of a pilot
performing low-level idiocy and running way short of the bottom half of
a loop before the ground came up and smashed him. He walked away,
likewise the other CH-7 video crasher.

The CH-7 is a fine helicopter.

The Mini-500, a botched effort.
A small jockey-size pilot was hired to demo flight it at shows.

I guess people with a brain can watch this and decide for themselves;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4ZnR4SGabA

Factory's "PEP" pipe was effort to wring adequate performance out of
this dog.

You really don't know what you are talking about. We didn't develop the
PEP for more power. But, for the problem the PEP cured, id did make more
power available, but that didn't mean you had to use it, nor did it hurt
if you did. Here is what I posted about the PEP before;

"Cold seizures in a Mini-500 have only happened when the pilot starts
the engine cold, and immediately lift into a climbing departure, and
then the engine will seize within 100 feet or so and not restart until
later after the piston cooled enough to allow it to do so. It plainly
states in the Pilots Operating Handbook to allow the engine temperature
to be sufficient enough to prevent this. If they allow it to happen,
it's Pilot error and was completely avoidable.

Some people at Rotax that were not familiar with helicopters and the
special demands misdiagnosed a Mini-500 engine seizure as a cold
seizure. In fact, the real problem was the exhaust system. By adding the
PEP system, we discovered that it reduced the exhaust back pressure. The
normal Rotax exhaust system was creating to much back pressure for
helicopter use, which made the need for summer and winter jet changing.
With the PEP, we only needed to jet it once, and there were no more
issues of people seizing the engine for simply forgetting to change from
summer to winter jetting. The point is, you need the PEP system. Before
the PEP exhaust system became mandatory for the Mini-500, the major
problem of seizing the Rotax could have completely been avoided.
Although most all the seizures were due to customers not changing the
jets, needles and needle jets to convert the engine to helicopter use,
it was the Rotax exhaust system that was causing the engine to be too
sensitive to the need of proper jetting. We discovered that the normal
jets that come with the engine for propeller use would not work for
helicopter use. It was explained why the jets needed to be converted
many times, but it is unbelievable how many owners refused to change the
jetting, which would definitely seize the engine. It got to the point
where we opened the Rotax box and removed the jetting, so that the
owners would have to apply the proper jetting. After doing that, the
engine seizures were reduced to only people refusing to change from
winter to summer jetting. The mandatory PEP did salve this, and there
were no more seizures after it was installed, except for people that
refused to follow the mandatory AD to add the PEP and its proper
jetting, or flew on the old pipe. It is untrue to say that the Mini-500
has suffered from cold seizures, except for the few cases where the
pilot simply ignored operational procedures.

The CH-7 Angel did not go to the trouble of fabricating their own
exhaust, but since it was basically a factory built flying aircraft,
they would install the proper jets and needles themselves, and test
flies the aircraft. Also the Angel was so expensive, that the only
customers that could afford them were already accomplished helicopter
pilots with more skills, and flying a factory built aircraft already set
up properly after construction, compared to the Mini-500 owners where
76% of them were not helicopter pilots, and/or had less than 50 hours in
helicopters when building and flying their Mini-500."


Same Rotax engine, but necessary styling dictated that the engine be
enclosed. Famous for seizing.

You REALLY don't know what you are talking about. Here is what I posted
about the Mini-500 Cooling System:

"The Mini-500 uses a fan powered directly off the engine, not the rotor
drive system, so in that way it will not rob power during an
autorotation. The cooling system absorbs only 1.7hp at hover to cool the
engine. The Mini-500 cooling system is one of the most efficient in any
other helicopter that I know of. In fact, on an 80F day it will hover
indefinitely and the water temperature will never exceed 160F. If you
load the aircraft down with enough weight where it will not lift off,
and hold full power, you can do so indefinitely and the water
temperature will never exceed 180F. On an 110F day with a tank of fuel
and a 200 pound pilot, the Mini-500 can hover indefinitely, and the
water temperature will never exceed 180F. In fact, during any of these
events, or during the entire flight of the Mini-500, you can remove the
pressure cap and the coolant will never boil out.

These are all proven facts and demonstrated countless times at air shows
around the world. The Mini-500 has never had a cooling problem of its
582 engine, even being fully enclosed, and runs cooler than other kit
helicopters, even though they are lighter, due to our superior cooling
systems design and ability to use the air off the cooling fan to blow
the air over the exhaust system to remove hot air from the engine
compartment. It is untrue to say the Mini-500 has a cooling problem."


Frame cracked under heavy vibes, so factory solution was to weld more
metal onto frame.

Again, here is what I said about the frame crack, as if a helicopter
never had a frame crack befo

"We conducted a complete resonance frequency test of the Mini-500. Each
assembly was checked for its frequency where it would naturally want to
oscillate, and this information was recorder. Afterwards, we could do a
complete spectrum analyses on any Mini-500, and look for peeks of
unacceptable vibrations. By knowing the RPM and natural frequency of
each component, we could determine problems before failure. It just so
happens that the mast assembly would resonate around 312 RPM’s, so we
issued a warning to owners not to dwell at that RPM and move on up to
90% RPM for the secondary warm-up period. The next RPM where the mast
assembly wanted to resonate was well above the operational 104% RPM, so
there were never any concerns.

(All diagrams deleted)

The Mini-500 was suffering from frame cracking that was occurring behind
the transmission. Please take a look at the first drawing, and you will
see that location marked with a green X.

What we finally discovered was that there were two different forces at
work causing the problem;

First, was the two-per-rev that was being produced in forward flight in
a motion that tended to rock the rotor system, mast and transmission
unit back and forward, as seen in the first drawing at letter “A”. This
action was occurring about 1100 times a minute and was transmitted down
the mast following the blue line, and then horizontally out to the two
arrows pointing up and down on each side of the transmission, which
indicates the direction of force translated on the frame in those areas.
This is not normally a problem, but in the case of the Mini-500, I
designed the frame improperly where this load was focused on the green X
in the first drawing, where the load was being translated into the
center of a tube. Notice that there is a bracket on that tube tying it
into another tube, but this just transmitted the loads to be expelled at
letter “C” in the center of another unsupported tube.

Second, we discovered that with each firing of an engine piston, the
drive belt was pulling down on the transmission large sprocket, as seen
in the first drawing with red lines and letter ”B”. This was hammering
at around 13200 a minute, and that force too was transmitted through the
transmission, and then through the frame and unloading on the area
marked by the green X.

That is way the frame was cracking. Now it needs to be fixed, but the
problem is that there are over 300 Mini-500 shipped that all need a fix.
We were shipping 5 to 6 complete Mini-500 kits a week. Designing and
building a new frame to send to everyone was out of the question,
because I could only build one frame a day, and that was just enough to
keep up with production.

Sure, I could have taken a month and duplicated my welding fixtures and
doubled my welding staff, and built two frames and day. But then owners
would have to wait up to a year and a half before we could send out over
300 frames. No, I needed to come up with something that didn't cost the
customer $4800 and took over a year to receive, and whatever it was it
had to work and solve all problems at one time.

That is when I came up with a system that would take the loads from the
two-per-rev, capture the force where it was generated, and distribute
those loads into the hard point in the frame that was all supported
through triangulation. This can be seen on the second drawing following
the blue lines. Notice that the blue line that represent the direction
of force across the tube where the green x was is no longer there. I was
successful to take all strain away from the problem area entirely. The
engine pulsing vibration was also handled the same way, along with an
added rubber isolation system on the transmission and up inside the mast
support, and with a new idler arm that was spring loaded.

By coming up with this fix, it not only solved all the problems, but
improved overall balancing of the rotor system, and the fix could be
manufactured fast and affordable. Although this was a major problem that
took some time to identify the cause, dream up the best solution,
prototype and test and finally produce and ship, before or after, no
Mini-500 had crashed due to a cracked frame."

Ok, so there was the problem, and that was my solution. Why do you still
bellyache about an old problems that was solved? Its not the first time
a helicopter had a design flaw that needed fixed. So all the Mini-500
owners and I got over it, why was it your problem, and why are you
complaining about it?

Keep those questions coming!! Its great you are helping me get the real
facts out there!

Morgans wrote:
How about running the engine over 100% for normal operations. That's
gotta be good on it, don't 'cha think?

Oh, I know, you-know-who has an answer for that one, too.

You bet I do, after all, I know what I'm doing, and done it a lot.

I don't run the engine at 100% power. I run the engine at 100% RPM, that
different. So does ALL rotax powered helicopters. Here is what I posted
about that;
Rotax 582 for power:

"The Rotax 582 aircraft engine does not run “full bore” in a Mini-500.
That engine comes from a snowmobile, where it could run at 10,000rpm and
put out 110hp. It is de-rated by Rotax only by lowering the RPM for
aircraft use. So long as it is cooled to 180F and has proper jetting, it
will run even at full bore for hundreds and hundreds of hours. At this
reduced power level, this engine is designed to continuously operate at
that power level, and in some cases does so.

I have never had a Rotax two stroke engine just quite due to over
exertion out of nearly 2000 aircraft I have delivered. Those that did
failed, failed from mainly two reasons. Even after the owner fixed the
engine, the same failure would occur time and time again, because it was
not a problem with the engine, but the installation. 98% of all Rotax
engine failures are due to improper customer installation. The other 2%
are due to improper maintenance.

The Mini-500, as well as all helicopters that use any reciprocating
engine, run at full RPM, but that is not full bore, since a helicopter
reduces or increases its power setting to operate."

Keep the questions coming!

Poultry in Motion wrote:

Morgans wrote:


"Poultry in Motion" wrote

Factory's "PEP" pipe was effort to wring adequate performance out of
this dog.


How about running the engine over 100% for normal operations. That's
gotta be good on it, don't 'cha think?
Why, yes. Stuff it into stifling hot compartment, add a Fetters
re-engineered cooling system, Fetters' pipe, Fetters' carb jetting, nail
the throttle, and it's all good.

Answered in last post to Morgans.

Remember, Rotax's 100% isn't Fetters' 100%, those are two different
100%s. In fact, Rotax had to ask Dennis Fetters to please help them
design their engine. Dennis himself said that, so we know it is true.

Yes they did. Rotax sent me the first water cooled 532 in the world, and
I was the first to get it to fly. Even after, I was the one that was
making the Rotax water cooled engines work the best and coolest.

My cooling systems were working so well, and other manufacturers were
having so much trouble that Rotax started having them call me to help
diagnose their problems. Later, Rotax changed its cooling methods and
temps to run the engine to the same as mine, which I had been doing two
years earlier.

So what's your point?