mast bumping r22 questions
John
event. How did this term originate, who coined the phrase? Is it from the
early days of autogyros or did it originate when the r22 became known to
have this problem ? Does bumping refer to an associated noise? If so i would
think it would be more of a banging noise ! It almost implies that mast
bumping is a condition that you can recover from.
The begging (silly) question ...
Is it possible to have a mast bumping experience and not have have the rotor
break off ?
I think I understand how mast bumping can occur:
Large and fast cyclic inputs while the rotor disc is unloaded and in
negative G.
I understand that this can brought about by a fast forward cyclic movement
(pushover) followed by fast aft cyclic while in forward flight. But what
kind of movement on the cyclic in terms of centimetres or feet per second is
required to bring about mast bumping in the r22 ?
I have 65hrs in the r22 and haven't flown in years. Of course i always flew
within the limits and we are trained to know the limits. Usually limits are
described with numbers (airspeeds, weights, power settings ) which allow a
safety margin. Mast bumping can't be described this way, or can it?
Just curious.
Dennis Fetters
Mast bumping was discovered in Vietnam after the mast broke off the a
few of the UH and Cobra helicopters. There are two types of mast
bumping: In flight and ground.
Ground mast bumping can occur at prolonged rotor run-up and rundown
points of the operation, and is common if the pilot fails to lower the
collective all the way, and there is some wind present. This will cause
more lift alternating on one blade, then the other, causing the rotor
head stops to bump the mast. It was discovered that prolonged ground
mast bumping could fatigue the mast and cause it to fail in flight.
In flight mast bumping could occur during a negative G maneuver, causing
the rotor to unload and the rotor head stops would violently hit the
mast, causing immediate or later failures.
Murphy's law
Instead you should explain the mast bumping of your M500 deathtrap,
shouldn't you, you bum.
n4mwd.don...@amsat.org
>
> Instead you should explain the mast bumping of your M500 deathtrap,
> shouldn't you, you bum.
I've heard a lot of bad things about the Mini-500, but are there
really any NTSB reports to back up those claims? Are the problems
related to the CH-7 style internal swash plate?
How many mini's were sold? I have seen them in the NTSB reports I
have looked at, but they are dwarfed by the big boys (execs, r22s,
etc.)
Dennis (The other one)
Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)
"A Recession is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A Depression is when YOU are out of work.
A Recovery is when all the H1-B's are out of work."
(An H-1B is someone who is brought into the USA to replace
American workers at a fraction of the wage.)
Micbloo
>Instead you should explain the mast bumping of your M500 deathtrap,
>shouldn't you, you bum.
Oy, here we go..............
CivetOne
Mast bumping is exactly what the name implies, the phenomenon of the rotor hub
teeter stops contacting the rotor mast. For this post, I will discuss only
inflight mast bumping, although mast bumping during start-up and shut down can
also occur.
The phenomenon is associated with any teetering rotor design such as the R22 or
any of the 2-bladed, teetering rotor versions of the Bell UH-1 and AH-1 series.
Teetering rotor designs depend on rotor thrust to provide the pilot with
control power to point the helicopter and thrust to balance other forces such
as tail rotor thrust.
The spotlight was put on mast bumping in teetering rotor helicopters during the
Vietnam era when a number of UH-1 and AH-1 helicopters suffered inflight mast
separations.
If mast bumping occurs in flight, usually the mast fails and the rotor
separates from the mast. This is not a condition from which many survive. I
suppose, however, it is possible to experience mast bumping in flight without
separation, but the bumping itself is nolt the whole problem.
When the mast bumps the mast, the force of the bump usually dents the mast and
sets up high stress concentrations in the area of the dent. The mast is
rotating while carrying lift and torque loads. Stresses around the dent become
high and cylic, which results in a very quick fatigue failure of the mast.
Mast bumping can occur as the main rotor is unloaded below about +0.5g. As the
rotor is unloaded, the control power (the ability of the pilot to point the
fuselage in a desired direction or attitude) of the rotor is reduced
dramatically since control power depends on rotor thrust. In many cases, as
the rotor is unloaded, the helicopter will roll unexpectedly due to the thrust
being generated by the tail rotor. During the approach to the low-g condition,
the pilot usually is carrying normal tail rotor thrust. The uncommanded roll
generally happens before the pilot can reduce the tail rotor thrust to avoid a
roll. Without sufficient main rotor thrust to balance the rolling moment due
to tail rotor thrust, the helicopter will roll.
If a pilot who experiences this uncommanded roll during a low-g maneuver reacts
by trying to correct the roll with a rapid lateral cyclic input, the teeter
stops usually contact the mast. With little or no thrust on the rotor, the
fuselage will not follow the rotor tilt. The rotor will tilt, but the fuselage
will remain in the uncommanded roll attitude, and the teeter stops will contact
the mast.
In the case of an uncommanded roll in a low-g situation, the pilot should apply
aft cyclic to load the rotor, then slowly correct the pitch and roll attitudes.
Robinson's CFI training course teaches students to recognize and recover from
conditions which may induce a mast bumping incident. Students, with highly
experienced instructors aboard, are exposed to flight conditions which show the
onset of an uncommanded roll during a low-g maneuver.
Cheers,
Gordon.
ski...@outdrs.net
of the earth flying = climb over hill to sneak upon enemy or climb to
avoid eneny fire then trying to dive quickly to lower altitude.
When climbing to altitude in a R-22 & you suddenly push forward on
cyclic to avoid bird or whatever,you can unload the main rotor blades
- R-22 then starts rolling to the right,your natural reaction is to
apply left cyclic which unloads the the blades even more & causes the
blades to start an aggressive flapping = mast bumping. The proper
action is to apply gradual aft cyclic to reload the M/R blades,then
gradually apply forward cyclic to continue flight.
SFAR 73 covers this in detail. Frank Robinson & FAA used to require
every R-22 pilot to actually go thru a flight demonstration before
they could solo a R-22. Some accidents were caused by this in flight
demonstration. Now I believe you only watch a video to get a sign off.
I had to go thru the in flight demo 3 times before instructor could
sign my log book. "Light in the seat of the pants feeling is not good
in a R-22"! When you recognise that felling you know trouble is just
ahead if you don't do everything right = matter of seconds.
Ed Randolph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Fetters <fetters...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3EE767...@sbcglobal.net>...
ski...@outdrs.net
gimble bearing type internal control rods was not problem other than
making the M-5 cyclic super senstive.
Ed Randolph Ser. # 0005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in4mwd.do...@amsat.org wrote in message news:<3ee7a96c...@rsnews.rapidsys.com>...
Darrel Toepfer
>
> >Instead you should explain the mast bumping of your M500 deathtrap,
> >shouldn't you, you bum.
>
> Oy, here we go..............
Well the most common thing I read, was their ability to frequently, cut the
tail off...
Stephen Austin
>in a R-22"!
Not good in pretty much any of the helicopters I've flown. It's just that some
are more forgiving than others. Heck, I went so negative in a Bell 47 one time
that if I hadn't had my seatbelt on I would have flown over the cyclic. I
think it's safe to write that I wouldn't be here typing this if I had been in a
Robbie.
Stephen Austin
Austin Ag Aviation
Charleston, Missouri
Gavin Oughton
John <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:q9JFa.17907$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
with an immediate forward input. Slightly different than you suggested.
Different to a quick stop where use use heavy aft cyclic then centre the
cyclic. That's O.K
I have an R22 manual here somewhere. I should check. I think I'm right. I
don't know if problems re mast bumping were associated with other A/Cradt
before the R22.
Gavin
amb...@bigpond.com.au
>
>
>
>
Dennis Fetters
Better yet, I'll let you explain it. Please, tell us all of a single
documented case of Mini-500 mast bumping. You can't, but that doesn't
mean it couldn't occur. The Mini-500 would be susceptible to mast
bumping, if the pilot would place the aircraft into that situation.
You shouldn't be calling anybody names, after all your the one that just
made an untrue, unfounded and uncalled for statement. What would that
make you?
Dennis Fetters
ski...@outdrs.net wrote:
> The Other Dennis,I'll not start on the Mini-500 can of worms . The
> gimble bearing type internal control rods was not problem other than
> making the M-5 cyclic super senstive.
> Ed Randolph Ser. # 0005
That's funny. Everyone else has always said that the Mini-500 was one of
the most stable and easy to control helicopters they ever flown.
Dennis Fetters
Please, explain to us the foundations of such a statement. Against all
information found through the NTSB and DOT, please show us how you came
to such an untrue conclusion.
Dennis Fetters
n4mwd.don...@amsat.org wrote:
> lf...@aol.com (Murphy's law) wrote:
>
>
>>Instead you should explain the mast bumping of your M500 deathtrap,
>>shouldn't you, you bum.
>
>
> I've heard a lot of bad things about the Mini-500, but are there
> really any NTSB reports to back up those claims? Are the problems
> related to the CH-7 style internal swash plate?
>
> How many mini's were sold? I have seen them in the NTSB reports I
> have looked at, but they are dwarfed by the big boys (execs, r22s,
> etc.)
>
> Dennis (The other one)
>
What you hear is people as above making untrue statements that know
nothing or little about the Mini-500. Good luck with your quest for
knowledge.
Stephen Austin
>> Is it possible to have a mast bumping experience and not have have the
>rotor
>> break off ?
Yes, it is possible to bump the mast and not have the rotor head break off, but
undoubtedly the mast will be damaged and if not attended to will eventually
fail.
Mast bumping has the potential to occur in any underslung rotor system. That
includes most Bell products, most Hiller products, the Robinson (as noted), and
just about any other helicopter with a semi-rigid rotor head (which, for all
intents and purposes, includes just about any helicopter with two main rotor
blades). The term "mast-bumping" did not originate with the Robinson. I don't
remember for sure, but it would be my guess that the phenomenon was first
experienced in Bell helicopters. I know that the early Jet Rangers had some
cases of it occuring, as well as the 47 series. It does take much more "effort"
to bump the mast in a Bell than it does a Robbie though. As noted in a
previous post, I'm living proof of that.
Hehe, if it is possible for a pilot to screw something up then you can bet it's
gonna happen.
>> I think I understand how mast bumping can occur:
>> Large and fast cyclic inputs while the rotor disc is unloaded and in
>> negative G.
>> I understand that this can brought about by a fast forward cyclic movement
>> (pushover) followed by fast aft cyclic while in forward flight.
No, that will load the system positively. Negative loading is usually induced
by aft cyclic with climb initiation (which positively loads the system)
followed by forward cyclic (which unloads the rotor). The bumping can then
occur as you stated, but it doesn't necessarily take large and/or fast cyclic
inputs to bump the mast. It depends as much on how "unloaded" the system is as
much as anything.
>>But what
kind of movement on the cyclic in terms of centimetres or feet per second
>is
>> required to bring about mast bumping in the r22 ?
>>
>> I have 65hrs in the r22 and haven't flown in years. Of course i always
>flew
>> within the limits and we are trained to know the limits. Usually limits
>are
>> described with numbers (airspeeds, weights, power settings ) which allow a
>> safety margin. Mast bumping can't be described this way, or can it?
Mast bumping really can't be defined by something like "less than ten miles per
hour forward airspeed, twenty to one hundred percent power being produced and a
greater than three hundred feet per minute descent" (remember what that is?).
Mast bumping is best avoided by knowing the cause and paying close attention to
the way your ass feels in the seat. If you feel like you've suddenly lost
weight and feel like you're about to start flying around the cabin you best
increase collective and be real gentle. Seat of the pants flying at its best.
Murphy's law
> Murphy's law wrote:
> > Dennis Fetters <fetters...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3EE767...@sbcglobal.net>...
> >>
> >>few of the UH and Cobra helicopters. There are two types of mast
> >>bumping: In flight and ground.
> >>
> >>Ground mast bumping can occur at prolonged rotor run-up and rundown
> >>points of the operation, and is common if the pilot fails to lower the
> >>collective all the way, and there is some wind present. This will cause
> >>more lift alternating on one blade, then the other, causing the rotor
> >>head stops to bump the mast. It was discovered that prolonged ground
> >>mast bumping could fatigue the mast and cause it to fail in flight.
> >>
> >>In flight mast bumping could occur during a negative G maneuver, causing
> >>the rotor to unload and the rotor head stops would violently hit the
> >>mast, causing immediate or later failures.
> >
> > Instead you should explain the mast bumping of your M500 deathtrap,
> > shouldn't you, you bum.
>
> Better yet, I'll let you explain it. Please, tell us all of a single
> documented case of Mini-500 mast bumping. You can't, but that doesn't
> mean it couldn't occur. The Mini-500 would be susceptible to mast
> bumping, if the pilot would place the aircraft into that situation.
>
> You shouldn't be calling anybody names, after all your the one that just
> made an untrue, unfounded and uncalled for statement. What would that
> make you?
Mast bumping was a disaster in Vietnam and your fraudulently designed
flying coffin is a catastrophe in the USA.
My statement is correct : if you talk about mast bumping, you should
refer to your own creation instead of others'.
How many docunented cases? How many kits were flying?
I do make a correction : instead of bum you're a real Amarican red
neck.
What does that make me? Certainly not a liar!
Peter Maus
Wow. As I begin my training, reading this, I have to ask...is this
that "Brotherhood of Pilots" my grandfather used to talk about?
ski...@outdrs.net
Light in the seat wasn't fun in a CH-46 either,since pilot was diving
to get behind hill to avoid enemy fire on the way to Duc
Pho,S.V.M.,late 66.
How is the Walter Turbine doing? I don't know how you ag pilots stay
pos.G when doing crop duster turns. Guess it isn't critical in F/W.
Looks like fun (from the ground He He).
Fly Safe
Ed Randolph
Stephen Austin
>to get behind hill to avoid enemy fire on the way to Duc
>Pho,S.V.M.,late 66.
> How is the Walter Turbine doing? I don't know how you ag pilots stay
>pos.G when doing crop duster turns. Guess it isn't critical in F/W.
>Looks like fun (from the ground He He).
>
>Fly Safe
>Ed Randolph
>
>
Howdy Ed.
Hehe, I doubt that being shot at is fun at +1 in a CH-46, much less taking it
negative.
The Walter is doing great, although it is no longer mine. I sold it to a Cajun
guy in Abbeville, LA in the heart of Arcadia. I loved that Cat but my business
has gotten so big and spread out that the ferry times for the Cat were killing
me. It was a 400 gallon hopper and full I could make about 130. I now have a
510 gallon Thrush ( http://www.qualityaero.com/Thrush510.html ) powered by a
Garrett TPE 331-10 (1000 horses) turbine. It will make Vne with a full load.
Hehe, first ag plane I've ever owned that I actually have to reign in. And
it's air conditioned. The gods have smiled upon me. I've almost forgotten
what it's like to go home at night with my face on fire from pyrethroids!
I do still own a Cat though. One of the six other ag businesses that I have
bought out since I started came with a 1969 A Model AgCat powered by a P&W R985
(450 horses). It was kinda rough and after making a half-hearted attempt at
selling it for over a year I bit the bullet and had it rebuilt. It's a sweet
looking little bird. And, I had the shop make me a seat and windscreen to fit
in the hopper. I can still use the plane for spraying if I want because I had
them design the seat to come out quickly. I'm planning on listing it for sale
but in the meantime I'm gonna use it for some PR work. My twentieth high
school reunion is this year and I'm having a party at my hangar for all my
classmates. I've offered to give rides in it then and it seems to have
generated a lot of excitement. Crop dusting is something that tons of people
are fascinated by but there is really no practical way for a layperson to
experience it. Hehe, well, for better or worse I'm gonna change that in my
neck of the woods. My phone is already ringing off the hook from people who
want a ride. So I'm gonna oblige. Flying a 450 Cat is a far cry from my Turbo
Thrush but somehow I doubt most will ever notice.
As for the turns, well, they're pretty much always positive. Sometimes I'll
crank it over past the ninety degree mark when I'm really working it but I
always keep it positive (or those are my intentions anyway) .
Good hearing from you. You fly safe too.
Beav
Are you STILL fending off attacks Denny? Seems like you're something of a
masochist to me posting on this group. It's my bet that every single bit of
information you feel obligated to pass on will be picked at, poked at, torn
apart and eventually shoved right back up your ass. (It'd be your arse if
you were over here, but as you're not...) which I for one would pay good
money to see.
What compels you to take it I wonder.
Beav (the liar)
Rhodesst
>that "Brotherhood of Pilots" my grandfather used to talk about?
>
Hi Pete,
First, the answer is "NO", this isn't the "Brotherhood of Pilots" your
grandfather talked about, fortunately!
I don't know how new you are to this forum but the argument going on is a
"very" old one. It goes back almost a decade now and feelings are obviously
still running very strong.
"John" asked a perfectly legitimate question about mast bumping and "Dennis
Fetters" did a reasonably good job of answering it. Unfortuantely, "Murphy's
Law" couldn't leave it alone and had to dredge up an argument that most of us
have heard over and over again for more times than I can remember. Personally,
I think he's being a total arse on this one. His comments were not appropriate
in this particular discussion.
If you're not familiar with what I'm talking about and are curious, try a web
and/or newsgroup search on "Mini500" and "Dennis Fetters". You'll get about
six months of reading, most of it, VERY heated.
I wish you all the best in your flight training, fly safe!
Steve R.
Dennis Fetters
Murphy's law wrote:
>>>Instead you should explain the mast bumping of your M500 deathtrap,
>>>shouldn't you, you bum.
>>
>>
>>Better yet, I'll let you explain it. Please, tell us all of a single
>>documented case of Mini-500 mast bumping. You can't, but that doesn't
>>mean it couldn't occur. The Mini-500 would be susceptible to mast
>>bumping, if the pilot would place the aircraft into that situation.
>>
>>You shouldn't be calling anybody names, after all your the one that just
>>made an untrue, unfounded and uncalled for statement. What would that
>>make you?
>
>
> Mast bumping was a disaster in Vietnam and your fraudulently designed
> flying coffin is a catastrophe in the USA.
> My statement is correct : if you talk about mast bumping, you should
> refer to your own creation instead of others'.
> How many docunented cases? How many kits were flying?
> I do make a correction : instead of bum you're a real Amarican red
> neck.
> What does that make me? Certainly not a liar!
First, who are you to be telling anybody what they should and should not
talk about? What have you done to toot your horn? Nothing I've ever
heard about, except mouthing off. The question you left unanswered if
still posted above....... waiting.
Next, I've never been called a red neck, nor have I ever done anything
to be considered a red neck. As a matter of fact, I get along very
nicely with "other than white" people, and I don't pick fights. You are
the one calling names, and you are the one picking an unprovoked fight!
I'm sure all reading here would have to say that you fit the description
of a red neck better than I. So, how many pickups do you own, and how
many can you readily account for?
You have lowered yourself to the level of name calling. How much lower
can you go? I bet deep.
If you can't answer my question clearly asked above about Mini-500 mast
bumping, then yes, you have made yourself a liar.
Dennis Fetters
I'm glad you have excepted your true description. I must at least
respect you in the smallest way for that. Take heart, it's a big step up
for you.
On the other hand, you have always acted like a punk kid hanging out
with the bully's on the block, protected by them, only sticking your
head out for a rood comment and then hiding behind the others.
I will never let people like you dictate to me when and where I will
speak. I'm man enough to fight my own battles where necessary and have
never ran from a fight when provoked.
Yes, you would be the kind of person that would stand by and do nothing
when someone is being unjustly chastised, and you're to wimpy to join in
yourself.
It's true, I'm not over there in your country, by choice. Unlike you, I
enjoy the difference living as a citizen, and not a subject.
Go play with your toy helicopters and only dream of doing something
real. You Beav, are a sad story.
Peter Maus
Rhodesst wrote:
>
> > Wow. As I begin my training, reading this, I have to ask...is this
> >that "Brotherhood of Pilots" my grandfather used to talk about?
> >
>
> Hi Pete,
>
> First, the answer is "NO", this isn't the "Brotherhood of Pilots" your
> grandfather talked about, fortunately!
>
I thought not. Good to hear.
> I don't know how new you are to this forum but the argument going on is a
> "very" old one. It goes back almost a decade now and feelings are obviously
> still running very strong.
>
I've been lurking for a number of years, now. I've seen this
argument before. Both here and other fora where I've participated.
What amazes me is people who gather to celebrate a common interest,
share experiences, information, tips and news, who end up shooting
at each other over the very interest that brings them together.
Me...I read a lot of what goes on here, filter much and say
little. Until I have something based in experience to share. In
time, perhaps.
> "John" asked a perfectly legitimate question about mast bumping and "Dennis
> Fetters" did a reasonably good job of answering it. Unfortuantely, "Murphy's
> Law" couldn't leave it alone and had to dredge up an argument that most of us
> have heard over and over again for more times than I can remember. Personally,
> I think he's being a total arse on this one. His comments were not appropriate
> in this particular discussion.
>
> If you're not familiar with what I'm talking about and are curious, try a web
> and/or newsgroup search on "Mini500" and "Dennis Fetters". You'll get about
> six months of reading, most of it, VERY heated.
So I've noticed.
The issue of mast bumping raised a lot of questions for me, being
very new to the experience, although my interest in helicopters goes
back to Chuck and P.T. I've actually started training more than
once, but career got in the way each time, and twice my wife threw
out all my books and medical certificates. She's gone, now, and
the chihuahua doesn't have the combination to the safe. The dog
also likes to fly.
This time, nothing will get in the way.
But what I appreciate about the cooler heads that prevail here, is
that most of my questions get answered by experienced pilots,
without me having to ask them. Taken with what my instructor will
tell me, I get a very broad picture very quickly about what
otherwise would be opaque to my inexperience.
Heated discussions are also frequently helpful, but when the
brotherhood of common experience factionalizes, there is a lot
lost.
>
> I wish you all the best in your flight training, fly safe!
Thanks. I learned decades ago, riding motorcycles, that there are
no old, stupid riders. This thinking applies in at least equal
measure to aviation.
End of comment. Return to lurking mode.
Be seeing you.
p
Clark
[snip]
>
>
> I'm glad you have excepted your true description. I must at least
> respect you in the smallest way for that. Take heart, it's a big step
> up for you.
>
Is English a second language for you?
Oh, by the way, how many Mini-500s have you sold this year? How many people
killed themselves in the Mini-500? How many times have you crashed a Mini-
500? What will Revolution's bottom line be this year?
Clark
"Putting out fires with gasoline"
Beav
Please..... don't. When I want respect from you, you'll be the last to get
the request.
Take heart, it's a big step up
> for you.
That'll still put me a few hundred steps up from you, but I won't let that
stop me taking the piss out of you.
>
> On the other hand, you have always acted like a punk kid hanging out
> with the bully's on the block, protected by them,
Yeah, and I wonder why you think "they" would "protect me". Is it because
that's how you operate?
only sticking your
> head out for a rood comment and then hiding behind the others.
That's "rude" comment.
>
> I will never let people like you dictate to me when and where I will
> speak.
I can't recal dictating, I was merely asking a question (rhetorical though
it may have been)
I'm man enough to fight my own battles where necessary and have
> never ran from a fight when provoked.
No shit? I wonder why it was that you flew the coop some time back then? (Of
course, you'll now try to tell us you didn't, but we know different don't we
Mr Liar)
>
> Yes, you would be the kind of person that would stand by and do nothing
> when someone is being unjustly chastised, and you're to wimpy to join in
> yourself.
Chastised??? Get hold of yourself Denny. You should try reading what you've
written before you post, then maybe you'd have second thoughts about hitting
"Send".
>
> It's true, I'm not over there in your country, by choice. Unlike you, I
> enjoy the difference living as a citizen, and not a subject.
Yeah right.
>
> Go play with your toy helicopters and only dream of doing something
> real. You Beav, are a sad story.
Indeed I am, but rather me a saddy than you a complete tosser who has NO
respect from anyone I've ever spoken to.
Beav
Murphy's law
> Murphy's law wrote:
> >>>Instead you should explain the mast bumping of your M500 deathtrap,
> >>>shouldn't you, you bum.
> >>
> > neck.
> > What does that make me? Certainly not a liar!
>
> to be considered a red neck.
>
> can you go? I bet deep.
>
>
Let's get deeper. Let the truth be known.
End of November 1999, Excelsior Spring MO, RHCI home base.
A visitor was at the glass door of the RHCI office.
Door locked, visitor ringing door bell & knoking on door.
You were sneaking out of shop into office to see who's at the door.
Visitor saw you inside the office.
You noticed you had been seen.
You ducked under a desk in office.
Visitor saw you sneaking back to shop from under a desk in office like
a little grey mickey mouse.
This fact is even recorded in a law suit against you personally for
fraud (Voyager500, CV100-1475CC)
Conclusion : you hide behind closed doors, you hide behind other
people's design (Cicare), you cry like a baby in a court trial that
you're inocent, you hide behind your sweet smooth talk.
So this is your real being.
For the crowd : I'm sorry that I brought this matter here.
Helicopter flight is sometimes a bumpy ride just like life itself.
ski...@outdrs.net
Hey Stephen, Hope you don't take any old rivals for a hop & hit the
dump button on the hopper!! Re:Hey,Joe,Remmber that date you stole
back at H S senior prom, guess what?"" bombs away""!! HEE HAW!!
Flying (commercial)into Springfield,MO (little south of you I guess)
the weekend of the 4 th. July. Doing the Branson/Wedding thing. Gonna
check out the lakes in the area for a couple of days & see if MO has
any fish worth catching.
Give Joe a break, he didn't know you had a date w/her that night!!Hee
Hee
Ed Randolph
Stephen Austin
>dump button on the hopper!! Re:Hey,Joe,Remmber that date you stole
>back at H S senior prom, guess what?"" bombs away""!! HEE HAW!!
> Flying (commercial)into Springfield,MO (little south of you I guess)
>the weekend of the 4 th. July. Doing the Branson/Wedding thing. Gonna
>check out the lakes in the area for a couple of days & see if MO has
>any fish worth catching.
>
> Give Joe a break, he didn't know you had a date w/her that night!!Hee
>Hee
> Ed Randolph
>
>
>
Hmm, well, Transland gate on this Cat, so unless Joe is 23"x 6" he doesn't have
much to worry about. Of course, if it comes to that, I can always just roll
inverted and dump him. :^)
Springfield is a great city. I lived there for about three and a half years
when I was going to professional flight school and when I was instructing after
I finished my airplane and helicopter ratings. We flew out of 2K2, Ozark
Airpark South.
As for position, I'm actually almost due east of Springfield on the other side
of the state. SGF is southwest MO and I live in southeast MO. Right on the
banks of the muddy Mississippi. For reference, I'm a plowboy, as opposed to
the ridgerunners in southwest MO.
Great fishing in Branson. Lake Taneycomo if you like trout. It's the largest
spring fed trout lake in the US if I remember correctly. Table Rock Lake for
the rest of the gamefish. If you really want to check out something cool, see
if you can find a local who will take you noodling for suckers. Hehe, sounds
kinda depraved but it's fun. Plenty of little ponds around there that are home
to big fat bullfrogs with nice juicy legs if you like that kind of delicacy
(one of my favorites). Anyway enjoy SGF and Branson, there's lots to do and
you'll have a great time.
terra
>
> Plenty of little ponds around there that are home
> to big fat bullfrogs with nice juicy legs if you like that kind of delicacy
> (one of my favorites).
It all makes sense now. I think you cropduster guys might be partly responsible
for those 7-legged frogs, huh?
:-)
n4mwd.don...@amsat.org
>
> ski...@outdrs.net wrote:
> > The Other Dennis,I'll not start on the Mini-500 can of worms . The
> > gimble bearing type internal control rods was not problem other than
> > making the M-5 cyclic super senstive.
> > Ed Randolph Ser. # 0005
>
>
> That's funny. Everyone else has always said that the Mini-500 was one of
> the most stable and easy to control helicopters they ever flown.
I simply don't like gimbal bearing internal swash plates. I don't
know if the Mini-500 ever had any problems in that respect, but I like
to have stuff where I can look at it and see if it is still tight,
etc.
I don't know much about the mini-500 other than the few web sites that
I was able to find, however, it appears that (other than the swash
plate) the power distribution mechanism is very similar to the R22.
That is, a horizonal engine, a main trasnmission, a TR transmission,
and belts to a common transmission shaft.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind having one if it wasn't for that gimbal
swash plate. In all fairness, most of the mini-500 NTSB reports that
I did see listed a Siezed Rotax engine as the reason it crashed. I
assume it has some kind of sprag clutch in there. It was because of
this that I have decided to steer clear of rotax engines. I'm
considering builing an AW95, and I'm pretty fixated on the Hirth
engines because of their resistance to siezure.
The guy that designed the Mini-500 should have gone wankel. The power
to weight ratio is very close to the T62 turbine at a fraction of the
cost. They can be built either air or water cooled and are virtually
immune from siezure.
Dennis Hawkins.
terra
Well, I don't think Steve appreciated my joke :-/
Stephen Austin
HEHEHHeHeHehehehahahaaarg. <courtesy laugh
Naw, it wasn't that terra. Hey, I enjoy the seven-legged frog at crop duster's
expense just as much as any. :^) Fact is I just now saw it. Been really busy
all weekend. Lotta frogs out there to mutate before I'm done, don't ya know.
Dennis Fetters
Clark wrote:
> Dennis Fetters <fetters...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:3EE9F5BD...@sbcglobal.net:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>>I'm glad you have excepted your true description. I must at least
>>respect you in the smallest way for that. Take heart, it's a big step
>>up for you.
>>
>
> Is English a second language for you?
No, but I do have a second and third. How about you? So what's your
point anyway?
> Oh, by the way, how many Mini-500s have you sold this year? How many people
> killed themselves in the Mini-500? How many times have you crashed a Mini-
> 500? What will Revolution's bottom line be this year?
What kind of question is that? What business would it be of yours? What
relevancy will it have to answering a dudes question about mast bumping?
Why would I want to discuss these things with you, and to what point?
> Clark
> "Putting out fires with gasoline"
I think you just answered these questions with your self description. Is
that something one should be proud of? Is that the best point you can
describe yourself with?
I'm not trying to start an argument with you, but what are you trying to
prove?
Dennis Fetters
Murphy's law wrote:
> Dennis Fetters <fetters...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3EE9EFA7...@sbcglobal.net>...
>
>>Murphy's law wrote:
>>
>>>>>Instead you should explain the mast bumping of your M500 deathtrap,
>>>>>shouldn't you, you bum.
>>>>
>>>I do make a correction : instead of bum you're a real Amarican red
>>>neck.
>>>What does that make me? Certainly not a liar!
>>
>>Next, I've never been called a red neck, nor have I ever done anything
>>to be considered a red neck.
>>
>>How much lower
>>can you go? I bet deep.
>>
>>
>
> Ok, your bet is on.
What kind of answer is that? It has nothing to do with the challenge I
made to you. As a matter of fact, you deleted that part and changed the
subject to cover your inability to answer. Here, I'll post it again. Why
don't you just admit you were wrong to make the false accusation and be
done with it?:
>>""Murphy's law wrote:
>>Instead you should explain the mast bumping of your
>>M500 deathtrap, shouldn't you, you bum.
>
>Dennis Fetters wrote:
>Better yet, I'll let you explain it. Please, tell us
>all of a single documented case of Mini-500 mast bumping.
>You can't, but that doesn't mean it couldn't occur.
>The Mini-500 would be susceptible to mast bumping, if the
>pilot would place the aircraft into that situation.""
You can't stand behind your words. You are wrong with your statement.
You have no credibility whatsoever.
> Let's get deeper. Let the truth be known.
Your truth? I think we have just proven you make things up, haven't we?
> End of November 1999, Excelsior Spring MO, RHCI home base.
> A visitor was at the glass door of the RHCI office.
> Door locked, visitor ringing door bell & knoking on door.
> You were sneaking out of shop into office to see who's at the door.
> Visitor saw you inside the office.
> You noticed you had been seen.
> You ducked under a desk in office.
> Visitor saw you sneaking back to shop from under a desk in office like
> a little grey mickey mouse.
This is a fabricated story. I never did such a thing. I can't answer for
anyone else that was in the office, but I always told the visitors I saw
that we were closed.
> This fact is even recorded in a law suit against you personally for
> fraud (Voyager500, CV100-1475CC)
> Conclusion : you hide behind closed doors, you hide behind other
> people's design (Cicare), you cry like a baby in a court trial that
> you're inocent, you hide behind your sweet smooth talk.
> So this is your real being.
Anyone can sue for anything and say anything, just like you!, that don't
mean their right or can unjustly win in the end.
> For the crowd : I'm sorry that I brought this matter here.
> Helicopter flight is sometimes a bumpy ride just like life itself.
No you're not. You do it intentionally. Who you trying to fool? Answer
the challenge or shut up.
Dennis Fetters
n4mwd.don...@amsat.org wrote:
> Dennis Fetters <fetters...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>ski...@outdrs.net wrote:
>>
>>>The Other Dennis,I'll not start on the Mini-500 can of worms . The
>>>gimble bearing type internal control rods was not problem other than
>>>making the M-5 cyclic super senstive.
>>> Ed Randolph Ser. # 0005
>>
>>
>>That's funny. Everyone else has always said that the Mini-500 was one of
>>the most stable and easy to control helicopters they ever flown.
>
>
> I simply don't like gimbal bearing internal swash plates. I don't
> know if the Mini-500 ever had any problems in that respect, but I like
> to have stuff where I can look at it and see if it is still tight,
> etc.
Hi Dennis Hawkins. Please allow me to answer some of your statements and
questions.
> I don't know much about the mini-500 other than the few web sites that
> I was able to find, however, it appears that (other than the swash
> plate) the power distribution mechanism is very similar to the R22.
> That is, a horizonal engine, a main trasnmission, a TR transmission,
> and belts to a common transmission shaft.
True
> Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind having one if it wasn't for that gimbal
> swash plate.
As I said before, the control system in the Mini-500 was one of the most
stable and simple systems in any helicopter. We never had any problems
people qualified to fly helicopters controlling a Mini-500. In fact at
our first open house, we allowed over 50 people to fly the only Mini in
existence at that time, and just before Oshkosh. They all said it was a
stable helicopter.
> In all fairness, most of the mini-500 NTSB reports that
> I did see listed a Siezed Rotax engine as the reason it crashed.
Correct. And most was because they would not replace the jetting to what
was needed, as told to do to their density altitude, or poor fuel less
than 87 octane.
> I assume it has some kind of sprag clutch in there.
Yes.
> It was because of
> this that I have decided to steer clear of rotax engines. I'm
> considering builing an AW95, and I'm pretty fixated on the Hirth
> engines because of their resistance to siezure.
You better ask Ultrasport about the resistance to seizures! Also, the
Hirth didn't have oil injection, which is an absolute necessity for real
helicopter operation. It will only hirth for a little while.
> The guy that designed the Mini-500 should have gone wankel. The power
> to weight ratio is very close to the T62 turbine at a fraction of the
> cost. They can be built either air or water cooled and are virtually
> immune from siezure.
What Wankel? Where? Who is supplying a Wankel engine new in the box and
can deliver 5 a week, then or now? No one. Rotax is one of the best
engines made, and most all problems associated with Rotax engines are
poor engine installation, poor fuel, improper jetting and zero
maintenance applied.
A T62 is not a turbine. It is an APU, and not suited for man carrying
applications. It dose not have a high enough duty cycle to fly a
helicopter of extended use, and most importantly it has no containment
casing for "when" it explodes, taking off your tail boom. I have seen
one explode, and it happens often. It is most impressive and unsettling.
Realistically, if people had problems making a Rotax run, can you
imagine these people keeping an APU or turbine running? What a disaster
in the makings.
Hope I have answered your questions.
Sincerely,
Dave Jackson
> > this that I have decided to steer clear of rotax engines. I'm
> > considering builing an AW95, and I'm pretty fixated on the Hirth
> > engines because of their resistance to siezure.
>
>
> You better ask Ultrasport about the resistance to seizures! Also, the
> Hirth didn't have oil injection, which is an absolute necessity for real
> helicopter operation. It will only hirth for a little while.
>
Just a couple of comments in addition to Dennis's.
I think that Hirth modified their two-cyilnder and four-cylinder engines,
which are used in the Ultrasport helicopters. This was because the engines
are mounted vertically and oil was not getting to the upper crankshaft
bearing. They are now providing some means of 'oiling' the engines.
In any case, an engine that is turning twice as fast and firing four time as
frequently as a Lycoming can never have the same reliability.
Dave J
Murphy's law
Yeah sure, all your jiberish is credible. The only credible thing you
have is your Credit Report showing a Judgment against you personally
for fraud. How many times did you lose the same lawsuit (original &
countersuit) and appeals?
The guy is very credible who won 4-5 times against you for fraud. He
knew you personally from the HAI helicopter show in Dallas, Texas
1999. Same guy saw you crawling like a rat back to your hole. You even
told the guy that he should not have sued you personally for not
returning the Voyager500 deposit money. What kind of unjust are you
refering to if I may ask?
Here is a link to your M500 mast bumping, one of many :
www.schlosserei-froehlich.de
Dennis Fetters
Murphy's law wrote:
>>>>Murphy's law wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Instead you should explain the mast bumping of your M500 deathtrap,
>>>>>>>shouldn't you, you bum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I do make a correction : instead of bum you're a real Amarican red
>>>>>neck.
>>>>>What does that make me? Certainly not a liar!
>>>>
>>>>Next, I've never been called a red neck, nor have I ever done anything
>>>>to be considered a red neck.
>>>>
>>>>How much lower
>>What kind of answer is that? It has nothing to do with the challenge I
>>made to you. As a matter of fact, you deleted that part and changed the
>>subject to cover your inability to answer. Here, I'll post it again. Why
>>don't you just admit you were wrong to make the false accusation and be
>>done with it?:
>>
>> >>""Murphy's law wrote:
>> >>Instead you should explain the mast bumping of your
>> >>M500 deathtrap, shouldn't you, you bum.
>> >
>> >Dennis Fetters wrote:
>> >Better yet, I'll let you explain it. Please, tell us
>> >all of a single documented case of Mini-500 mast bumping.
>> >You can't, but that doesn't mean it couldn't occur.
>> >The Mini-500 would be susceptible to mast bumping, if the
>> >pilot would place the aircraft into that situation.""
>>
>>You can't stand behind your words. You are wrong with your statement.
>>You have no credibility whatsoever.
>>
> Yeah sure, all your jiberish is credible. The only credible thing you
> have is your Credit Report showing a Judgment against you personally
> for fraud. How many times did you lose the same lawsuit (original &
> countersuit) and appeals?
> The guy is very credible who won 4-5 times against you for fraud. He
> knew you personally from the HAI helicopter show in Dallas, Texas
> 1999. Same guy saw you crawling like a rat back to your hole. You even
> told the guy that he should not have sued you personally for not
> returning the Voyager500 deposit money. What kind of unjust are you
> refering to if I may ask?
> Here is a link to your M500 mast bumping, one of many :
> www.schlosserei-froehlich.de
You just keep making things up! If you can't dazzle them with
brilliants, then baffle them with bull.
I've made my point about you over and over again. A no-name person with
a big mouth, that's chicken to stand behind what he said. What a man!
That had nothing to do with mast bumping, same challenge stands.
n4mwd.don...@amsat.org
> Correct. And most was because they would not replace the jetting to what
> was needed, as told to do to their density altitude, or poor fuel less
> than 87 octane.
What does the carburetor jet size have to do with engine siezing?
> You better ask Ultrasport about the resistance to seizures! Also, the
> Hirth didn't have oil injection, which is an absolute necessity for real
> helicopter operation. It will only hirth for a little while.
I may do that. I wouldn't want any kind of automatic oil injection on
the engine for the AW95 because of weight. I'm trying to keep it
under the ultralight limit. The Hirth has a TBO of about 1000 hours
and the Rotax is about 200 I think.
> What Wankel? Where? Who is supplying a Wankel engine new in the box and
> can deliver 5 a week, then or now? No one. Rotax is one of the best
> engines made, and most all problems associated with Rotax engines are
> poor engine installation, poor fuel, improper jetting and zero
> maintenance applied.
Well, you could try these people. http://www.atkinsrotary.com/
Of course, they are not the only ones. Anybody with the machining
capability of making a helicopter could easily make a wankel rotary
engine. They are far less complicated than a typical 2 or even 4
cycle engine. A lot of the parts are simply cast AL or cast Fe with
a little machining to make them fit.
A standard Mazda rotary is deliberately choked on HP because of fuel
economy reasons (and probably EPA emissions, etc). By opening the
ports with a milling machine, the same car engine produces several
times the power (over 250 HP). The mini500 should have no problem
getting airborne with 250 HP.
The wankel engine runs at a much slower RPM than the T62 and doesn't
require an expensive and heavy gearbox to slow it down.
Dennis Hawkins.
Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)
"A Recession is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A Depression is when YOU are out of work.
A Recovery is when all the H1-B's are out of work."
(An H-1B is someone who is brought into the USA to replace
American workers at a fraction of the wage.)
n4mwd.don...@amsat.org
>
> Just a couple of comments in addition to Dennis's.
Which one?
>
> I think that Hirth modified their two-cyilnder and four-cylinder engines,
> which are used in the Ultrasport helicopters. This was because the engines
> are mounted vertically and oil was not getting to the upper crankshaft
> bearing. They are now providing some means of 'oiling' the engines.
I am pretty sure that the AW95 requires vertical mounting. The extra
weight of a gearbox would make it go over the ultralight limit. Is
this mod on all new Hirths, or just the ones used on the Ultrasport?
>
> In any case, an engine that is turning twice as fast and firing four time as
> frequently as a Lycoming can never have the same reliability.
See my earlier comments about Wankels. Nothing can touch them. Even
TurboProp engines just barely exceed their power to weight ratio. I'm
really surprised that they aren't the standard in non-turbine
aircrafts.
Dennis Hawkins.
Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)
"A Recession is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A Depression is when YOU are out of work.
A Recovery is when all the H1-B's are out of work."
(An H-1B is someone who is brought into the USA to replace
American workers at a fraction of the wage.)
Dennis Fetters
n4mwd.don...@amsat.org wrote:
> Dennis Fetters <fetters...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Correct. And most was because they would not replace the jetting to what
>>was needed, as told to do to their density altitude, or poor fuel less
>>than 87 octane.
>
>
> What does the carburetor jet size have to do with engine siezing?
Everything. The jet is what allows the correct amount of fuel to enter
the engine, to little and it will seize, Rotax or hirth. The main jet
was responsible for hover, so stock jetting from Rotax seemed to be
fine, but that is the problem. The Mid-range jetting was what needed to
be set up for helicopter use, because when you always run at 100% RPM,
then lower the collective to enter a decent you will lean out the engine
and seize it. People would not follow the instruction because they would
argue that it's running to good in a hover to fix what they would argue
is not broke, and then had problems later.
>>You better ask Ultrasport about the resistance to seizures! Also, the
>>Hirth didn't have oil injection, which is an absolute necessity for real
>>helicopter operation. It will only hirth for a little while.
>
>
> I may do that. I wouldn't want any kind of automatic oil injection on
> the engine for the AW95 because of weight. I'm trying to keep it
> under the ultralight limit. The Hirth has a TBO of about 1000 hours
> and the Rotax is about 200 I think.
Better re-think that, because again, when you lower power settings and
maintain RPM, you cut off your oil supply with throttle setting, while
maintaining engine speed.
>>What Wankel? Where? Who is supplying a Wankel engine new in the box and
>>can deliver 5 a week, then or now? No one. Rotax is one of the best
>>engines made, and most all problems associated with Rotax engines are
>>poor engine installation, poor fuel, improper jetting and zero
>>maintenance applied.
>
>
> Well, you could try these people. http://www.atkinsrotary.com/
> Of course, they are not the only ones.
They were not around 13 years ago when we started, and they still cannot
supply 5 engines a week, new in the box. They only have rebuilt engines.
Can't sell that with a new aircraft kit.
> Anybody with the machining
> capability of making a helicopter could easily make a wankel rotary
> engine. They are far less complicated than a typical 2 or even 4
> cycle engine. A lot of the parts are simply cast AL or cast Fe with
> a little machining to make them fit.
You sure make it sound easy, just whip, slap and shoot, and there ya
go.... Instant engine. It's very obvious you have never had to do it.
I'm sure we could have, but we had no interest in an engine that big for
a single place, nor building engines.
> A standard Mazda rotary is deliberately choked on HP because of fuel
> economy reasons (and probably EPA emissions, etc). By opening the
> ports with a milling machine, the same car engine produces several
> times the power (over 250 HP). The mini500 should have no problem
> getting airborne with 250 HP.
>
> The wankel engine runs at a much slower RPM than the T62 and doesn't
> require an expensive and heavy gearbox to slow it down.
It all sounds great, so why don't we see them all over the sky? An
experimenter can do many things with used engines and parts, but
producing it is what separates the men from the boys. Once you have a
working prototype, you are only 10% finished, it will take 90% more
effort and money to produce it, not the other way around like most
people mistakenly think.
Sincerely,
Dennis Fetters
Clark
>
>
> Clark wrote:
>> Dennis Fetters <fetters...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:3EE9F5BD...@sbcglobal.net:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>>I'm glad you have excepted your true description. I must at least
>>>respect you in the smallest way for that. Take heart, it's a big step
>>>up for you.
>>>
>>
>> Is English a second language for you?
>
>
> No, but I do have a second and third. How about you? So what's your
> point anyway?
>
My point is you posted an incomprehensible sentence: "I'm glad you have
excepted your true description." Are you trying to communicate? If so, I
suggest you use commonly accepted grammer and spelling.
As for languages, do you think we are competing? If so, you are quite
confused.
>
>> Oh, by the way, how many Mini-500s have you sold this year? How many
>> people killed themselves in the Mini-500? How many times have you
>> crashed a Mini- 500? What will Revolution's bottom line be this year?
>
>
> What kind of question is that? What business would it be of yours?
> What relevancy will it have to answering a dudes question about mast
> bumping? Why would I want to discuss these things with you, and to
> what point?
>
You are the one defending the Mini-500. I just pointed out that it has
demonstrated itself to be a failure in terms of commercial viability and
safety. Twist it any way you want to but the facts remain that Revolution
is out of business and many folks were injured or killed in the Mini-500.
>
>> Clark
>> "Putting out fires with gasoline"
>
>
> I think you just answered these questions with your self description.
> Is that something one should be proud of? Is that the best point you
> can describe yourself with?
>
> I'm not trying to start an argument with you, but what are you trying
> to prove?
I'm doing two things: reminding readers that the Mini-500 is a failure
and trolling you for defending it.
>
>
>
n4mwd.don...@amsat.org
> Everything. The jet is what allows the correct amount of fuel to enter
> the engine, to little and it will seize, Rotax or hirth. The main jet
> was responsible for hover, so stock jetting from Rotax seemed to be
> fine, but that is the problem. The Mid-range jetting was what needed to
> be set up for helicopter use, because when you always run at 100% RPM,
> then lower the collective to enter a decent you will lean out the engine
> and seize it. People would not follow the instruction because they would
> argue that it's running to good in a hover to fix what they would argue
> is not broke, and then had problems later.
So are you saying that because the oil is in the fuel that the engine
is not properly lubricated if enough fuel does not enter it? It would
seem that simply adding more, or better, oil to the gas would solve
the problem. Why don't they use sealed bearings in the thing anyway?
> You sure make it sound easy, just whip, slap and shoot, and there ya
> go.... Instant engine. It's very obvious you have never had to do it.
> I'm sure we could have, but we had no interest in an engine that big for
> a single place, nor building engines.
The engine is all castings with some machining - literally. The rotor
housings are aluminum and the sides are cast iron. The most difficult
parts to manufacture are the internal gears. These are high grade and
very hard steel. The aluminum rotor housings have an additional
difficulty because they are chrome plated on the inside. Plating
chrome on aluminum and making it stick and be glass smooth is not as
easy as it sounds. The chrome plating prevents the aluminum from
wearing.
The engine is based on geometry and probably any good cnc mill could
produce one. Its a matter of programming.
As far as a 250 HP engine being too big, all you have to do is a
little math to guestimate what one that is your prefferred size would
be. For example, the 250 HP engine weighs 180 lbs. If you make an
identical engine scaled half as big, say 90 lbs, it should be able to
produce 125 HP with no problem. Of course, its doesn't always work
that way, but that's a good guestimate. Even if a 90 lb wankel could
only produce 100 HP continuous, this should be enough for a mini-500
in a hover.
I've worked with wankels and I've worked with piston engines. I've
made niether. Wankels are vastly superior in every respect except
fuel economy. I suspect that the reason airplanes aren't using them
more often is because the big engine manufacturers are set in their
ways and probably have invested in a lot of tooling that only works
with piston engines. Also, the principles behind a piston engine are
simpler to understand (less math).
Yes, if I had more experience in milling and machining, I would start
my own rotary engine manufacturing company for aircraft. The
reliability and power to weight ratio cannot be ignored. The 2 cycle
industry is about to take a dive because I hear that these engines are
being banned in lawn equipment. This opens the door wide for someone
to build small air cooled wankels for weed eaters and leaf blowers.
Dennis Fetters
> Dennis Fetters <fetters...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Everything. The jet is what allows the correct amount of fuel to enter
>>the engine, to little and it will seize, Rotax or hirth. The main jet
>>was responsible for hover, so stock jetting from Rotax seemed to be
>>fine, but that is the problem. The Mid-range jetting was what needed to
>>be set up for helicopter use, because when you always run at 100% RPM,
>>then lower the collective to enter a decent you will lean out the engine
>>and seize it. People would not follow the instruction because they would
>>argue that it's running to good in a hover to fix what they would argue
>>is not broke, and then had problems later.
>
>
> So are you saying that because the oil is in the fuel that the engine
> is not properly lubricated if enough fuel does not enter it?
Yes. Besides, you want oil injection. Thank about it..... How do you
clean oil off your engine? With gasoline. Oil injectors deliver
droplets of pure oil with viscosity that keeps metal from metal, while
oil mixed with gas is dissolved, giving much less protection.
> It would
> seem that simply adding more, or better, oil to the gas would solve
> the problem. Why don't they use sealed bearings in the thing anyway?
No so. You would be a smoke'n demon, and carbon up your engine in no time.
As I said, you make it sound so easy...... But, I will agree with you
about the rotary engine. When I was working on our two place we flew to
California to talk to a company about building them for us, but it would
have taken years and many many thousands of bucks to develop it. But it
is a good design. To bad you can't buy them new, in a box, 5 a week.....
Sincerely,
Dennis Fetters
Dennis Fetters
>>>>I'm glad you have excepted your true description. I must at least
>>>>respect you in the smallest way for that. Take heart, it's a big step
>>>>up for you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Is English a second language for you?
>>
>>
>>No, but I do have a second and third. How about you? So what's your
>>point anyway?
>>
>
>
> My point is you posted an incomprehensible sentence: "I'm glad you have
> excepted your true description." Are you trying to communicate? If so, I
> suggest you use commonly accepted grammer and spelling.
I completely understood it. Do you have a problem understanding it?
Wouldn't that be your problem, not mine? Sorry, do something about
trying to better understand what others are saying if it bothers you
that much. I sincerely hope you can get over it.
> As for languages, do you think we are competing? If so, you are quite
> confused.
I'm not confused, you made a statement and I made a statement. What's
with you? You think you're the only one here that can make a statement?
>>>Oh, by the way, how many Mini-500s have you sold this year? How many
>>>people killed themselves in the Mini-500? How many times have you
>>>crashed a Mini- 500? What will Revolution's bottom line be this year?
>>
>>
>>What kind of question is that? What business would it be of yours?
>>What relevancy will it have to answering a dudes question about mast
>>bumping? Why would I want to discuss these things with you, and to
>>what point?
>>
>
> You are the one defending the Mini-500. I just pointed out that it has
> demonstrated itself to be a failure in terms of commercial viability and
> safety. Twist it any way you want to but the facts remain that Revolution
> is out of business and many folks were injured or killed in the Mini-500.
Who's arguing with you? Do you think you're stating something we don't
know here? Where you been? As for the Mini-500, I'll answer any false
accusation or question I wish to, and without your permission.
>>>Clark
>>>"Putting out fires with gasoline"
>>
>>
>>I think you just answered these questions with your self description.
>>Is that something one should be proud of? Is that the best point you
>>can describe yourself with?
>>
>>I'm not trying to start an argument with you, but what are you trying
>>to prove?
>
>
> I'm doing two things: reminding readers that the Mini-500 is a failure
> and trolling you for defending it.
Well thank you for appointing yourself as our overseer! Who asked for
you? Go get a life of your own.
Murphy's law
Yeah, right! Your brilliants are bull. Your point of rely is the same
as in your appeal WD61065. NONE. Once in your life you're right,
stating "What a man!". Yes, a Fighter who stands behind his word. OK,
let's get into the thecnical side of mast bumping. If the rotor blades
chop off the tailboom, how on earth it does not ivolve mast bumping?
Exessive blade flapping, mast bumping, blades contact tail boom. Plain
physics. Elementary. By the way, my posting does include my name. You
don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. Read between the
lines!
Dave Jackson
> > I think that Hirth modified their two-cyilnder and four-cylinder
engines,
> > which are used in the Ultrasport helicopters. This was because the
engines
> > are mounted vertically and oil was not getting to the upper crankshaft
> > bearing. They are now providing some means of 'oiling' the engines.
> Dennis Hawkins wrote;
> I am pretty sure that the AW95 requires vertical mounting. The extra
> weight of a gearbox would make it go over the ultralight limit. Is
> this mod on all new Hirths, or just the ones used on the Ultrasport?
Dennis, this page will give you more information on the Hirth models for
helicopters; http://www.unicopter.com/0103.html
For light weight you might consider; http://www.unicopter.com/0961.html
Dave J
Clark
> Clark wrote:
>>>>>I'm glad you have excepted your true description. I must at least
>>>>>respect you in the smallest way for that. Take heart, it's a big
>>>>>step up for you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Is English a second language for you?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, but I do have a second and third. How about you? So what's your
>>>point anyway?
>>>
>>
>>
>> My point is you posted an incomprehensible sentence: "I'm glad you
>> have excepted your true description." Are you trying to communicate?
>> If so, I suggest you use commonly accepted grammer and spelling.
>
>
> I completely understood it. Do you have a problem understanding it?
> Wouldn't that be your problem, not mine? Sorry, do something about
> trying to better understand what others are saying if it bothers you
> that much. I sincerely hope you can get over it.
It is common to confuse accepted and excepted. Is that what you did here?
Did you really mean: "I'm glad you have accepted your true description."
The problem really is yours, Dennis.Do you really want people guessing
about the meaning of your sentences? Hint: that way leads to non-
communication.
>
>
>> As for languages, do you think we are competing? If so, you are quite
>> confused.
>
>
> I'm not confused, you made a statement and I made a statement. What's
> with you? You think you're the only one here that can make a
> statement?
I didn't make a statement, I asked a question. Are you sure you're not
confused?
>
>
>>>>Oh, by the way, how many Mini-500s have you sold this year? How many
>>>>people killed themselves in the Mini-500? How many times have you
>>>>crashed a Mini- 500? What will Revolution's bottom line be this
>>>>year?
>>>
>>>
>>>What kind of question is that? What business would it be of yours?
>>>What relevancy will it have to answering a dudes question about mast
>>>bumping? Why would I want to discuss these things with you, and to
>>>what point?
>>>
>>
>> You are the one defending the Mini-500. I just pointed out that it
>> has demonstrated itself to be a failure in terms of commercial
>> viability and safety. Twist it any way you want to but the facts
>> remain that Revolution is out of business and many folks were injured
>> or killed in the Mini-500.
>
>
> Who's arguing with you? Do you think you're stating something we don't
> know here? Where you been? As for the Mini-500, I'll answer any false
> accusation or question I wish to, and without your permission.
And I'm just as free to point out failings. Keep in mind that the things
you claim are false aren't necessarily so, especially considering the
NTSB database notes many boom strikes and at least one mast bumping. Face
it Dennis, you are biased in this matter and would be better off just
letting things lay where they are.
>
>
>>>>Clark
>>>>"Putting out fires with gasoline"
>>>
>>>
>>>I think you just answered these questions with your self description.
>>>Is that something one should be proud of? Is that the best point you
>>>can describe yourself with?
>>>
>>>I'm not trying to start an argument with you, but what are you trying
>>>to prove?
>>
>>
>> I'm doing two things: reminding readers that the Mini-500 is a
>> failure and trolling you for defending it.
>
>
> Well thank you for appointing yourself as our overseer! Who asked for
> you? Go get a life of your own.
Neener, neener, neener. Welcome to usenet Denny. Who asked for your
defense of the fatally flawed Mini-500? Who asked you to ignore the NTSB
reports? Who believes your biased opinion? Keep after it Denny and you'll
soon earn net-kook status.
n4mwd.don...@amsat.org
>
> > So are you saying that because the oil is in the fuel that the engine
> > is not properly lubricated if enough fuel does not enter it?
>
>
> Yes. Besides, you want oil injection. Thank about it..... How do you
> clean oil off your engine? With gasoline. Oil injectors deliver
> droplets of pure oil with viscosity that keeps metal from metal, while
> oil mixed with gas is dissolved, giving much less protection.
Ok, so you are saying that the oil pump pumps the oil directly into
the bearings of the engine, like a regular 4 cycle, and then the oil
is dissolved by the gas vapor and burnt.
But doesn't that bring us back to where we started? If the oil is
pumped in directly, and not through the carb, why does a bigger jet
make a difference?
> As I said, you make it sound so easy...... But, I will agree with you
> about the rotary engine. When I was working on our two place we flew to
> California to talk to a company about building them for us, but it would
> have taken years and many many thousands of bucks to develop it. But it
> is a good design. To bad you can't buy them new, in a box, 5 a week.....
That is my point. A wankel IS a simple engine. Not counting the
seals, there are only 3 moving parts. No valves, 4 cycles, 1 power
"stroke" per rev per rotor (same as 2 cycle). And if I had the
wherewithal, I would start a company that made them for aircraft use
and get them certified. The latter part would probably be the most
difficult part of the project.
Dennis H.
Dennis Fetters
>>I completely understood it. Do you have a problem understanding it?
>>Wouldn't that be your problem, not mine? Sorry, do something about
>>trying to better understand what others are saying if it bothers you
>>that much. I sincerely hope you can get over it.
>
>
> It is common to confuse accepted and excepted.
No
> Is that what you did here?
No, you're the only one that seems confused.
> Did you really mean: "I'm glad you have accepted your true description."
Yes
> The problem really is yours, Dennis.Do you really want people guessing
> about the meaning of your sentences? Hint: that way leads to non-
> communication.
Really? You are the only one questioning it. Get some education, then
come back so you can understand more clearly.
>>I'm not confused, you made a statement and I made a statement. What's
>>with you? You think you're the only one here that can make a
>>statement?
>
> I didn't make a statement, I asked a question. Are you sure you're not
> confused?
You're like trying to talk to a child. Pointless.
>>>You are the one defending the Mini-500. I just pointed out that it
>>>has demonstrated itself to be a failure in terms of commercial
>>>viability and safety. Twist it any way you want to but the facts
>>>remain that Revolution is out of business and many folks were injured
>>>or killed in the Mini-500.
>>
>>
>>Who's arguing with you? Do you think you're stating something we don't
>>know here? Where you been? As for the Mini-500, I'll answer any false
>>accusation or question I wish to, and without your permission.
>
>
> And I'm just as free to point out failings. Keep in mind that the things
> you claim are false aren't necessarily so, especially considering the
> NTSB database notes many boom strikes and at least one mast bumping. Face
> it Dennis, you are biased in this matter and would be better off just
> letting things lay where they are.
Really? Well why don't you just post it here and back up you running
mouth. Settle the issue, prove your accusations.
>>>>>Clark
>>>>>"Putting out fires with gasoline"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think you just answered these questions with your self description.
>>>>Is that something one should be proud of? Is that the best point you
>>>>can describe yourself with?
>>>>
>>>>I'm not trying to start an argument with you, but what are you trying
>>>>to prove?
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm doing two things: reminding readers that the Mini-500 is a
>>>failure and trolling you for defending it.
>>
>>
>>Well thank you for appointing yourself as our overseer! Who asked for
>>you? Go get a life of your own.
>
>
> Neener, neener, neener. Welcome to usenet Denny.
You act like a child. Grow up.
> Who asked for your
> defense of the fatally flawed Mini-500?
It after all is my business. Did you own a Mini-500. No, so where did
you get the idea you were any body?
> Who asked you to ignore the NTSB
> reports?
Fool, I'm the one here that keeps telling you to go to the NTSB reports
and show us the basses for your false accusations. You have been looking
like an idiot to everyone.
> Who believes your biased opinion? Keep after it Denny and you'll
> soon earn net-kook status.
Who ever want's to, and many now have another opinion thanks to me
coming here and showing them the other side of some people, just like
you! I have you and others to thank for coming here to argue with me,
because it shows everyone here the true character of the people that are
making these false accusations. The more you argue with me, the more I
get the word out, but you are to foolish to see that you are being
played. Keep it up.
You know something else, if you're going to call me by my first name,
then call me Dennis. Only a child calls people childish names. Grow up
if you want to argue with a man.
Dennis Fetters
> Dennis Fetters <fetters...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>So are you saying that because the oil is in the fuel that the engine
>>>is not properly lubricated if enough fuel does not enter it?
>>
>>
>>Yes. Besides, you want oil injection. Thank about it..... How do you
>>clean oil off your engine? With gasoline. Oil injectors deliver
>>droplets of pure oil with viscosity that keeps metal from metal, while
>>oil mixed with gas is dissolved, giving much less protection.
>
>
> Ok, so you are saying that the oil pump pumps the oil directly into
> the bearings of the engine, like a regular 4 cycle, and then the oil
> is dissolved by the gas vapor and burnt.
No, the oil is injected into the intake manifold after the carburetor,
there it is mixed and defused with the air and fuel into micro drops.
After and during it lubricated the bearings and piston skirts, it mixes
with the fuel and is burnt. The oil droplets are higher viscosity, and
stay between and separate the metal surfaces much better than a
completely diluted fuel and oil mixture.
> But doesn't that bring us back to where we started? If the oil is
> pumped in directly, and not through the carb, why does a bigger jet
> make a difference?
Because fuel/air ratio is a different matter than lubrication. If your
engine is capable of pumping more air than the carburetor is capable of
delivering a high enough ratio, the engine will lean and seize. Also, if
the engine is running at 100% RPM, and you reduce the power while
maintaining that RPM, you must maintain the fuel/air ratio, or the
engine will seize. That is why the need to change the jets and needle
jets for helicopter use, because it differs from airplane use.
>>As I said, you make it sound so easy...... But, I will agree with you
>>about the rotary engine. When I was working on our two place we flew to
>>California to talk to a company about building them for us, but it would
>>have taken years and many many thousands of bucks to develop it. But it
>>is a good design. To bad you can't buy them new, in a box, 5 a week.....
>
>
> That is my point. A wankel IS a simple engine. Not counting the
> seals, there are only 3 moving parts. No valves, 4 cycles, 1 power
> "stroke" per rev per rotor (same as 2 cycle). And if I had the
> wherewithal, I would start a company that made them for aircraft use
> and get them certified. The latter part would probably be the most
> difficult part of the project.
>
> Dennis H.
I agree with your point. My point is, as a manufacturer, that there is
no one then or now that can deliver 5 rotary engines a week, new and in
the box. So as a user of multiple amounts of engines, a manufacturer of
aircraft would not have any interest in the greatest engine in the
world, if he cannot obtain them.
Agreed?
Dennis Fetters
Well, it is obvious that you are no rocket scientist to try and say that
if a tail boom gets cut of in and accident that it was mast bumping. By
the way, you better read your contract.
Clark
> Clark wrote:
>>>I completely understood it. Do you have a problem understanding it?
>>>Wouldn't that be your problem, not mine? Sorry, do something about
>>>trying to better understand what others are saying if it bothers you
>>>that much. I sincerely hope you can get over it.
>>
>>
>> It is common to confuse accepted and excepted.
>
>
> No
Yes.
>
>
>> Is that what you did here?
>
>
> No, you're the only one that seems confused.
Wait a minute, in the next response you admit to miss-using "except". You
really are confused.
>
>
>
>> Did you really mean: "I'm glad you have accepted your true
>> description."
>
>
> Yes
Then why did you deny the error? Some sort of ego problem?
>
>
>> The problem really is yours, Dennis.Do you really want people
>> guessing about the meaning of your sentences? Hint: that way leads to
>> non- communication.
>
>
> Really? You are the only one questioning it. Get some education, then
> come back so you can understand more clearly.
Got all the education I need to highlight your shortcomings Denny.
>
>
>>>I'm not confused, you made a statement and I made a statement. What's
>>>with you? You think you're the only one here that can make a
>>>statement?
> >
>> I didn't make a statement, I asked a question. Are you sure you're
>> not confused?
>
>
> You're like trying to talk to a child. Pointless.
Not at all Denny, clarity and attention to detail are quite important in
my line of work. You seem to think such concepts are unimportant. Strange
behavior for someone offering "expert" analysis on the Mini-500.
>
>
>>>>You are the one defending the Mini-500. I just pointed out that it
>>>>has demonstrated itself to be a failure in terms of commercial
>>>>viability and safety. Twist it any way you want to but the facts
>>>>remain that Revolution is out of business and many folks were
>>>>injured or killed in the Mini-500.
>>>
>>>
>>>Who's arguing with you? Do you think you're stating something we
>>>don't know here? Where you been? As for the Mini-500, I'll answer any
>>>false accusation or question I wish to, and without your permission.
>>
>>
>> And I'm just as free to point out failings. Keep in mind that the
>> things you claim are false aren't necessarily so, especially
>> considering the NTSB database notes many boom strikes and at least
>> one mast bumping. Face it Dennis, you are biased in this matter and
>> would be better off just letting things lay where they are.
>
>
> Really? Well why don't you just post it here and back up you running
> mouth. Settle the issue, prove your accusations.
Here are a few NTSB reports for you Denny (note tailboom strikes and a
mast bump):
NTSB Identification: NYC98LA049 . The docket is stored in the (offline)
NTSB Imaging System.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, December 19, 1997 in GETTYSBURG, OH
Probable Cause Approval Date: 7/23/99
Aircraft: Bihn MINI 500, registration: N727EB
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
The homebuilt Mini 500 helicopter was in level flight about 900 to 1200
feet, when the engine sounds stopped. The helicopter's nose dropped, and
one main rotor blade struck the tailboom and separated from the rotor
head. The helicopter descended and struck the ground 90 degrees nose
down. Examination of the non-certificated 2 cycle Rotax engine did not
reveal a reason for the power loss. The engine manufacturer published the
maximum continuous RPM as 6,500. Other builders reported that when the
helicopter's rotor RPM was operated at the top of the green arc, the
engine operated about 6,700 RPM. The NTSB database revealed 23 Mini-500
accidents in 1997 and 1998. Twelve of those involved a loss of engine
power. The Rotax operator's manual stated, '...This engine by design is
subject to sudden stoppage...Never fly the aircraft equipped with this
engine at locations, airspeeds, altitudes...from which a successful no-
power landing cannot be made...'
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s)
of this accident as follows:
A loss of engine power for undetermined reasons, followed by the main
rotor striking the tailboom, which resulted in the separation of a main
rotor blade.
NTSB Identification: FTW97LA328 . The docket is stored in the (offline)
NTSB Imaging System.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, August 26, 1997 in HUFFMAN, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/4/98
Aircraft: FINGERHUT REVOLUTION MINI 500, registration: N570F
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
The student pilot experienced a disconnect of the collective control
system which resulted in the main rotor blades going to flat pitch while
in cruise flight at 800 feet MSL. When the pilot attempted to cushion the
landing by increasing collective pitch, the helicopter yawed to the left
prior to touching down and the helicopter rolled over on its side.
Examination of the wreckage revealed a disconnect of the collective
flight control system between the collective riser block (P/N 0153), and
the rod end (P/N 0600) for the collective control tube. Examination of
the threaded areas of the collective riser block and the rod end revealed
that the threads on the aluminum collective riser block were found to be
displaced or pulled out due to inadequate improper penetration. The
information supplied by the kit manufacturer was insufficient to properly
rig the flight control system.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s)
of this accident as follows:
The disengagement of the helicopter's collective control tube due to
improper installation by the builder. Factors were the lack of sufficient
information provided by the kit manufacturer and the pilot's inability to
cushion the landing.
NTSB Identification: MIA99LA017 . The docket is stored in the (offline)
NTSB Imaging System.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, October 26, 1998 in HICKORY, NC
Probable Cause Approval Date: 8/27/99
Aircraft: Reinhold REVOLUTION MINI 500, registration: N500GQ
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
The pilot stated the engine lost power without warning while in cruise
flight between 500-700 feet. An autorotaion was made to a clear area with
high vegetation. During touchdown on the previously unnoticed uneven
terrain, the main rotor hit the mechanical stop and contacted the
tailboom. The helicopter then spun around 180 degrees and came to rest.
Postcrash examination of the engine showed the rear cylinder had seized
in the barrel. The pilot stated this was the second time this had
happened. The engine had accumulated 46 hours since being rebuilt after
the previous failure.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s)
of this accident as follows:
The seizure of the rear piston in the cylinder barrel resulting in total
loss of engine power and an autorotation which resulted in main rotor
contact with the tail boom while touching down on unsuitable terrain.
NTSB Identification: LAX99LA004 . The docket is stored in the (offline)
NTSB Imaging System.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, October 04, 1998 in MOORPARK, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 9/28/00
Aircraft: Burson REVOLUTION MINI 500, registration: N418MB
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
The helicopter did not return from an afternoon local area flight and the
wreckage was located early the following morning. Both main rotor blades,
the tail rotor assembly, the tail boom, and a section of the tail rotor
drive shaft were found in a debris field approximately 1/8 mile from the
fuselage wreckage. Both main rotor blades separated from the hub outboard
of the root doubler and exhibited leading edge damage near the tip and
downward bending. Additionally, the 'A' blade was bent smoothly aft
approximately 30 degrees over its span. The tail boom was separated from
the fuselage approximately 2 feet forward of the tail rotor gearbox. The
separation exhibited a diagonal slicing appearance from upper forward to
lower aft on the boom. The tail rotor drive shaft was separated at the
same fuselage station as the tail boom, and the shaft had a dented
appearance which resembled the leading edge radius of the main rotor
blade. The main rotor mast exhibited a mast-bumping dent on one side of
the mast at the hub attachment but no similar dent on the opposite side.
Examination of the aircraft did not reveal any mechanical malfunction of
the engine or flight control system.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s)
of this accident as follows:
The improper use of the cyclic flight control by the pilot, which
resulted in low g flight load condition, which resulted in rotor disk
divergence (mast bumping), and the main rotor blade striking and severing
the tail boom.
NTSB Identification: MIA98LA236 . The docket is stored in the (offline)
NTSB Imaging System.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, August 30, 1998 in HATTIESBURG, MS
Probable Cause Approval Date: 4/6/01
Aircraft: Hall REVOLUTION MINI 500, registration: N9GH
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
The pilot stated that as he hovered forward at a brisk walk, he heard the
low rotor rpm horn. He lowered the collective and the helicopter
descended rapidly and touched down on the 'toes' of the skids. The
helicopter bounced back into the air and the cyclic control grip
separated from the cyclic control stick. The cyclic control moved to the
full aft position and the main rotor blades contacted the tail boom.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s)
of this accident as follows:
The failure of the pilot to maintain main rotor rpm during a forward
hover and the cyclic grip separating during the resultant bounced landing
resulting in the pilot losing cyclic control and the main rotor
contacting the tail boom. A factor in the accident was the pilot's lack
of total time in the make and model.
NTSB Identification: SEA98LA030 . The docket is stored in the (offline)
NTSB Imaging System.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, January 28, 1998 in NEWBERG, OR
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/8/98
Aircraft: Raser MINI 500, registration: N500YY
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
The pilot reported that he had just lifted off and attained an altitude
of about 20 feet, when the engine experienced a loss of power. The pilot
initiated an autorotation near the end of the airpark. The pilot stated
that the helicopter was yawed slightly to the left on touchdown to a
plowed muddy area. The right side landing skid collapsed and the
helicopter rolled over. Inspection of the engine revealed that one of the
two cylinders would not hold compression. Further inspection found
evidence of overheating and damage to the rings on the piston. The pilot
reported that the engine had been experiencing heating problems, and that
he had also modified the carburetor.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s)
of this accident as follows:
a power loss resulting from overtemperature of a cylinder. The pilot's
operation with known deficiencies was a factor.
NTSB Identification: IAD97LA113 . The docket is stored in the (offline)
NTSB Imaging System.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, August 23, 1997 in N PHILADELPHIA, OH
Probable Cause Approval Date: 6/10/99
Aircraft: HAINES REVOLUTION MINI 500, registration: N7240E
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
According to the pilot, he satisfactorily completed a pre-takeoff check,
which included checking the exhaust gas temperature gage for correct
temperatures. He then departed into the wind. The pilot reported that
about 50 feet AGL, and airspeed about 30 to 40 mph, he noticed the main
rotor slowing down and he added power with no results. He entered
autorotation, but the rotor speed was inadequate to perform a successful
autorotation, and the helicopter touched down hard. An engine examination
revealed a half inch crack within a welded seam in the mid section of the
exhaust manifold. The pilot reported that the exhaust manifold was
delivered from the factory with the weld. The helicopter had a total of
56 hours since new.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s)
of this accident as follows:
A leak on the exhaust manifold which resulted in a loss of engine power.
>
>
>>>>>>Clark
>>>>>>"Putting out fires with gasoline"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you just answered these questions with your self
>>>>>description. Is that something one should be proud of? Is that the
>>>>>best point you can describe yourself with?
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not trying to start an argument with you, but what are you
>>>>>trying to prove?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm doing two things: reminding readers that the Mini-500 is a
>>>>failure and trolling you for defending it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well thank you for appointing yourself as our overseer! Who asked for
>>>you? Go get a life of your own.
>>
>>
>> Neener, neener, neener. Welcome to usenet Denny.
>
>
> You act like a child. Grow up.
>
I responed appropriately to your outburst.
>
>> Who asked for your
>> defense of the fatally flawed Mini-500?
>
>
> It after all is my business. Did you own a Mini-500. No, so where did
> you get the idea you were any body?
Where do you get the idea that I'm not anybody?
>
>
>> Who asked you to ignore the NTSB
>> reports?
>
>
> Fool, I'm the one here that keeps telling you to go to the NTSB
> reports and show us the basses for your false accusations. You have
> been looking like an idiot to everyone.
The only fool and idiot here is you Denny.
>
>
>> Who believes your biased opinion? Keep after it Denny and you'll
>> soon earn net-kook status.
>
>
> Who ever want's to, and many now have another opinion thanks to me
> coming here and showing them the other side of some people, just like
> you! I have you and others to thank for coming here to argue with me,
> because it shows everyone here the true character of the people that
> are making these false accusations. The more you argue with me, the
> more I get the word out, but you are to foolish to see that you are
> being played. Keep it up.
>
> You know something else, if you're going to call me by my first name,
> then call me Dennis. Only a child calls people childish names. Grow up
> if you want to argue with a man.
Sure thing Denny. I'd like to argue with a man but you keep responding.
>
>
Dennis Fetters
terra
>
> I have you and others to thank for coming here to argue with me,
> because it shows everyone here the true character of the people that are
> making these false accusations. The more you argue with me, the more I
> get the word out, but you are to foolish to see that you are being
> played. Keep it up.
It will undoubtedly end like this one did.
Clark
news:3EF0C621...@attbi.com:
> I've proven my point about you. Now I'm finished playing with
> children.
>
Ahh, going to stop playing with yourself then?
Murphy's law
WOW! You got it! You figured it out all by yourself, EH! After 6
months with no help or hint or whatsoever! You must have been spinning
around your ego until finally you collided with it. What a bump!
Your signature on the contract is a signature on the contract on you.
ski...@outdrs.net
about the T-62 turbine. The T-62 was originally designed as a single
seat helicopter power plant back in the late fifties or early sixties
in a US Army developement project.Army cancelled the contract( nothing
new there )for the helicopter. Solar had so much money invested,they
looked around for another market. Now we have an APU =
light,powerful,& ideal for large helicopter aux.power.
Ed Randolph 0005
In memory of Allen,Gil,& Ed Bihn,& others who have gone west before
them !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Fetters <fetters...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3EEF5909...@sbcglobal.net>...
Dennis Fetters
You're the one acting like a child. If anyone has hairy palms it's you.
Dennis Fetters
ski...@outdrs.net wrote:
> Dennis Fetters, You need to do your homework before making statments
> about the T-62 turbine. The T-62 was originally designed as a single
> seat helicopter power plant back in the late fifties or early sixties
> in a US Army developement project.Army cancelled the contract( nothing
> new there )for the helicopter. Solar had so much money invested,they
> looked around for another market. Now we have an APU =
> light,powerful,& ideal for large helicopter aux.power.
>
> Ed Randolph 0005
I know all about that project, and the problems they discovered using
that engine. That was as light as they could make a helicopter so the
engine would not overwork, sacrificing any pilot protection from turbine
explosion or crash. Any kit helicopter today is far to heavy. I think
your case stated here only backs up what people with APU and turbine
knowledge know, then and now.
Again, people have been trying sustained powered flight with APU's for
years now. You see a few test flights and they soon disappear. Prove me
wrong. Besides, I have nothing to gain or lose, just passing knowledge.
Show me 10 APU powered helicopters with 100 hours on them and I'll eat
my words.
It was a nice change having a civilized conversation with you, for once.
Dennis Fetters
Murphy's law wrote:
>>>Yeah, right! Your brilliants are bull. Your point of rely is the same
>>>as in your appeal WD61065. NONE. Once in your life you're right,
>>>stating "What a man!". Yes, a Fighter who stands behind his word. OK,
>>>let's get into the thecnical side of mast bumping. If the rotor blades
>>>chop off the tailboom, how on earth it does not ivolve mast bumping?
>>>Exessive blade flapping, mast bumping, blades contact tail boom. Plain
>>>physics. Elementary. By the way, my posting does include my name. You
>>>don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. Read between the
>>>lines!
>>
>>Well, it is obvious that you are no rocket scientist to try and say that
>>if a tail boom gets cut of in and accident that it was mast bumping. By
>>the way, you better read your contract.
>
>
> WOW! You got it! You figured it out all by yourself, EH! After 6
> months with no help or hint or whatsoever! You must have been spinning
> around your ego until finally you collided with it.
No, not at all.
> Your signature on the contract is a signature on the contract on you.
Better read the contract closer.
n4mwd.don...@amsat.org
> No, the oil is injected into the intake manifold after the carburetor,
> there it is mixed and defused with the air and fuel into micro drops.
> After and during it lubricated the bearings and piston skirts, it mixes
> with the fuel and is burnt. The oil droplets are higher viscosity, and
> stay between and separate the metal surfaces much better than a
> completely diluted fuel and oil mixture.
Sounds like lubrication by chance type of system. I like my idea of
pumping the oil directly into the bearings better. Then let the fuel
vapor slosh the overflow around to other components that need
lubrication.
I did check into the Hirth helicopter engines. They have two models -
a 61 HP and a 100 HP. I think they are both fuel injected and
probably don't have an issue with jet size.
> I agree with your point. My point is, as a manufacturer, that there is
> no one then or now that can deliver 5 rotary engines a week, new and in
> the box. So as a user of multiple amounts of engines, a manufacturer of
> aircraft would not have any interest in the greatest engine in the
> world, if he cannot obtain them.
>
> Agreed?
>
Not really. The company I listed before makes new single rotor
engines designed for small aircraft use. They put out about 100 HP
and weigh about 130 lbs. They make them from new purchased automobile
components - then make the mods that they need. I'm sure that with a
contract, they could make as many per week as you needed. The problem
is that the Hirth has a better power to weight ratio. That will
happen when you use cast iron engine parts.
Clark
Denny, you're the one denying facts compiled by the NTSB, you're the one
who claims to be an expert while repeatedly dsiplaying language skills
which indicate you aren't out of high school, you're the one who can't keep
himself from responding to obvious teasing, you're the one who trys to tell
other folks how to behave on usenet. Who has the mentality of a child?
Dennis Fetters
ok
Dennis Fetters
Child's response
Clark
>
>
> Clark wrote:
>>
>> Denny, you're the one denying facts compiled by the NTSB, you're the
>> one who claims to be an expert while repeatedly dsiplaying language
>> skills which indicate you aren't out of high school, you're the one
>> who can't keep himself from responding to obvious teasing, you're the
>> one who trys to tell other folks how to behave on usenet. Who has the
>> mentality of a child?
>
> Child's response
>
LOL, says the poster who displays the integrity of a 2 year old and the
ethics and language skills of an adolescent.
troll, troll, troll, your boat...
Dennis Fetters
Child's response
Murphy's law
> > Your signature on the contract is a signature on the
contract on you.
>
> Better read the contract closer.
in the Appeals. The Judgment was affirmed.
Murphy's law
Obviously if the rotor blades cut off the tail boom first the mast bumping occurs.
Dennis Fetters
Obviously, your ignorance in the matter astounds us all.
Dennis Fetters
> > Your signature on the contract is a signature on the
> contract on you.
>
>>Better read the contract closer.
>
>
> It has been read by the Judge in two law suits and by three Judges
> in the Appeals. The Judgment was affirmed.
Better read and understand your contract. You will see soon.
Clark
>
>
> Murphy's law wrote:
>>>
>>>Well, it is obvious that you are no rocket scientist to try and say
>>>that if a tail boom gets cut of in and accident that it was mast
>>>bumping. By the way, you better read your contract.
>>
>>
>> Obviously if the rotor blades cut off the tail boom first the mast
>> bumping occurs.
>
>
> Obviously, your ignorance in the matter astounds us all.
>
Denny wrote this in a previous post:
"Better yet, I'll let you explain it. Please, tell us all of a single
documented case of Mini-500 mast bumping. You can't, but that doesn't
mean it couldn't occur. The Mini-500 would be susceptible to mast
bumping, if the pilot would place the aircraft into that situation."
Here's an NTSB documented report of a mast bump and tail separation on a
Mini-500 which you say doesn't exist (why do you lie about it Denny?):
Clark
>
>
>
> Child's response
>
Is that all you've got Denny? First you try to run from the NTSB data, now
you demonstrate monomania playing "Last Word." What a sad little boy you
are Denny.
Dennis Fetters
Here, you forgot to mention a little detail in the report:
"According to the FAA database, the pilot held a private pilot
certificate with a rotorcraft-helicopter rating. The pilot's logbooks
indicate he had approximately 100 hours of total flight time, all in
helicopters, at the time of the accident. The pilot held a third-class
medical dated March 5, 1997."
Also, something that we reported to the investigator, that he didn't
seem to think was important, was the fact that the builder had
accidentally broken off the pulse inlet on his fuel pump, and rather
then take our advise and spend $30 on a new one, he glued it back on
with epoxy! The glued joint was found broken.
Also, with the distance between the tail and the cabin wreckage found on
the ground, it was estimated this new inexperienced pilot was flying at
or above 100 mph, through canyon territory. He was flying way to fast in
turbulent areas for is experience level, lost power after the fuel pump
broke, froze on the controls and failed to enter an auto rotation, lost
rotor speed and cut off his tail.
Sure, the mast got bumped, but the cause of the accident was not mast
bumping, and it was not the fault of the Mini-500.
Even though, as I stated before, "The Mini-500 would be susceptible to
mast bumping, if the pilot would place the aircraft into that
situation." So go fish.
C.D. Damron
"Dennis Fetters" <df...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3EF2A1D9...@attbi.com...
> Also, with the distance between the tail and the cabin wreckage found on
> the ground, it was estimated this new inexperienced pilot was flying at
> or above 100 mph, through canyon territory. He was flying way to fast in
> turbulent areas for is experience level, lost power after the fuel pump
> broke, froze on the controls and failed to enter an auto rotation, lost
> rotor speed and cut off his tail.
Who made this estimate of speed and how did they do it?
I don't think that you can make such an estimation with the known facts.
Without any witnesses or knowledge of altitude, airspeed, wind speed, wind
direction, or direction of flight, how were you able to estimate speed?
Clark
> Clark wrote:
>> Denny wrote this in a previous post:
>>
>> "Better yet, I'll let you explain it. Please, tell us all of a single
>> documented case of Mini-500 mast bumping. You can't, but that doesn't
>> mean it couldn't occur. The Mini-500 would be susceptible to mast
>> bumping, if the pilot would place the aircraft into that situation."
>>
>> Here's an NTSB documented report of a mast bump and tail separation
>> on a Mini-500 which you say doesn't exist (why do you lie about it
>> Denny?):
>>
[snip]
>>
>> The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
>> cause(s) of this accident as follows:
>> The improper use of the cyclic flight control by the pilot, which
>> resulted in low g flight load condition, which resulted in rotor disk
>> divergence (mast bumping), and the main rotor blade striking and
>> severing the tail boom.
>
>
> Here, you forgot to mention a little detail in the report:
No, I didn't "forget" to mention anything in the report. I demonstrated
the NTSB has documented mast bumping in the Mini-500.
Since this documentation discredits your claim (quoted above) the there
is no single documented case of mast bumping in the Mini-500, I'm not
surprised that you are attempting to "spindoctor" the data.
>
[snip]
>
> Sure, the mast got bumped, but the cause of the accident was not mast
> bumping, and it was not the fault of the Mini-500.
>
> Even though, as I stated before, "The Mini-500 would be susceptible to
> mast bumping, if the pilot would place the aircraft into that
> situation." So go fish.
>
Along with that, Denny, you said that no one had documented a single case
of mast bumping in the Mini-500. Obviously a false statement.
Bottom line, you have discredited yourself. Thanks for playing, Denny,
and be sure and hurry right back to post more falsehoods about the Mini-
500.
Murphy's law
You are an ignoramus. That is why you could not even copy the
brilliant design of Augusto Cicare. I rest the case.
Murphy's law
I shall see to it that you shall lose again & pay for it.
Dennis Fetters
Clark wrote:
>>Sure, the mast got bumped, but the cause of the accident was not mast
>>bumping, and it was not the fault of the Mini-500.
>>
>>Even though, as I stated before, "The Mini-500 would be susceptible to
>>mast bumping, if the pilot would place the aircraft into that
>>situation." So go fish.
>>
>
> Along with that, Denny, you said that no one had documented a single case
> of mast bumping in the Mini-500. Obviously a false statement.
No, it was an uninformed statement. You should be VERY familiar with how
that can happen.
The summary of the inspector came out later after we did the
investigation. I didn't know that they mistakenly called the probable
cause mast bumping. How could they say that with no witnesses, but yet a
glaring fuel delivery problem stood out? Fed.'s for ya.
> Bottom line, you have discredited yourself. Thanks for playing, Denny,
> and be sure and hurry right back to post more falsehoods about the Mini-
> 500.
No no no, You are the one that was made into a child here. I was not
playing, as you admit to.
Dennis Fetters
C.D. Damron wrote:
> "Dennis Fetters" <df...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3EF2A1D9...@attbi.com...
>
>>Also, with the distance between the tail and the cabin wreckage found on
>>the ground, it was estimated this new inexperienced pilot was flying at
>>or above 100 mph, through canyon territory. He was flying way to fast in
>>turbulent areas for is experience level, lost power after the fuel pump
>>broke, froze on the controls and failed to enter an auto rotation, lost
>>rotor speed and cut off his tail.
>
>
>
>
> Who made this estimate of speed and how did they do it?
As the report said:
"A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector from the Van Nuys,
California, Flight Standards District Office responded to the accident
site and interviewed the property owner. The property owner reported
that he saw the helicopter in flight, west of the accident site,
approximately 1400 to 1430. He stated that the aircraft was flying from
east to west about 800 to 1000 feet agl."
> I don't think that you can make such an estimation with the known facts.
I wouldn't.
> Without any witnesses or knowledge of altitude, airspeed, wind speed, wind
> direction, or direction of flight, how were you able to estimate speed?
Triangulation, drag, and past experience dealing with identical
accidents with other types of helicopters in the past. It's a Fed thing.
I guess your statement is answered.
Dennis Fetters
Murphy's law wrote:
>>>>Well, it is obvious that you are no rocket scientist to try and say that
>>>>if a tail boom gets cut of in and accident that it was mast bumping. By
>>>>the way, you better read your contract.
>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously if the rotor blades cut off the tail boom first the mast bumping occurs.
>>
>>
>>Obviously, your ignorance in the matter astounds us all.
>
>
> You are an ignoramus. That is why you could not even copy the
> brilliant design of Augusto Cicare. I rest the case.
I'm ignorant? Where on the totem pole dose that place you? The root?
Well, you rest your case with no foundation or facts. Here I'll post the
facts about the dealings between Augusto Cicare and myself, so people
can read what really happened, not what you are trying to insinuate.
Also, it was later that Augusto Cicare posted a statement that I did not
copy his system, and that they are indeed to separate designs.
From: denn...@my-dejanews.com (denn...@my-dejanews.com)
Subject: Part 3 - Revolution Helicopters Defense to False Accusations
View: Complete Thread (8 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Date: 1998/10/21
Revolution Helicopters Defense to False Accusations - Part 3
Wednesday, Oct. 21, 1998
Dear Newsgroup Participants,
This is the final segment of my three part report on the issues concerning
Revolution Helicopter and the Mini-500.
Today's post will regard the subjects of:
~ The Fetters / Cicare Facts
~ Magazines? Articles / US Aviator
~ Closing statements
I hope it gets the information across, and all who read it will now
have another view to consider.
~ The Fetters / Cicare Facts----
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 giroplanes. 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 airshow 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 happened.
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 then go bankrupt because he
changed his mind.
Dennis Fetters
Who said "I" lost? ;-)
Clark
>
>
> Clark wrote:
>
>>>Sure, the mast got bumped, but the cause of the accident was not mast
>>>bumping, and it was not the fault of the Mini-500.
>>>
>>>Even though, as I stated before, "The Mini-500 would be susceptible
>>>to mast bumping, if the pilot would place the aircraft into that
>>>situation." So go fish.
>>>
>>
>> Along with that, Denny, you said that no one had documented a single
>> case of mast bumping in the Mini-500. Obviously a false statement.
>
>
> No, it was an uninformed statement. You should be VERY familiar with
> how that can happen.
Pleading ignorance Denny? How are you an expert if you are ignorant?
Regardless of your ignorance, your claim is still false.
Either way any reasonable reader has cause to doubt any of your claims
about the Mini-500 because of the shortcomings you have displayed in this
thread.
>
> The summary of the inspector came out later after we did the
> investigation. I didn't know that they mistakenly called the probable
> cause mast bumping. How could they say that with no witnesses, but yet
> a glaring fuel delivery problem stood out? Fed.'s for ya.
LOL. You haven't established a fuel problem. All you did was report
(without verification) that a fuel system compenent was broken *after*
the crash. In order to establish the fuel problem you must show evidence
(not arm waving) that the component failed in flight and that the engine
wasn't running when it crashed. Since you've demonstrated false
statements, all evidence you present should be verified by disintrested
third parties if you want to be believed. Good Luck, Denny.
Oh, one other point, the NTSB reports the reason for concluding mast
bumping. Looks like you missed it. Great attention to detail there Denny.
>
>
>> Bottom line, you have discredited yourself. Thanks for playing,
>> Denny, and be sure and hurry right back to post more falsehoods about
>> the Mini- 500.
>
>
> No no no, You are the one that was made into a child here. I was not
> playing, as you admit to.
>
What, if you repeat "no" enough it is somehow true Denny? Have a nice,
delusional life there little guy. BTW, that was a lousy attempt at mis-
direction with the fuel line thing but at least you followed my orders by
hurrying back to post another false statement.
Dennis Fetters
Clark wrote:
>>>Along with that, Denny, you said that no one had documented a single
>>>case of mast bumping in the Mini-500. Obviously a false statement.
>>
>>
>>No, it was an uninformed statement. You should be VERY familiar with
>>how that can happen.
>
>
> Pleading ignorance Denny? How are you an expert if you are ignorant?
> Regardless of your ignorance, your claim is still false.
> Either way any reasonable reader has cause to doubt any of your claims
> about the Mini-500 because of the shortcomings you have displayed in this
> thread.
Not at all. Simply uninformed of what the conclusion was. So what? Are
you a know-it-all? My claim was wrong, based on not having the up to
date information. That is my fault, and I'm man enough to admit when I'm
at fault. Although, I don't agree with the NTSB report. It could have
been as they said, but I look more at the facts at hand. We knew that he
had a bad fuel pump, while we don't know if he made a negative G
maneuver that cased the accident. Why did the pilot do a negative G
maneuver? That would be the cause of the accident.
>>The summary of the inspector came out later after we did the
>>investigation. I didn't know that they mistakenly called the probable
>>cause mast bumping. How could they say that with no witnesses, but yet
>>a glaring fuel delivery problem stood out? Fed.'s for ya.
>
>
> LOL. You haven't established a fuel problem. All you did was report
> (without verification) that a fuel system compenent was broken *after*
> the crash. In order to establish the fuel problem you must show evidence
> (not arm waving) that the component failed in flight and that the engine
> wasn't running when it crashed. Since you've demonstrated false
> statements, all evidence you present should be verified by disintrested
> third parties if you want to be believed. Good Luck, Denny.
Try reading the report:
"According to the aircraft logbooks, the experimental helicopter was
manufactured by the pilot on April 18, 1998. The engine hour meter
indicated that there were 33 engine operating hours on the helicopter at
the time of the accident. The records revealed that the pilot made five
modifications to the helicopter, which were suggested by the kit
manufacturer. A list of those modifications is contained in the party
report of Technical Enterprises, attached. "A non-factory approved
modification was noted on the fuel pump.""
No, they didn't say it had been glued, nor that it was found broken. I
don't know why. But it was something that could have caused the engine
to stop and the pilot to panic and lose control, or over control.
>>No no no, You are the one that was made into a child here. I was not
>>playing, as you admit to.
>>
>
> What, if you repeat "no" enough it is somehow true Denny? Have a nice,
> delusional life there little guy. BTW, that was a lousy attempt at mis-
> direction with the fuel line thing but at least you followed my orders by
> hurrying back to post another false statement.
Your demeanor is that of a child. I asked you to stop calling me Denny,
but you continue to do so, just as a spoiled little child would do. I'm
certainly not going to come down to your level and call you childish
names, because one of us has to remain the adult in this conversation.
If you think you're being funny, you're wrong. It's childish, and anyone
will agree. Please, do yourself a favor and act like an adult. Really.
Clark
>
>
> Clark wrote:
>>>>Along with that, Denny, you said that no one had documented a single
>>>>case of mast bumping in the Mini-500. Obviously a false statement.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it was an uninformed statement. You should be VERY familiar with
>>>how that can happen.
>>
>>
>> Pleading ignorance Denny? How are you an expert if you are ignorant?
>> Regardless of your ignorance, your claim is still false.
>> Either way any reasonable reader has cause to doubt any of your
>> claims about the Mini-500 because of the shortcomings you have
>> displayed in this thread.
>
>
> Not at all. Simply uninformed of what the conclusion was. So what? Are
> you a know-it-all? My claim was wrong, based on not having the up to
> date information. That is my fault, and I'm man enough to admit when
> I'm at fault. Although, I don't agree with the NTSB report. It could
You only admit it after it was posted twice and your nose was rubbed in
it. Get real. OBTW, uninformed = ignorance when it comes to being
accepted as an expert. Try to use that uninformed bullshit in a court of
law and see just how fast the expert witness testimony gets stricken from
the record. Have you ever seen an expert witness discredited? I have and
its not a pretty sight.
> have been as they said, but I look more at the facts at hand. We knew
> that he had a bad fuel pump, while we don't know if he made a negative
> G maneuver that cased the accident. Why did the pilot do a negative G
> maneuver? That would be the cause of the accident.
Facts at hand? LOL. You only claim the fuel pump was bad, you haven't
established that it failed prior to the crash.
>
>
>>>The summary of the inspector came out later after we did the
>>>investigation. I didn't know that they mistakenly called the probable
>>>cause mast bumping. How could they say that with no witnesses, but
>>>yet a glaring fuel delivery problem stood out? Fed.'s for ya.
>>
>>
>> LOL. You haven't established a fuel problem. All you did was report
>> (without verification) that a fuel system compenent was broken
>> *after* the crash. In order to establish the fuel problem you must
>> show evidence (not arm waving) that the component failed in flight
>> and that the engine wasn't running when it crashed. Since you've
>> demonstrated false statements, all evidence you present should be
>> verified by disintrested third parties if you want to be believed.
>> Good Luck, Denny.
>
>
> Try reading the report:
>
> "According to the aircraft logbooks, the experimental helicopter was
> manufactured by the pilot on April 18, 1998. The engine hour meter
> indicated that there were 33 engine operating hours on the helicopter
> at the time of the accident. The records revealed that the pilot made
> five modifications to the helicopter, which were suggested by the kit
> manufacturer. A list of those modifications is contained in the party
> report of Technical Enterprises, attached. "A non-factory approved
> modification was noted on the fuel pump.""
None of that mentions loss of fuel or a stopped engine. Why even post it?
>
> No, they didn't say it had been glued, nor that it was found broken. I
> don't know why. But it was something that could have caused the engine
> to stop and the pilot to panic and lose control, or over control.
>
Many things can cause an engine to stop but so far you haven't even
established the engine had stopped. All you are doing is waving your
arms.
>
>>>No no no, You are the one that was made into a child here. I was not
>>>playing, as you admit to.
>>>
>>
>> What, if you repeat "no" enough it is somehow true Denny? Have a
>> nice, delusional life there little guy. BTW, that was a lousy attempt
>> at mis- direction with the fuel line thing but at least you followed
>> my orders by hurrying back to post another false statement.
>
>
> Your demeanor is that of a child. I asked you to stop calling me
> Denny, but you continue to do so, just as a spoiled little child would
> do. I'm certainly not going to come down to your level and call you
> childish names, because one of us has to remain the adult in this
> conversation. If you think you're being funny, you're wrong. It's
> childish, and anyone will agree. Please, do yourself a favor and act
> like an adult. Really.
>
First of all, you did not ask me to stop calling you Denny, you told me
to stop calling you Denny. Telling me what to do just isn't your option,
Denny. Lying about it is worse. Here's a question for you little guy, do
you tell lies for sport or just to pass the time of day? Do you think
people believe your lies or does it just make you feel better to tell
them? In the end, it doesn't really matter, but you should be aware that
a designer who tells lies isn't worth a wooden nickel. Who would trust
their products?
Now if you will behave as an adult perhaps I will address you as an
adult. But if you continue to lie, denigrate posters, baselessly discount
expert opinions, etc., then I will continue to refer to as I wish.
Murphy's law
> Murphy's law wrote:
> > Dennis Fetters <df...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3EF23DD3...@attbi.com>...
> >
> >>Murphy's law wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Your signature on the contract is a signature on the
> >>>
> >>>contract on you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Better read the contract closer.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It has been read by the Judge in two law suits and by three Judges
> >>>in the Appeals. The Judgment was affirmed.
> >>
> >>Better read and understand your contract. You will see soon.
> >
> >
> > I shall see to it that you shall lose again & pay for it.
>
> Who said "I" lost? ;-)
Not yet, but you shall! Now you're using other people's money (that
you took from them fraudelently) against them for your adventage.
Their loss was deducted as bad investment. But what goes around, comes
around! Money ain't everything, that can be replaced, but there is
such a thing as principle!
There has been a saying out there in the West : "Wanted, Dead or
Alive", just like President G.W.B. said it justly for the type it is
referred to.
Murphy's law
In February 1999 at the HAI helicopter show in Dallas, Texas I spoke
with Augusto Cicare personally. We spoke about the CH6 and the Mini500
controversy.
He said, I quote : "He will not succeed with the Mini500, the fall
will come, wait and see". He knew then, and way before.
C.D. Damron
> >>Also, with the distance between the tail and the cabin wreckage found on
> >>the ground, it was estimated this new inexperienced pilot was flying at
> >>or above 100 mph, through canyon territory. He was flying way to fast in
> >>turbulent areas for is experience level, lost power after the fuel pump
> >>broke, froze on the controls and failed to enter an auto rotation, lost
> >>rotor speed and cut off his tail.
> I guess your statement is answered.
No, not really. I didn't see anything in the report that commented on the
aircraft's speed. Yet, you note that the pilot was flying recklessly fast.
That is what raised an eyebrow.
Dennis Fetters
You are one sick puppy.
Dennis Fetters
That's what you say.
Lot's of luck.
Dennis Fetters
Good for him.
Dennis Fetters
I agree that the investigator left out many facts. I don't know why and
I can't answer for them.
Clark
>
> You are one sick puppy.
>
Says the lying sack of feces...
C.D. Damron
>
> >>>>Also, with the distance between the tail and the cabin wreckage found
on
> >>>>the ground, it was estimated this new inexperienced pilot was flying
at
> >>>>or above 100 mph, through canyon territory. He was flying way to fast
in
> >>>>turbulent areas for is experience level, lost power after the fuel
pump
> >>>>broke, froze on the controls and failed to enter an auto rotation,
lost
> >>>>rotor speed and cut off his tail.
> >
> I agree that the investigator left out many facts. I don't know why and
> I can't answer for them.
I'm not asking you to answer for them, I'm asking you to answer for you.
Who estimated that the inexperienced pilot was flying at or above 100mph,
you or the FAA inspector?
n4mwd.don...@amsat.org
> By the way, you better read your contract.
What does this mean? What is in the contract that needs reading so
bad that it would come out in a public forum like this?
Dennis H.
Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)
"A Recession is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A Depression is when YOU are out of work.
A Recovery is when all the H1-B's are out of work."
(An H-1B is someone who is brought into the USA to replace
American workers at a fraction of the wage.)
Murphy's law
That's what you stammer.
That's what I say : if walks like a duck & quacks like a duck it is a duck.
"Lots of luck" should be rephrased "Locked on Target"
JayRod46
>That's funny. Everyone else has always said that the Mini-500 was one of
>the most stable and easy to control helicopters they ever flown.
THen why isnt it still in production?
LOL!!
Dennis Fetters, the most beloved man in
the aviation industry, back on the Newsgroup gallantly defending his abortion
of an aircraft.
97 posts later on this thread and only one thing is certain....you're still an
arrogant prick who no one can stand.
Awaiting your next award winning helicopter.......
Murphy's law
For the record : the same time I asked Dennis Fetters too of the
similarity of the CH6 & Mini500. His answer I quote : "Coincidence".
I read a letter of Augusto Cicare where he stated how Dennis Fetters
had cheated him. It is quite contradictory to the Fetters' story
above.