Rinke turbine
frer...@deletethis.ro.com
On Fri, 01 May 1998 00:25:50 +0000, Jason Catterall
<jasonca...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>Surely Rinke cannot be sued just because Revolution has a contract with it's
>customers not to modify their Mini 500s? That does not make sense. I would like to
>see DF try to sue Lycoming if I installed one of their engines into my Mini 500.
>
Jason:
>I talked to Joe at the mini 500 conference in Dallas just after he found out the
outcome of Dennis Fetters injunction against him.
He was PISSED!!
As crazy as it seems Joe Rinke can not:
1. Show his helicopter.
2. Advertise his modification
3. He can not even fly his helicopter.
4. He cannot sell parts that fit on a mini500
5. Hell he cannot even talk about his modifications.
According to Mr. Fetters at the Mini 500 conference in Dallas.
Fetters stated "the turbine would NOT and COULD not work".
This is an obvious LIE since Mr. Rinke has one that works quite well
and goes very fast.
However Fetters got a court order that bans Mr. Rinke from flying ,
showing or even talking about his turbine powered Mini 500. There is
a clause in the contract that you have to sign to buy a Mini 500 that
says that you "will not modify the design or engine". Revolution does
not show this contract to you until they have over $2500 of your money
as a non refundable deposit. This pissed me off somewhat.
I received the "CONTRACT" after I had already put down $2450.00. At
this time Fetters had me over the barrel. I had a choice; sign the
damn thing or loose $2450. I now have a Mini500 Kit. You have to
see this contract to believe it.
INSIST on getting a copy BEFORE you put a deposit down on a Mini
500!!!! .
Fetters appears to have won this court battle but in winning he may
loose the war. In my opinion Fetters is his own worse enemy as this
little fiasco has got lots of Internet publicity , most of it negative
for Fetters. Oh well time will tell. I would like to see
Revolution stay in business but I wish that Fetters would wake up and
be more customer oriented. If you ever have occasion to talk to
Fetters about any mini 500 problem you have it is "ALWAYS YOUR FAULT"
no exceptions. It does not matter that the part was built wrong by
Revolution or they sent you an out of specification part or you were
sent no drawing showing how it goes together . This gets old fast.
Much better to talk to Lee, he gets you the information you need and
you don’t have to put up with the crap. However Lee is no longer at
Revolution.
. One would think that Fetters would be rational. If Joe Rinke was
selling a Turbine modification for the Mini 500; Fetters would FIRST
have to sell a Mini 500 that gets modified by Rinke. There is
however one slight problem from Fetters point of view. Mr. Rinke has
access to a very impressive machine shop. He can build any metal part
on the mini 500 as good or better than Fetters and most likely at a
lower cost. It is my opinion that this is what spooked Fetters .
Now Fetters would have completion from Joe Rinke on parts. This
could cost Fetters big money.
This is of course my opinion and two cents worth.
John Frerichs
>
Jason Catterall
I seem to remember reading something that said they could not advertise or display their turbine conversion. Does this mean that they cannot manufacture/convert a turbine that just happens to fit a Mini 500?
What would happen if an overseas company started selling a suitable package direct to the US customer? What if this companies main supplier was Rinke Aviation. Who would Dennis Fetters try to sue? Would he have enough money left?
I could understand if the court wanted to stop Joe calling it a Rinke Turbine 500 or whatever, but surely you cannot be sued for manufacturing parts for the "after sales" market? After all there are thousands of other companies doing just that.
Joe, if you're reading this, how about some more info?
I simply cannot believe the things I have been reading about DF. Could one man be capable of so much insane behaviour? The only conclusion I can draw is that he actually wants to go bust. Surely, now would be the right time to gather all the customers together, apologise for the substandard service, and offer some real and meaningful commitment to resolve all of the outstanding problems.
I'm convinced that there would be dozens of people prepared to give their free time to help perfect the Mini 500, but with Revolutions attitude I don't think it's going to happen. Sad.
Regards
Jasoncat
skid...@msn.com
Jason, Joe can not promote his improvements or display them as ordered by a
judge in Kansas City because of that contract we (mini500 owners) signed. Who
would think that any one try to stop safety improvements on any aircraft! We
are all waiting for an amended contract from Rev. Helo. I personally think
the ice in the ARTIC CIRCLE WILL MELT FIRST. I for one have lost all faith in
RHCI & Rev. Helo. Ed Randolph Ser.# 005
In article <35467F98...@ihug.co.nz>,
Jason Catterall <jasonca...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> --------------059BF61941BF5DF8C81DDDDC
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <HTML>
> Can anyone tell me exactly what Rinke aviation are forbidden to do under
> the terms of the Revolution lawsuit?
> or display their turbine conversion. Does this mean that they cannot
manufacture/convert
> a turbine that just happens to fit a Mini 500?
> package direct to the US customer? What if this companies main supplier
> was Rinke Aviation. Who would Dennis Fetters try to sue? Would he have
> enough money left?
> Turbine 500 or whatever, but surely you cannot be sued for manufacturing
> parts for the "after sales" market? After all there are thousands of other
> companies doing just that.
> <BR>I simply cannot believe the things I have been reading about DF. Could
> one man be capable of so much insane behaviour? The only conclusion I can
> the right time to gather all the customers together, apologise for the
> substandard service, and offer some real and meaningful commitment to
resolve
> all of the outstanding problems.
> their free time to help perfect the Mini 500, but with Revolutions attitude
> I don't think it's going to happen. Sad.
>
> <BR>Jasoncat</HTML>
>
> --------------059BF61941BF5DF8C81DDDDC--
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
SirTopMHat
An answer your question, using input from newsgroup postings only.
Mr. Fetters is able to obtain injunctive relief against Mr. Rinke, due to the
apparent inclusion of a contract provision in the original sales contract
prohibiting modifications to the helicopter. While it appears that no suite
will be brought against individuals who make modifications, the same can not be
said regarding persons offering for sale, a modification to the public. While
ordinarily, as you mentioned, there are many examples of "after sales"
marketing of parts and conversions; these appear for the most part to pertain
to aircraft in which a "no modifications" clause does not exist in the sales
contract, or in which such a clause is not aggressively enforced. One of the
causes of action that comes to mind, is "third party interference with a
contract", an actionable tort in which injunctive relief or suit for damages
may be brought. With a "no modification" provision, even an offshore company
could be prevented from advertising a modification in printed publications
originating in the U.S.. Advertising on the Internet, may be an exception
however, as this is still an emerging body of law regarding jurisdiction.
The no modifications provision does provide a point for musing however.
I am reminded of the course of action Apple computer took, with the
introduction of the Macintosh. At the time, the Mac graphic interface was so
far advanced and easy to use, that it was in many respects a superior computer
for a home or small business user. For a novice, clearly much better and
easier to use than the dos/intel machines. Apple chose to close the
architecture and elevate the price of the Mac so as to position the Mac as a
premium machine. In doing so, it laid the foundation for the ultimate demise
of the company. The other computers, over the course of time, caught up with
the Mac, and now Mac's comprise only a small and dwindling market share. I
expect Apple will go belly up sometime in the next six years. An example of
what can happen to a company when it chooses to "take a lot of a little" rather
than a "little of a lot". However, there are many differences between selling
helicopters, a "niche" market and the "broad" market for computers, but never
the less, a point to ponder.
SCO
skid...@msn.com wrote:
>Jason, Joe can not promote his improvements or display them as ordered by a
>judge in Kansas City because of that contract we (mini500 owners) signed. Who
>would think that any one try to stop safety improvements on any aircraft! We
>are all waiting for an amended contract from Rev. Helo. I personally think
>the ice in the ARTIC CIRCLE WILL MELT FIRST. I for one have lost all faith in
>RHCI & Rev. Helo.
Nothing prevents anyone else from giving out the improvement info,
especially if it is posted on a server outside the USA.
SirTopMHat
It may not make sense at first blush, and a thorough undertaking of case law
study, and discovery of actual documents and events which comprise the
circumstances and facts surrounding the matter would have to take place before
anyone could render a legal opinion regarding the appropriateness of this
course of action. My hunch is this could be the legal basis relied upon by
Revolution; just a legal wild ass'd guess - mind you.
: )
--wish all newsgroup rotorheads well !!
gonna be out of country for a few!! --
Ken Leander
You've gotten ahold of the wrong end of the stick ol' boy. Lycomng wouldn't
be sued. They didn't sign the 'no modifiction' agreement. You the owner of
the Mini-500 would be sued, if you signed the contract.
An interesting note about contract law, selective enforcement is unlawful.
Anyone that makes known to an officer of RHCI that they have made an
unauthorized modification will have to undergo the same treatment that Rinke
did, otherwise Rinke will have grounds for a counter suite. This is a
slippery road that Dennis Fetters is sliding down. It's no wonder he has
given up his presence here in this newsgroup.
I'm glad so many people are beginning to understand this issue. It's not
about an ailing Mini-500. Kit helicopters are a work in progress...everyone
knew or should have known there would be bugs in development. This is an
ownership rights issue. It's about freedom.
Ken Leander
Austin, Texas
Jason Catterall wrote in message <3549168D...@ihug.co.nz>...
Steve Waltner
In article <01bd74a7$803ec640$022a73cf@default>, "Capt. Doug"
<CAPT...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Hypothesis:
>
> Revolution sells the kit with the clause to customer A. Customer A sells
> the kit to customer B without the clause. Customer B builds the kit with
> all rights intact including the right to modify the kit as he or she wants.
>
> Is this workable?
>
> D.
Nope. Apparently another clause in the original contract is that you
will make (something to the effect of) every effort to have the new
purchases sign a transfer of ownership agreement. This includes signing an
original contract with RHCI and paying a $795 fee to get support and be
able to purchase replacement parts. Anyone with a contract in front of
them want to read the exact wording on this portion of the contract.
--
Steve Waltner | Steve....@symbios.com
Symbios Logic | Phone: (316) 636-8498
3718 N. Rock Road | FAX: (316) 636-8889
Wichita, KS 67226 |
Ken Leander
Sorry Jason,
I guess I don't understand your point. Rinke bought a Mini-500 and I
assume, signed the standard RHCI contract to get it. That brought Rinke a
whole mess of legal entanglements. There are some that think Rinke is free
to develop his own ship for market now. They don't know the hazards of
American contract law.
Rinke thinks he'll be able to clear this mess up with a low cost class
action court case. He's in for a hell of a suprise. Contracts in the good
ol' US are almost holy scripture in U. S. courts.
Appeals to the good sense of Dennis Fetters might help, but otherwise I
think consumers should hold a FIRM line on this issue. These products ( The
Mini-500 and Voyager-500 ) should be boycotted by consumers until there is a
reversal of this 'no modification' contract for all present and future
owners. I personally pledge to not buy an RHCI product until Dennis Fetters
learns how to do business properly.
As far as I can tell, there is little other hope for present owners than an
appeal to future buyers. It is future customers that will make or break
Dennis Fetters hold. There is little help that will or should come from the
FAA or the courts. Because, the biggest transgression that Dennis Fetters
has made isn't in the area of safety but in the area of personal freedom.
The Mini-500 isn't a deathtrap, it's a freedom stealing SOB.
Be careful what you sign.
Ken Leander
Austin, Texas
PS. If it is your understanding that Rinke did not sign a standard RHCI
contract when he bought a Mini-500, please advise. That is something we all
should know about. I think everyone here assumed he did, and that it was
Rinke's RHCI contract that was the basis for the now infamous lawsuit.
Jason Catterall wrote in message <3549E9E2...@ihug.co.nz>...
>Precisely my point, Ken.
>Lycoming didn't sign a no mods clause, and neither did Rinke. You say that
>Lycoming would not be sued because Revolution would sue the customer.
However
>this is not what has happened with Rinke.
>
>Regards,
>Jasoncat
Jason Catterall
Surely Rinke cannot be sued just because Revolution has a contract with it's
customers not to modify their Mini 500s? That does not make sense. I would like to
see DF try to sue Lycoming if I installed one of their engines into my Mini 500.
Jason Catterall
Precisely my point, Ken.
Lycoming didn't sign a no mods clause, and neither did Rinke. You say that
Lycoming would not be sued because Revolution would sue the customer. However
this is not what has happened with Rinke.
Regards,
Jasoncat
Ken Leander wrote:
> You've gotten ahold of the wrong end of the stick ol' boy. Lycomng wouldn't
> be sued. They didn't sign the 'no modifiction' agreement. You the owner of
> the Mini-500 would be sued, if you signed the contract.
>
> An interesting note about contract law, selective enforcement is unlawful.
> Anyone that makes known to an officer of RHCI that they have made an
> unauthorized modification will have to undergo the same treatment that Rinke
> did, otherwise Rinke will have grounds for a counter suite. This is a
> slippery road that Dennis Fetters is sliding down. It's no wonder he has
> given up his presence here in this newsgroup.
>
> I'm glad so many people are beginning to understand this issue. It's not
> about an ailing Mini-500. Kit helicopters are a work in progress...everyone
> knew or should have known there would be bugs in development. This is an
> ownership rights issue. It's about freedom.
>
> Ken Leander
> Austin, Texas
>
> Jason Catterall wrote in message <3549168D...@ihug.co.nz>...
Jason Catterall
I can understand all of the points you have made except number 4. Thousands of
companies make parts that fit a Mini 500, and none of them have been sued. Law here in
New Zealand must be completely different to the US. I tried to explain to my lawyer
exactly what Revolution has managed to get away with. He laughed so much he nearly fell
out of his golf buggy.
I am convinced there is a way to get around this judgement. Anyone else got some ideas?
frer...@deletethis.ro.com wrote:
> On Fri, 01 May 1998 00:25:50 +0000, Jason Catterall
> <jasonca...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >Surely Rinke cannot be sued just because Revolution has a contract with it's
> >customers not to modify their Mini 500s? That does not make sense. I would like to
> >see DF try to sue Lycoming if I installed one of their engines into my Mini 500.
> >
>
Erich Freymann
Steve Waltner wrote:
>
> In article <01bd74a7$803ec640$022a73cf@default>, "Capt. Doug"
> <CAPT...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > Hypothesis:
> >
> > Revolution sells the kit with the clause to customer A. Customer A sells
> > the kit to customer B without the clause. Customer B builds the kit with
> > all rights intact including the right to modify the kit as he or she wants.
> >
> > Is this workable?
> >
> > D.
>
> Nope. Apparently another clause in the original contract is that you
> will make (something to the effect of) every effort to have the new
> purchases sign a transfer of ownership agreement. This includes signing an
> original contract with RHCI and paying a $795 fee to get support and be
> able to purchase replacement parts. Anyone with a contract in front of
> them want to read the exact wording on this portion of the contract.
>
Also, as I understand the rules governing experimental aircraft, you
as the buyer of a built and flying experimental, cannot get the
"repairman's certificate" needed to do your own maintenance and
inspections, much less modifications. This because you didn't build
it. Only the original builder can get a repairman's certificate for
that aircraft. Once sold, it falls under the same provisions as
certificated aircraft, as far as maintenance and inspection criteria
is concerned.
--
Erich Freymann
Ken Leander
Part suppliers don't sign the same contracts Mini-500 customers do. They
would never agree to it. Rinke was a Mini-500 customer and, (as I presently
understand it) signed the standard customer contract.
New Zealand contract law (UCC the Uniform Commercial Code) is almost
identical to US contract law. You just don't have Dennis Fetters. What he
has done is a brazen act indeed, but it's catching up to him. It's a
foolish business practice and will ruin his reputation. From what I hear
about New Zealanders, you suffer fewer fools. No wonder this mess is
confusing.
A former employee of mine (a retired Army Colonel) , recommended New Zealand
as one of the finest places in the world to live.
Cheers,
Ken Leander
Austin, Texas
Jason Catterall wrote in message <3549EC80...@ihug.co.nz>...
F. Kelley Woodward
frer...@deletethis.ro.com wrote:
John:
If you would sell your M500 to someone else would he (the next owner) be
binging by the first contract to not modify or alter the ACFT? Just a
thought. Kelley
Dana Eckart
>> Revolution does not show this contract to you until they have over $2500
>> of your money as a non refundable deposit. This pissed me off somewhat.
>> I received the "CONTRACT" after I had already put down $2450.00. At
>> this time Fetters had me over the barrel. I had a choice; sign the
>> damn thing or loose $2450. I now have a Mini500 Kit. You have to
>> see this contract to believe it.
>> INSIST on getting a copy BEFORE you put a deposit down on a Mini
>> 500!!!! .
Can someone please scan the contract in and make it available on a web page
somewhere so those of us who haven't yet purchased a mini-500 can see what
we might be in for? Or is there also a clause that specifies you may not
show/share the contract to/with anyone else?
--
J Dana Eckart, PhD, PP-RH, KA4EVL | It's so nice to be insane,
da...@runet.edu | no one asks you to explain.
http://www.cs.runet.edu/~dana | -- Helen Reddy
Steve Waltner
> Also, as I understand the rules governing experimental aircraft, you
> as the buyer of a built and flying experimental, cannot get the
> "repairman's certificate" needed to do your own maintenance and
> inspections, much less modifications. This because you didn't build
> it. Only the original builder can get a repairman's certificate for
> that aircraft. Once sold, it falls under the same provisions as
> certificated aircraft, as far as maintenance and inspection criteria
> is concerned.
You are mostly correct here. You are correct in that only the person
that completes a majority of the work 51% can get the repairman's
certificate which gives that person the ability to do an "condition
inspection" which for an experimental is the same as an annual for a
certified aircraft. Note that if you start with a kit that only requires
the builder to do 51% of the work to complete, someone works on it for 150
hours and sells it to you and you work another 360 hours to complete, you
might have trouble getting your repairmain's certificate since you only
did 36% of the work on the airframe.
If you do buy a completed homebuilt, you still aren't quite as bad off
as a regular certified aircraft. As you state, the new owner is not
allowed to do the condition inspection, but they can do all the
maintenance as long as they have an A&P or the holder of the repairman's
certificate for that airframe sign off on it within 12 calendar months,
which can conveniently be delayed until the yearly condition inspection.
The A&P is not required to hold an IA to sign off on the inspetion of an
experimental aircraft
Ken Leander
A secretive contract clause? Now THAT would be diabolical!
Actually parts of the contract were previously published in this newsgroup a
few months ago, but I can't find them again in a Deja News search.
It's likely that at least one owner will figure out that a good offense is
much better than a weak defense and will publish it. I think these guys
have to take the teeth out of that damn contract or their ship resale value
will tank. It's too late to hide it anymore, why not bring it to light and
hope Fetters renegotiates it.
Ken Leander
Austin, Texas
Dana Eckart wrote in message <6icido$n...@colossus.runet.edu>...
Parrot
frer...@deletethis.ro.com wrote:
There isa clause in the contract that you have to sign to buy a Mini
500 that says that you "will not modify the design or engine".
Revolution does not show this contract to you until they have over
$2500 of your money as a non refundable deposit. This pissed me off
somewhat. I received the "CONTRACT" after I had already put down
$2450.00. At this time Fetters had me over the barrel. I had a
choice; sign the damn thing or loose $2450. I now have a Mini500
Kit. You have to see this contract to believe it.
INSIST on getting a copy BEFORE you put a deposit down on a Mini
500!!!! .
John,
How about posting a copy of that contract here for all to see!!!!!
Thanks,
Parrot
Ken Leander
Jason,
I think it would be a little sticky to legally separate Joe Rinke from Joe
Rinke Aviation. It's not much of a cover to hide behind. Imagine yourself
on the jury that decides that issue and figure how you'd vote.
If another company started selling turbine conversions to Mini-500 owners
they'd run up against the same contract wall. Everyone that owns a Mini-500
has agreed not to modify their engines. Owners could be grounded by RHCI
for buying the conversion.
As far as this issue being frustrating to a prospective buyer... ditto.
But, I don't think I could even sit in a Mini-500 very long. The smell of
that contract would get to me.
How do you think Harley Davidson would do if they required their owners to
get permission before changing a tire or lightswitch?
I'm not sure what you think, but I've pretty much decided that it won't be
an RCHI product sitting on my lawn. I'd like to see the contract in
entirety though, just to make sure I'm not going off half cocked. I sure
wish someone would publish it.
And to answer your last point about the rotorhead design. Design patents
are about the easiest to break. Even slight changes hold up in court. Only
function patents have much of a prayer before the steady gaze of a skilled
patent attorney. It isn't likely that Cicare's lawsuit will amount to much.
Just a simple sidestep for a big stepper like Dennis Fetters.
Fetters bigger concern is when customers like you and I get fed up and look
elsewhere. Even so, he might be lucky and land a military contract selling
his birds as pilotless drone target spotters. That's what Ultrasport seems
to be trying for. Whatever, I don't really care. I'm still looking for a
kit helicopter to fly. The search goes on.... and on.
Ken Leander
Austin, Texas
Jason Catterall wrote in message <354A7104...@ihug.co.nz>...
>My humblest apologies. I had thought that Rinke was just a supplier of the
>conversion. However, had I chosen to engage the brain, I would have
realised
>that he would have had to buy the kit from somewhere. I'll go and stand in
the
>corner for a while.
>
>More food for thought: What if the kit was sold to Joe Rinke as opposed to
Rinke
>Aviation? Would the company be able to trade independantly of him? What if
a
>company started selling turbine conversions but had not signed the
contract?
>Please excuse all of the semi rhetorical questions but I'm still sure there
must
>be some way around this madness. I've been dreaming about flying my own
>helicopter since I was a kid, and just when I get to the stage where I've
got
>the land, the time and the money all at the same time, the dream turns
sour.
>
>Surely Revolution has two choices: Either produce a kit which needs
absolutely
>no modifications in the first place, thereby saving the need to sue anyone,
or
>produce a badly designed machine that needs mods to make it perform
reasonably,
>and just let everyone get on with it. After all, Harley Davidson has been
doing
>this for years with some success, and they even manage to make money by
selling
>you all the bits to make the damn things go and stop properly! How cheeky
is
>that?
>
>Oh, and while I'm babbling, does anyone know how Augusto Cicare's lawsuit
>against Revolution is going? I'm praying for a situation where Revolution
is no
>longer allowed to use his rotorhead design, and has to go crawling to Rinke
for
>his five blader....
>
>Regards,
>Jasoncat
skid...@msn.com
In article <Steve.Waltner-3...@swaltneronshiva.ks.symbios.com>
#1/1,
Steve....@symbios.com (Steve Waltner) wrote:
>
> In article <01bd74a7$803ec640$022a73cf@default>, "Capt. Doug"
> <CAPT...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > Hypothesis:
> >
> > Revolution sells the kit with the clause to customer A. Customer A sells
> > the kit to customer B without the clause. Customer B builds the kit with
> > all rights intact including the right to modify the kit as he or she
wants.
> >
> > Is this workable?
> >
> > D.
>
> Nope. Apparently another clause in the original contract is that you
> will make (something to the effect of) every effort to have the new
> purchases sign a transfer of ownership agreement. This includes signing an
> original contract with RHCI and paying a $795 fee to get support and be
> able to purchase replacement parts. Anyone with a contract in front of
> them want to read the exact wording on this portion of the contract.
>
> Steve Waltner | Steve....@symbios.com
> Symbios Logic | Phone: (316) 636-8498
> 3718 N. Rock Road | FAX: (316) 636-8889
> Wichita, KS 67226 |
>
aware of contract. From what I understand, after the 2nd. owner has paid his
$749.00 registration fee, he then has to sign a new contract. Very tricky,
after you have committed so much money.
Exact words : ADDRESS OR OWNERSHIP CHANGE
Purchaser agrees to keep Revolution Helicopter promptly informed,in writing,
of a change of either the name and/or address of any individual who is
responsible for the construction and/or operation of the Kit and,if the
aircraft is sold , wether completed or not ,the name and address of the new
owner of the Kit.
Exact words : REVOLUTION HELICOPTER DESIGN INTEGRITY
Many construction factors and critical components affect the design
integrity of REVOLUTION HELICOPTER KIT,including, but not limited to , the
airframe structure, engine,main rotor and tail rotor systems ,components
affecting the aerodynamic and center-of-gravity characteristics and flight
controls. Purchaser agrees to construct all Revolution Helicopter Kits
strictly in accordance with the written and illustrated instructions supplied
by Revolution Helicopter and not make any modifications,including,but not
limited to,the engine size,weight,horsepower and make,the main and tail rotor
size weight andmake, gear and drive ratios,and control systems.
Just like it is written. Ed Randolph Ser. # 005
W Ryan H
If the wording of the contract is correct regarding the no mods clause, all it
would take is for someone who builds the kit to become seriously injured due to
a proven flaw.
At that point, all it would take is a nice lawsuit directed at DF and his
company claiming negligence, *and* if you could prove that a part sold by Joe
would have fixed it, you'd probably own him.
Gee, then we can *all* go to the bankruptcy court and buy a portion of the
business for pennies on the dollar. With everyone pitching in for the price, it
would be a cheap investment. After that, we "outsource" the running of the
company to Joe and Cicare.
You know, the more I think about it, since we would "outsource" the company to
Joe and gang, we could elect a small group of individuals and run the company
as a "not-for-profit" entity. (Just because you hire Joe to outsource the work
and handle the delivery doesn't mean it can't be run that way).
Joe's organization would act as a 'consultantcy' and fall into the cost of
doing business. *He* can still make a profit. All we do at that point is file
the quarterly paperwork and our expenses go into web advertising and pay for us
to meet each quarter. Make it a 'virtual-corporation'. Hell, we wouldn't even
need a 'storefront'. If we do, maybe we could rent 10 square feet of floor
space at Joe's shop and put in a desk and chair. We can write a snappy
"get-a-bird-in-every-driveway" mission statement and focus on furthering the
Experimental Aircraft Cause. If we were to post all designs of the upgrades and
enhancements on the web-site, and use Joe as the 'strongly suggested' primary
supplier of what the customer sees, we would be doing a service, Joe would make
lotsa money, we would be happy, etc. etc.
Hey sounds corny, but I've seen stranger happen.
<grin>
Ryan
sdd...@yahoo.com
In article <6id3jo$dsu$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>#1/1,
"Ken Leander" <Lea...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> And to answer your last point about the rotorhead design. Design patents
> are about the easiest to break. Even slight changes hold up in court. Only
>
doesn't have the same "look" it is not covered by a design patent
> function patents have much of a prayer before the steady gaze of a skilled
> patent attorney. It isn't likely that Cicare's lawsuit will amount to much.
> Just a simple sidestep for a big stepper like Dennis Fetters.
do you possibly mean a utility patent? If someone has Cicare's patent number
it can be looked up and one can see what it covers.
If Revolution does not have any patents, one would be perfectly free to go to
a friends helo, measure everything and then make your own. The only way to
stop that would be to have a trade secret clause in the contract of sale which
would require that you do not take your helo out into public.
Oh and by the way, yes I am licensed to give advice on the intellectual
property aspects, but this should not be taken as legal advice as I have not
seen any of the patents or the contracts involved.
Stuart D. Dwork,
Registered patent attorney
PPSEL-SES,instrument and wants to get rotocraft rating
test...@mallstreet.com
Hey Jason, I just got an idea, and it may be the way around "this madness"
that you're talking about.
I hear a lot of people out there right now saying that they would like to
convert their Mini-500s to a turbine, or at least, they're saying that they'd
like a safer Mini-500, but they're uncertain as to where to go to obtain
one...
Well, now let's take a look at this for a moment. Mr. Rinke may have been
stopped (at least for the present) because of Dennis Fetters' poor business
decision-making ability, and by court order, from providing the conversions
directly to owners of the Mini-500. However, he has not been stopped from
providing conversions for "other types" of aircraft besides the Mini-500 or
for "machines" into which he is not necessarily told what type of "machine" it
is (if you get my drift...). For all he knows, it could be a Baby Belle or
CH-7 Angel, or even your Dixie Chopper that the componentry is going into.
The fact is, he has the necessary fixes and we all have the necessity... let's
put two and two together, shall we... I know that for myself, I'd love to
have a turbine powered "weed wacker" or turbine powered "washer and dryer" for
that matter!!!
Sincerely,
Dwayne Parker
In article <354A7104...@ihug.co.nz>#1/1,
> > Jason Catterall wrote in message <3549E9E2...@ihug.co.nz>...
> > >Precisely my point, Ken.
> > >Lycoming didn't sign a no mods clause, and neither did Rinke. You say
that
> > >Lycoming would not be sued because Revolution would sue the customer.
> > However
> > >this is not what has happened with Rinke.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Jasoncat
>
>
sdd...@yahoo.com
In article <6idbhm$d9a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1,
skid...@msn.com wrote:
>
>
> > > Revolution sells the kit with the clause to customer A. Customer A
sells
> > > the kit to customer B without the clause. Customer B builds the kit
with
> > > all rights intact including the right to modify the kit as he or she
> wants.
> > >
> > > Is this workable?
> > >
> > > D.
> >
> > Nope. Apparently another clause in the original contract is that you
> > will make (something to the effect of) every effort to have the new
> > purchases sign a transfer of ownership agreement. This includes signing
an
> > original contract with RHCI and paying a $795 fee to get support and be
> > able to purchase replacement parts. Anyone with a contract in front of
> > them want to read the exact wording on this portion of the contract.
> >
Right on,Steve, contract states that 1st. owner will make 2nd. owner
> aware of contract. From what I understand, after the 2nd. owner has paid
his
> $749.00 registration fee, he then has to sign a new contract. Very tricky,
> after you have committed so much money.
> Exact words : ADDRESS OR OWNERSHIP CHANGE
> Purchaser agrees to keep Revolution Helicopter promptly informed,in
writing,
> of a change of either the name and/or address of any individual who is
> responsible for the construction and/or operation of the Kit and,if the
> aircraft is sold , wether completed or not ,the name and address of the new
> owner of the Kit.
what if sold to an entity that then when bankrupt which extinguishes any
possible claim (ie set up dummy corp, buy kit from RHCI, fold corp via
bankrupcy, new buyer buys kit from bankrupcy court,assembles same with mods
with no requirment to abide by original contract.
I do not practice bankrupcy law generally (it has been almost 18 years
since last one) but I would think this would work, any individuals more up on
bankrupcy law?
also a full reverse engineer, assuming RHCI has no patents although Cicare
does have U.S. Patnet # 5,165,854 on a mechanism for controling pitch change
in helocopter blades and that might be a problem.
frer...@deletethis.ro.com
On Fri, 01 May 1998 07:35:53 -0500, "F. Kelley Woodward"
<fkel...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>
>John:
>If you would sell your M500 to someone else would he (the next owner) be
>binging by the first contract to not modify or alter the ACFT? Just a
>thought. Kelley
Kelley:
As part of the standard "Contract" you have to sign there is a part
that says: .....Purchaser agrees specifically to sell the kit to only
a person who will execute a RHCI Resale Terms and Conditions
Agreement." In other words you will sell your kit only to a person
who will sign a standard RHCI contract.
In the November 97 news letter Mr Fetters has determined that there
will be a $749.00 Technical Support Transfer Fee for the new owner to
pay before he can buy parts or talk to Revolution.
I wish I could scan the Contract in but under the "Proprietary
Materials and Information" paragraph there is a confidential trade
secret clause that encludes the term "other documentation". I am not
sure If the contract would be considered "other documentation" by the
court in the county of Clay, state of Missouri.
Also I do not have a scanner.
Maybe Mr. Fetters or some one who has not signed one of these will
publish the whole contract on the R.A.R news group. D .Fetters. has
quoted parts of the contract before on this news group.
If you really want to get a copy call RHCI and ask for a copy before
you buy a Mini.
John
Jason Catterall
Capt. Doug
You are correct. However, that is why I wrote that the second customer
would repurchase the kit and then building would commence so as to retain
the repairmen's priviledges.
D.
JStricker
Why is this necessarily a problem?
It sounds to me like Joe Rinke has the bulk of the development work
successfully finished in the engine/gearbox area and why can't he go to Mr..
Cicare and get licensed for his patent?
Would Mr. Rinke not, at this point, have the heart of a helicopter of his
own? I know, thousands of details yet to be worked out, but the heart and
soul of the helicopter would be in place, Correct?
Maybe this is what Mr. Rinke is now pursuing. Maybe he feels his financial
position won't permit the marketing and development of his own design. Just
speculating here.
John Stricker
--
Remove the "nosp..........." Oh hell, you folks know what to do and
why I had to put it in. If one of you real humans wants to contact me:
"I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain
just to become a vegetarian"
sdd...@yahoo.com wrote in message <6idvr2$93r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Scott Banning
> I wish I could scan the Contract in but under the "Proprietary
> Materials and Information" paragraph there is a confidential trade
> secret clause that encludes the term "other documentation". I am not
> sure If the contract would be considered "other documentation" by the
> court in the county of Clay, state of Missouri.
> Also I do not have a scanner.
> Maybe Mr. Fetters or some one who has not signed one of these will
> publish the whole contract on the R.A.R news group. D .Fetters. has
> quoted parts of the contract before on this news group.
> If you really want to get a copy call RHCI and ask for a copy before
> you buy a Mini.
>
> John
Gentlemen:
This is my first post to a newsgroup, so please excuse any screw-ups
that I may do. I have a scanned and clean copy of the infamous
contract, having signed same to purchase on of these "death traps". I
will save my other comments for another time, only to say that I am
still in the building stage, and I don't have any illusions about buying
a perfectly safe helicopter (no such thing!), nor have I any
anticipations that I will never have problems. I've been around enough
to know better.
I am attaching the contract as a MS Word file ... sorry but that is all
I have it in right now, with no time to print to text, etc. Hopefully,
one of you will have MSword, and if necessary can do the text post.
Scott Banning
P.S. - Using Netscape, and will try the attach as plain text ...?
Capt. Doug
I think your on the right track. Perhaps if the readers in this group were
to encourage Mr. Rinke, he might see fit to do just such a thing.
D.
JStricker
Cap'n,
And perhaps, maybe he already is <wink>?
After all, Mr. Fetters (or anybody else for that matter) doesn't have the
exclusive rights to put the wings on the top and make them go round and
round.
John Stricker
--
Remove the "nosp..........." Oh hell, you folks know what to do and
why I had to put it in. If one of you real humans wants to contact me:
"I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain
just to become a vegetarian"
Capt. Doug wrote in message <01bd764c$0f9a3b80$8f2b73cf@default>...
Jim
Steve Waltner wrote:
>
> In article <01bd74a7$803ec640$022a73cf@default>, "Capt. Doug"
> <CAPT...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > Hypothesis:
> >
> > the kit to customer B without the clause. Customer B builds the kit with
> > all rights intact including the right to modify the kit as he or she wants.
> >
> > Is this workable?
> >
> > D.
>
> Nope. Apparently another clause in the original contract is that you
> will make (something to the effect of) every effort to have the new
> purchases sign a transfer of ownership agreement. This includes signing an
> original contract with RHCI and paying a $795 fee to get support and be
> able to purchase replacement parts. Anyone with a contract in front of
> them want to read the exact wording on this portion of the contract.
>
> Steve Waltner | Steve....@symbios.com
> Symbios Logic | Phone: (316) 636-8498
> 3718 N. Rock Road | FAX: (316) 636-8889
> Wichita, KS 67226 |
Another Hypothesis:
Owner of Mini-500 kits sells it as scrap, not as "helicopter kit".
Surely Dennis doesn't hold indefinit title and rights to all molecules
of previous "helicopter kit"
New owner of scrap now assembles his own version of a "helicopter" type
flying contraption. Not a Revolution Mini-500.
Next Hypothesis:
Insured Mini-500 main rotor chops off tailboom. Pilots dies on impact
with ground. Insurance company sells remains of just the helicopter to
salvage company. Can salvage company sell remains or parts thereof to
prospective helicopter experimenter? Does prospective experimenter (or
amateur builder for sake of discusion) have to comply with Dennis
contract?
Just curious mindya as I don't really care. There are lots better and
cheaper ways to have a helicopter, certainly less stressfull anyway.
Now I wouldn't mind having a turbine powered ultra-light type helicopter
mindya but once I pay for it, it is mine and I'll shoehorn a Chevy 350
V-8 in if I please.
Just an opinion mindya
Jim Lewis
DouglasK
It is impossible for DF to enforce the contract of forceing the new owner to
sign.
You cannot include a non party.
If DF ever tried to sue someone because he sold some of his property, and a
non party would not sign some goofy contract, it would fail in court.
Doug...@turbinedesign.com
Jim wrote in message <354FC8E5...@cwnet.com>...