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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis Fetters Mini 500
I have no ties to any of this Dennis Fetters guy or the Mini 500
debacle. I ran across these postings about Dennis a few months back and started reading all I could on the groups and the web about Fetters and this helicopter. All I can say is unbelievable.... I have read things tossed back and forth and finally found it all encapsulated in a single source from a real reporter that actually took the time to look into things. http://www.mini500.com/oldmini/channel4.html I bring all of this up for only one reason, this entire history of the Mini 500 from 1990 forward is a good example of why one must do their homework before becoming involved in any new aircraft that will be deemed experimental. My condolences to the families of those unfortunate soles that unwittingly became involved in this craft and as a result were injured or lost there lives. I would look forward to conversing with any parties that, were in the employ of, or were otherwise associated with, the manufacturer of the Mini 500 from 1990 forward. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
EmailMe wrote:
I have no ties to any of this Dennis Fetters guy or the Mini 500 debacle. I ran across these postings about Dennis a few months back and started reading all I could on the groups and the web about Fetters and this helicopter. All I can say is unbelievable.... I have read things tossed back and forth and finally found it all encapsulated in a single source from a real reporter that actually took the time to look into things. http://www.mini500.com/oldmini/channel4.html I bring all of this up for only one reason, this entire history of the Mini 500 from 1990 forward is a good example of why one must do their homework before becoming involved in any new aircraft that will be deemed experimental. My condolences to the families of those unfortunate soles that unwittingly became involved in this craft and as a result were injured or lost there lives. I would look forward to conversing with any parties that, were in the employ of, or were otherwise associated with, the manufacturer of the Mini 500 from 1990 forward. Well, why don't you just converse with me? After all, you seem to want to know something about it, wouldn't it have made since to talk to the guy that knows the most about it? The reporters and people interviewed in the story you read at the site above just happen to be some of the most dishonest reporters writing today. We all know Jim Campbell and his reputation, no need to dwell on that. We all were here when the host of that web site Fred Stewart lied to us all about his involvement and intentions. We all know that the convicted child beater Rick Stitt was paid by Fred Stewart to spy, sabotage and help destroy Revolution Helicopter. We all know that Joe Rinke was trying to make his own helicopter and needed Revolution out of the way. Everyone in the story had personal ambitions why they attacked Revolution Helicopter, everyone knows that. As for the reporter Lisa Brown, she came to my factory and promised to do a balanced story, and ended up not reporting correctly on one single fact that we gave her. Her report was completely one sided and full of lies and misinformation. I even told that to her face after she made the report. If this is what you have based your opinion on, then you don't have the full facts. If you have posted this to make trouble for some reason, then go have fun with it, I don't have time to play with you. But if you posted this to learn more about the subject, then you are welcome to email me directly and I'm happy to tell you the true story. Below is one of the final flight reviews made by a highly reputable magazine Kitplanes, about the flight characteristics of the Mini-500 before Revolution was forced to closed it's doors. Read it, makes it a little hard to believe what the others had to say. Sincerely, Dennis Fetters ****************8 Additional Material Not Included in November 1999 Flight Evaluation Six Questions posed by Bill Phillips; Answers by Ken Armstrong and Dennis Fetters The November '99 issue of KITPLANES contains the most complete flight evaluation of the Mini 500 that we know about. The Mini 500 is a single-seat kit helicopter sold in the hundreds by Revolution Helicopter Corp., Inc. (RHCI) of Exelsior Springs, Missouri. Pilot/author Ken Armstrong is a regular contributor to our bimonthly "Rotor Roundup" column and among the few truly qualified to evaluate homebuilt helicopters. A 9000-hour professional pilot who makes his living teaching helicopter fire-fighting techniques around the world, he has flown more than 40 types of helicopters including most of the well-known homebuilts. In his article, Armstrong acknowledges the controversy surrounding the Mini 500, which has accumulated more than 40 accidents including eight fatalities from among the 400+ kits sold. He describes his initial difficulty correlating collective pitch and throttle to maintain rotor rpm "in the green," noting that most of his flight time is in turbine-powered helicopters with governors that do not require close attention to power applied. He notes the animosity that has grown between Mini 500 designer/RHCI co-owner Dennis Fetters and some customers. A small but local group of owner/pilots has accused RCHI of selling a kit with design and workmanship defects. A common complaint has been incorporation of a two-stroke engine (the liquid-cooled Rotax 582) for the Mini 500. Numerous engine failures in the air have resulted in accidents, some of which have been fatal. While Fetters has contended consistently that all of the fatalities and most of the other accidents have resulted from pilot and/or builder error, critics have faulted RHCI for unsatisfactory customer support including failure to develop fixes for technical problems such as excessive vibration leading to cracking frames, inadequate power, and defective parts including the early clutch systems. In his article, Armstrong says that he finds the major technical problems have been solved with RHCI fixes including a mast support that smooths the rotor and an engine performance-enhancement package (PEP--a tuned-exhaust system). Some pilots have reported that the Mini 500 pitches down unacceptably after a power reduction or failure. After entering a number of practice autorotations, Armstrong concurs with the company that pitchdown was not a problem with the fully equipped Mini 500 he flew. He acknowledges that operation of any helicopter is not to be taken lightly, but he describes the Mini 500 as having "very good handling" including its autorotation characteristics. Armstrong's article will not satisfy the Mini 500's most ardent critics, who have castigated us for continuing to accept advertising from RHCI for its new two-place Voyager 500, which is powered by a three-cylinder, two-stroke engine developed for the application. Among the critics is Bill Phillips, a retired nuclear physicist and an airplane and helicopter pilot who has flown a Mini 500. He was elected president of the International Experimental Helicopter Association Inc. (IEHA), which was formed in a February '99 Florida meeting of Mini 500 owners and others unhappy with their helicopters or company response to problems. Phillips said they intended to finance their own fixes if RHCI did not find acceptable Mini 500 technical solutions soon. At this point, Phillips remains unconvinced that RHCI's PEP and mast suppport systems solve the power and frame-cracking problems, but IEHA has yet to offer its own technical solutions. Knowing about the upcoming article on the Mini 500, Phillips posed the questions you will find below. Lacking space in KITPLANES to publish them, we committed to what you see here on www.kitplanes.com: Phillips six questions, comments by Ken Armstrong as he felt he could address them, and official responses by Dennis Fetters of RHCI. We have no illusion that this effort will change opinions of those whose views are now polarized, but the airing of these issues is in the KITPLANES tradition of continuing in-depth, unbiased reporting of the Mini 500 saga. Questions and Answers 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. Phillips: 2. The use of Nylock nuts in the engine compartment? The control pushrods are directed through an engine compartment where the temperature gets to 300º F. on every flight. I'm not making this up; I've measured it. This is simply not a standard accepted practice in the aviation industry. All locknuts firewall forward must be metal locking nuts, not plastic or fiber nuts. Armstrong: No comment. Fetters: First, it is not true that the engine compartment runs at 300º F. If it did, the fuel in the tank would blow out the vents in a raging boil, the fiberglass body would become soft and deform, and the pilot could not sit with his back against the firewall. The use of Nylock nuts is standard in aviation, even in the engine compartment. We have never had a single failure or melting of one. Anywhere that gets hot, we use steel locking nuts. Phillips: 3. I have never seen a Mini 500 or a Voyager without the main rotorbades warped with a forward sweep. It's probably a manufacturing systematic error. The blades are baked with an aluminum spar in the leading edge. They come out of the mold perfectly straight. But due to the difference in coefficients of linear expansion between the aluminum and the composite materials, the aluminum contracts more as the blade cools and warps it in a forward sweep. I suspect that much of the vibration the machine produces in forward flight is due to this unstable forward sweep as the blade hunts and seeks for stability in the feathering axis. I've had this argument with [KITPLANES Editor] Dave Martin. Dave uses the Blanik sailplane as an example of a forward sweep aircraft that is pitch-stable. This is only true because the Blanik has a tail and the forward sweep does not cause diverging pitching moments for the whole airplane because the tail has more authority. Simply sweep that wing forward a bit more and it would diverge. A helicopter airfoil has no tail. A very tiny forward sweep is divergent in pitch. Armstrong: In my flights, I found this not to be an issue. There was no apparent instaility that would be caused by blades hunting. Fetters: It is necessary to relieve cyclic and collective pressures by allowing for the proper amount of lift to occur forward of the pitching point of the blade, or using springs, or both. This is done on other helicopters with a narrow and less efficient chord width, or sweeping the blades forward. The Mini 500 blade does this with a slight forward sweep, and their rigidity and centrifugal forces help maintain stability. It is ridiculous to say that the blades are "hunting and seeking" because of this; the Mini 500 flies extremely stable. Look at many of the more modern designs such as the paddle-tip blades. Airplane control surfaces also do this with a certain amount of area ahead of the pivot point. The well known helicopter analysis engineer R.W. Prouty with Rotor & Wing writes that there are no negative effects from forward-swept rotors. Phillips: 4. What about two-per-rev imbalance? No one tomy knowledge has been able to balance the machine in ETL and eliminate the "two-pers." [ETL means entering translational lift--accelerating through 15-20 mph in a Mini 500, according to Fetters.] This has led to frame cracking in 30 to 50 hours on the majority of the ships that have flown that long. My guess is that the problem lies in the engine mount and the "hunting and seeking" of the main rotorblades in ETL. Armstrong: In my Mini 500 flying, there was no notable lateral vibration. Fetters: It is true that the Mini 500 had a two-per-rev problem that caused some frames to crack. This problem was solved and made available to all owners some time ago, but still our detractors don't acknowledge its existence. It is called the Mast Support Upgrade. The "hunting and seeking" of the blades is not even close to having been the problem. RHCI found the problem and made the fix available at our cost, and this problem is no longer a valid point. Phillips: 5. Nose-down pitch upon loss of power in translational lift has been a problem. The horizontal stabilizer is in the downwash in forward flight. This causes a positive pitching moment that RHCI has overcome by essentially adding an elevator with a negative deflection. This works fine as long as the air is being pumped down by a running engine. At the instant the engine quits, the downwash quits. The machine pitches over violently. This is particularly dangerous since it's exactly the wrong move to induce autorotation. It's important that the rotor disk be pitched up so air can flow up through the blades and drive the system before the inertia dissipates and it becomes unrecoverable (which happens below 80% rpm). Many owners have told me they have pitched over almost vertical. I suspect the boom chops have followed from this scenario because the normal reflex is to pull back on the stick, tilt the rotor system backward and chop off the tail before the fuselage can pendulously respond to the disk pitch change. Armstrong: I did not experience any significant nose drop when entering practice autorotations. The approaches, however, were gentle and I knew when they were coming. Fetters: There is no significant nose drop in the Mini 500 if it is set up right and flown correctly. Now with the Mast Support Upgrade, there is almost no drop at all. The original problem occurred with a dramatic nose drop after a member of the detractor group told everyone over theInternet newsgroups that RHCI was wrong to set the negative blade tip angle at 0.5º for proper entrance to an autorotation. Instead, he said to set them at a negative 2.0º! This would suck down the nose of the helicopter as you could imagine, and it flies the rotor blades 10 inches closer to the tail boom. Also, the Mini 500 Pilot's Operating Handbook says to lead with back cyclic before lowering the collective. Again, this was not a problem if set up and performed right, and it has been improved on since. Phillips: 6. Many of the rotating parts lack castelated-pinned locknuts. If you examine a tailrotor system on a Mini 500 or the Voyager 500, you will find Nylock nuts again. This is just not normal accepted procedure. All rotating parts should have hardware that is pinned or has metal locking nuts with PAL nuts over them. Armstrong: No comment. Fetters: There are no rotating parts in the Mini 500 that use Nylock nuts or all-metal, self-locking nuts. All control joints use an inner sleeve, and the bolt and nut are tightened to full torque to retain the sleeve. All working and pivoting is done on the sleeve, never on the bolt. Therefore our design is correct. It is only necessary to use a castelated and pinned nut on a bolt that is used as a pivot, or in a place where constant disassembly is required. Phillips: I understand that most of the pilots who are still flying their ships are low time. Not only that, they are low-time builders too. Most of them have not built airplanes. Fred Stewart, Joe Rinke, Allen Barklage and Gil Armbruster--just to name a few--never built an airplane. They simply assembled a helicopter and did not know the dangers or flaws in hardware used by RHCI in this ship. Fetters: Wrong again. Fred Stewart previously built a RotorWay helicopter and was trained to operate an RHCI Service Center. Joe Rinke tries to sell upgrades to Mini 500 customers and is now saying he will come out with his own helicopter design, and he has no experience? Sounds like an uphill battle to me. Allen Barklage had 33,000+ hours in helicopters, and he and Gil Armbruster were expert speakers at the detractors' meeting in Dallas in 1998. This is who was teaching about safety and maintenance, and you are saying they didn't have experience? Editor's Comments While we're at it, let's get a response from RHCI on two other accusations: 1. That the company refuses customer support and parts sales from anyone who joined the "detractors' group" (as Fetters calls them) or who joined IEHA. Fetters flatly denies that any RHCI customer has ever been refused support or parts sales. 2. That a $750 transfer fee is required to be paid to RHCI by any second or subsequent Mini 500 owner to buy parts or get factory support. Fetters acknowledges that such a policy was in effect briefly but was dropped more than a year ago. Now, any owner who is willing to sign the standard purchase contract required of original kit buyers has access to parts and service at regular prices, Fetters says. Finally, I need to put some perspective on this tome. Ken Armstrong alludes to the clashes of personalities surrounding the Mini 500. Here's some insight. Fred Stewart--who helped organize the critics' meetings in Dallas and Florida--was once RHCI's most active dealer. He and Dennis Fetters were close friends. Stewart says he became disillusioned because of RHCI's failure to support the product and his customers. Fetters has supplied a pound of e-mail implicating Fred Stewart, Joe Rinke and others in what he sees as a conspiracy to put RHCI out of business. Some of the evidence is linked to this magazine. In early September, 1997, Lee Sarouhan (who was at the time a pilot/sales rep for RHCI) called in an ad to the KITPLANES classified advertising manager. The ad recruited helicopter engineers to work on a new two-place heli at Mid-America Helicopters--Fred Stewart's company in Barnhart, Missouri. Stewart has said that he was simply trying to spur Fetters to develop RHCI's two-seat trainer more quickly; he cancelled the ad contract early and did not hire the qualified engineer who responded to the ad. On February 10, 1998, Lee Sarouhan used his RHCI office computer to send a personal e-mail to a relative. The e-mail said, "Well, it looks like Revolution Helo will go out of bizz in the next few weeks. The good news, my project Mid-American Helicopter should start up within a year...." Sarouhan's e-mail was found by RHCI and he was fired on February 12. Stewart continued to deny that a business relationship with Sarouhan existed. Rinke--a Mini 500 customer--lost a lawsuit brought by RHCI to to prevent him from marketing a turbine engine conversion for the Mini 500 in violation of his RHCI purchase contract. The court ordered him not to sell turbine systems and not to fly his jet-powered Mini 500. Bill Phillips initially supported Fetters' position, but the two fell out after Stewart offered Phillips a Mini 500 for evaluation. Fetters says he felt that RHCI was being blackmailed by Phillips to supply Mini 500 parts and upgrades. Phillips and others are not convinced that the RHCI fixes--primarily the PEP and the Mast Support Upgrade--solve the technical problems. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis Fetters wrote:
Well, why don't you just converse with me? After all, you seem to want to know something about it, wouldn't it have made since to talk to the guy that knows the most about it? Thank you for the invite Mr. Fetters. At this juncture I am more interested in hearing from those that were in the previous employ or under contract to the manufacturer of the Mini 500 from 1990 forward. I am not interested at this point in any principals of the old firm. Perhaps in the future you and I will have a chance to converse when I am more educated on the history of this aircraft. Thank you. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
EmailMe wrote:
Dennis Fetters wrote: Well, why don't you just converse with me? After all, you seem to want to know something about it, wouldn't it have made since to talk to the guy that knows the most about it? Thank you for the invite Mr. Fetters. At this juncture I am more interested in hearing from those that were in the previous employ or under contract to the manufacturer of the Mini 500 from 1990 forward. I am not interested at this point in any principals of the old firm. Perhaps in the future you and I will have a chance to converse when I am more educated on the history of this aircraft. Thank you. Why? What do you hope to gain? I hope you're not contemplating buying a Mini-500! I would strongly advise against buying any aircraft that no longer has factory support, especially a helicopter. Sincerely, Dennis Fetters |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:46:36 GMT, Dennis Fetters
wrote: Phillips: 6. Many of the rotating parts lack castelated-pinned locknuts. If you examine a tailrotor system on a Mini 500 or the Voyager 500, you will find Nylock nuts again. This is just not normal accepted procedure. All rotating parts should have hardware that is pinned or has metal locking nuts with PAL nuts over them. Armstrong: No comment. Fetters: There are no rotating parts in the Mini 500 that use Nylock nuts or all-metal, self-locking nuts. All control joints use an inner sleeve, and the bolt and nut are tightened to full torque to retain the sleeve. All working and pivoting is done on the sleeve, never on the bolt. Therefore our design is correct. It is only necessary to use a castelated and pinned nut on a bolt that is used as a pivot, or in a place where constant disassembly is required. The link arm to the tailwheel on my tailwind has a ball joint at each end. The ball joints are fixed to the rudder bracket and tailwheel bracket with AN3 bolts. since these are swivelling joints and get a fair hammering on rough ground I used castelated nuts and split pins to retain them. I must have had to replace bolts and nuts about every six months because the nuts would strip. I discussed the problem with an aircraft mechanic friend of mine who advised using nylock nuts. I replaced the bolts and nuts and over the last 3 years of flying havent had to replace a single nut or bolt. If you look at the nylocks and compare them to castelated nuts you will find that they have almost twice the thread length. my experience supports Denis's contention here. Sorry Bill. Stealth Pilot Australia. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis Fetters wrote:
"According to the Rotax representative, "...the modified tuning and non-conforming parts of the engine from stock configuration..." was not recommended; The Rotax guy refers to non-conforming from stock, non-recommended stuff... He later purchased the PEP exhaust from us, Isn't that one of the parts the Rotax guy was talking about? however, some modifications, such as the "PEP" exhaust system, were recommended and marketed by the helicopter kit manufacturer." Ah, that _is_ one of the parts. Rotax wouldn't recommend the PEP, but you recommended it. Actually, you mandated it. And marketed it, naturally. 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. MANDATORY! Anyone else's mods were prohibited, by purchase contract and court order. Any new mods you wanted to sell, however, were "mandatory", by phony AD. When customers fell to their deaths, so what, you just shrugged it off. Rotax did sell Revolution Helicopter engines directly and specifically for the Mini-500. They were coerced, forced to. Now, what was the point you were trying to make here? Dennis Fetters |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Hoppy wrote:
Dennis Fetters wrote: "According to the Rotax representative, "...the modified tuning and non-conforming parts of the engine from stock configuration..." was not recommended; The Rotax guy refers to non-conforming from stock, non-recommended stuff... He later purchased the PEP exhaust from us, Isn't that one of the parts the Rotax guy was talking about? however, some modifications, such as the "PEP" exhaust system, were recommended and marketed by the helicopter kit manufacturer." Ah, that _is_ one of the parts. Rotax wouldn't recommend the PEP, but you recommended it. Actually, you mandated it. And marketed it, naturally. So what's your point? Did you just discover this or are you just way behind the rest of us? I don't mean that in an insulting way, but I'm really asking so I know. 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. MANDATORY! Anyone else's mods were prohibited, by purchase contract and court order. Any new mods you wanted to sell, however, were "mandatory", by phony AD. When customers fell to their deaths, so what, you just shrugged it off. Yes, it became mandatory. Again, are you just now discovering this? I'm very sorry, but I don't get your point. As for the crash of Gil using the PEP, I hope you read the part were we begged him to follow instructions when he refused to do so, and we offered to buy the unit back when he refused to use the recommended jetting. So, what is the point you are trying to make? Rotax did sell Revolution Helicopter engines directly and specifically for the Mini-500. They were coerced, forced to. Oh yes, I told them I would fire each and every one of them. I'm sorry Hoppy`, but I can't help but get a chuckle out of that one. 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 |