Mini-500 ,Dennis Fetters/Rinke
Question:
Patrick: I suppose this serial number stuff really just allows the seller to keep track of who paid for support and whether anybody is pirating the plans. Of course, you can call it a Flowers Frobisher # 2023 and I guess the FAA will accept the name. Lots of experimentals do have serial numbers on them. I doubt the FAA cares except that it shows you did have a set of nice plans for a flyable design, with designer support (a nice starting point for an inspection, I maintain). Tony Pucillo [I speak only for myself unless I say otherwise. One personality is quite enough, thank you.] "Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won’t
Response:
Patrick: I suppose this serial number stuff really just allows the seller to keep track of who paid for support and whether anybody is pirating the plans. Of course, you can call it a Flowers Frobisher # 2023 and I guess the FAA will accept the name. Lots of experimentals do have serial numbers on them. I doubt the FAA cares except that it shows you did have a set of nice plans for a flyable design, with designer support (a nice starting point for an inspection, I maintain). Tony Pucillo
Actually, Tony, the FAA wants every airplane to have a serial number. They keep track of them that way. N numbers can be changed, but serial numbers stay with the airplane. Of course, on a homebuilt, the manufacturer who is the builder can assign any number he wants. 001 and 007 are both quite popular! 
When the plans or kit provider gives you a serial number, you are NOT constrained to use it. It is merely a service to the builder to ensure that the serial number is unique. Of course, there are not going to be a lot of Pucillo-Dyke Delta’s in the FAA registry, so you are not likely to have a problem. Now Johnson RV-6A would likely be far from unique! That is why I built a Squaircraft Cavalier 102.5. That one is NOT a common one, although it is a delightful little airplane. John
Response:
Brian: I understand you point about the POSSIBILITY that a modified R500 could crash, and the POSSIBILITY that it might be misreported as an R500 even though registered as something else. This shouldn’t happen, since the NTSB is so careful to release the "as registered" designation. Problem is, the law and judicial remedies don’t deal with speculation. Either the party is damaged by a breach (assuming a contract provision is enforceable) or isn’t. Better show quantifiable lost dollars. And the policy of the law generally is, as to personal property, you bought it, it’s yours. Imagine, for example, if the manufacturer tried to force builders all to resell to him if they ever sold? (Yeah, I know, it’s been done under the heading of "lease" but who would? consider the liability of owning and leasing it out!) And injunctions require irreparable, not speculative injury, and usually require bonds. This is an extraordinary remedy and rarely granted. I’ve had too many GOOD cases seeking injunctions in contract cases, and they just aren’t common except in employee noncompete situations, where maybe 1/3 are granted even in clear cases (my experience only). Maybe this is one of the better cases, but these clauses can be abused, and frankly I’ve seen them abused. If Rev500 wins this one, you’re likely to see more aggression by other manufacturers. THAT will result in a counterclaim (one that is pretty easy to foresee if you do this kind of work) that is going to result in a precedent that will backfire and end up hurting all the small manufacturers, IMHO. I’m not gonna put any ideas in anybody’s minds here, and I hope I’m wrong, but there is a weakness that is being overlooked by most. And if you can’t tell, the entire idea that I can’t modify something I own — and that, as the experimenter responsible to the FAA I HAVE to accept responsibility for — irritates me. The idea that alternative powerplants – of which I am an advocate — can’t be developed bothers me even more. And I won’t say anything more because I happen to like Dennis Fetters, at least based on my experience to date. Tony Pucillo [I speak only for myself unless I say otherwise. One personality is quite enough, thank you.] "Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won’t
Response:
Let’s see the actual suit so us fence-sitters can decide. Why hide it?
And to put all of this into the proper context, I’d LOVE to see a copy of the original contract! Damon.
Response:
You are the manufacturer…not Revolution, not Stoddard-Hamilton, not Loehle. You call it what you want, and assign any serial number you’d like.
Heh, the KR plans and manual come with a "Purchase Agreement" that contains an "assigned serial number for your records" and instructions that it "should be presented to your FAA representative at the time of pre-flight inspections" with the apparent implication that this will be your aircraft serial number. (Interesting, since my set has two numbers, one for the KR-2 and the other for the KR-2S supplement.) I can only imagine the suprise of many unknowing builders at the reaction of the DAR when presented with this "important" document. Patrick "Reply to" changed to avoid spam email. Change "nospam" to "net" or use the mailto link above.
Response:
I’ve been watching this for awhile now and I think there’s two patterns that need to be addressed. For the most part the conversation seems to be about experimental aircraft in general and I agree that a builder should be able to make modifications to a plane and call it something new, but not call it by it’s original name. Essentially this is no different than a builder scrounging a bunch of parts and building an airplane from scratch ensuring he meets the 51% rule. How I think the Mini-500 situation MIGHT be different is that people are using an aircraft that has all the original Mini-500 parts except the Rotax engine. I can see where Fetters would have a concern here because 1. it would take a pile of fibreglass work to make this NOT look like a mini-500 2. the Mini500 drive system was built around the Rotax, not the higher powered turbine 3. Rinke is also offering other drivetrain mods which could have a negative effect on Revolution OEM parts (i.e. rotor blades and transmission components) 4. You know that if one of these ever crashes all the AV magazines will report is as a modified Mini-500 regardless of what the builder actually registers it as. As a plans builder I am fully supportive of being able to design and modify to my hearts content, but I also completely support manufacturers who specify that if you purchase "X" parts or components from us these are the conditions that you must meet, Sign the contract. Your choices are either do what you agreed to, or buy from someone else. If Fetters, or anyone else has a contract that says "no deviations" or "no auto conversions", and you sign it, then don’t whine that they’re not supportive of the experimental movement. Theres over 400 kits on the market, find one with terms you can accept. Of course, I’d still like to see an agreement, and the lawsuit of one exists. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ron: Lots of manufacturer contracts prohibit modification. The more reasonable ones disavow responsibility if you modify (which they disavow anyway, so what?) but some go further and flatly demand that you agree you won’t. I see this as simply a more effective way to deny responsibility by saying they never suspected you’d misuse the product ("I agree tha this is a toilet and I won’t use it for anything BUT a toilet, and I won’t try to use it as a stepladder or stewkettle" or "I promise I won’t use this belt for any aircraft application") I’ve never seen anybody try to enforce these "no mod" clauses except by saying "you can’t call it a ‘Breakwind Blast’ anymore, you have to call it something else." The only reasonable interest a seller could have in enforcement is avoiding disparagement of the genuine article by the foibles of a fumbler. It’s claimed that in the Seawind case that was attempted, but there’s supposedly a patent there — whole different deal if the patent is any good. Ordinarily, all you get is damages for your injury for the breach. No injury, no award. Injunction is only available when there’s irreparable injury — no injury, no injunction. So call your Ripwind Ripsnorter something else. Nevertheless, these clauses are common. If the other side doesn’t want to pay a lawyer and you want to sue on that kind of thing, you could even win. Hell, if you had an allegedly bogus patent you knew wouldn’t stand up in court AND a clause like that, you could probably even beat up on somebody who didn’t have the money to pay a lawyer too, but that’s a different dispute. As I see it, unless you’re selling something to others that is a proprietary product of the manufacturer (and there’s a patent or a contractual prohibition) litigation is senseless and stupid. Read the Thundercraft boat case I posted months ago regarding lack of protection of unique but unpatantable designs for further details. Tony Pucillo [I speak only for myself unless I say otherwise. One personality is quite enough, thank you.] "Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won’t
– Brian Vasseur http://www.cadvision.com/vasseurb
Response:
You are the manufacturer…not Revolution, not Stoddard-Hamilton, not Loehle. You call it what you want, and assign any serial number you’d like.
And bask in the glory when your ‘humorous’ choce of names is boldly emblazoned on the header of an NTSB docket, as in: NTSB Identification: CHI96LA250.
[...] Aircraft: POPPENHAGEN PUD KNOCKER SPECIAL [...] Injuries: 1 Minor.
At least it wasn’t fatal. Dave "Is ‘Whisting death-bird’ taken?" Hyde
Response:
Here are the "facts" as I know them: 1) Fetters is *indeed* suing Rinke; and 2) Email can and no doubt *will* be traced when the lawyers go after this.
#2 will be the bellwether as far as I’m concerned. If Fetters did send the alleged email as was posted (which he has denied doing) that would go a long way towards settling the question in my mind, at least. But returning to #1: This is at least the third reference in this newsgroup to a lawsuit against Rinke Aerospace by RHCI, and *still* no one seems to know the content of the suit. Does the suit claim that Rinke violated the "No Modifications" clause? Rinke says: "Dennis Fetters is trying to get a Restraining Order and Injunction against us to stop us from offering the public the proven power and safety that the turbine power plant provides." That statement implies that the injunction demands that Rinke stop offering the turbine conversion. It seems to me that the request for a restraining order indicates WHY the court should grant the injunction. If the request for the injunction states the reason as "Rinke has violated a clause in his aircraft-purchase contract that requires the builder construct the aircraft in strict accordance to the plans," or "Rinke Aerospace’s product will abet others in violation of terms of their contracts with RHCI," then I agree with Craig. But if the injunction states, "Rinke has violated a previously-executed non-competition agreement," or "Rinke Aerospace is improperly using RHCI-proprietary engineering data," or "Rinke is libelling RHCI in the marketing of his own product," then there’s more to the case than the claimed intent to inhibit builders. [Note that the examples given are just examples for the sake of argument... I'm not accusing Rinke of these things.] I want to see the actual document quoted, just so I can decide for myself. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. Take a look at the Seawind case…we’ve seen several references to sites that reproduce the lawsuits filed against Seawind. Two years ago, I posted the entire indictment from the Government v. Wag-Aero, et al, and the resulting settlement. And everything from legal documents to court transcripts have been posted in a certain other case. Rinke has a web page. Even if he doesn’t have a scanner, any Kinko will scan the documents in and OCR them for him. Let’s see the actual suit so us fence-sitters can decide. Why hide it? Ron Wanttaja http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The second question that I’d have is whether or not something like this is actually binding on the part of the buyer. After all, it apparently doesn’t take much of a design change before a "Brand-X Biplane" kit can be built and registered as a "Billy-Bob’s Biplane". Example: how far is a Piper Vagabond from a kit that was advertised as a Wag-A-Bond (or something like that)? Can a Mini-500 become a Shimmy-500 with a souped up engine? Actually, Bill, it takes no modification at all. The builder is the manufacturer; he or she can call the resulting product anything they want. Many builders hyphenate the designer’s name with their own… "Smith-Bowers Fly Baby," that sort of thing.
the builders are not the only ones who do this: look at any ntsb or faa report on an experimental accident/incident and you will see that it is not, for example, a "Revolution Helicopter Mini 500" but rather, for example, a "homebuilt Blue Denney Kitfox Model 2 airplane" (from NTSB SEA98LA019) or "a Simpson Challenger-II experimental airplane, N11644," (from NTSB ATL98LA018) in my opinion, rhci’s use of such a no modification clause in the sales contract goes wholly and completely against the grain of what experimental aviation is supposedly all about. if mr. fetters wants complete control over how his arguably flawed products are built, perhaps he should bite the big bullet, get them certified, and build them all himself. staats
Response:
Ron: Lots of manufacturer contracts prohibit modification. The more reasonable ones disavow responsibility if you modify (which they disavow anyway, so what?) but some go further and flatly demand that you agree you won’t. I see this as simply a more effective way to deny responsibility by saying they never suspected you’d misuse the product ("I agree tha this is a toilet and I won’t use it for anything BUT a toilet, and I won’t try to use it as a stepladder or stewkettle" or "I promise I won’t use this belt for any aircraft application") I’ve never seen anybody try to enforce these "no mod" clauses except by saying "you can’t call it a ‘Breakwind Blast’ anymore, you have to call it something else." The only reasonable interest a seller could have in enforcement is avoiding disparagement of the genuine article by the foibles of a fumbler. It’s claimed that in the Seawind case that was attempted, but there’s supposedly a patent there — whole different deal if the patent is any good. Ordinarily, all you get is damages for your injury for the breach. No injury, no award. Injunction is only available when there’s irreparable injury — no injury, no injunction. So call your Ripwind Ripsnorter something else. Nevertheless, these clauses are common. If the other side doesn’t want to pay a lawyer and you want to sue on that kind of thing, you could even win. Hell, if you had an allegedly bogus patent you knew wouldn’t stand up in court AND a clause like that, you could probably even beat up on somebody who didn’t have the money to pay a lawyer too, but that’s a different dispute. As I see it, unless you’re selling something to others that is a proprietary product of the manufacturer (and there’s a patent or a contractual prohibition) litigation is senseless and stupid. Read the Thundercraft boat case I posted months ago regarding lack of protection of unique but unpatantable designs for further details. Tony Pucillo [I speak only for myself unless I say otherwise. One personality is quite enough, thank you.] "Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won’t
Response:
The second question that I’d have is whether or not something like this is actually binding on the part of the buyer. After all, it apparently doesn’t take much of a design change before a "Brand-X Biplane" kit can be built and registered as a "Billy-Bob’s Biplane". Example: how far is a Piper Vagabond from a kit that was advertised as a Wag-A-Bond (or something like that)? Can a Mini-500 become a Shimmy-500 with a souped up engine?
Actually, Bill, it takes no modification at all. The builder is the manufacturer; he or she can call the resulting product anything they want. Many builders hyphenate the designer’s name with their own… "Smith-Bowers Fly Baby," that sort of thing. You are the manufacturer…not Revolution, not Stoddard-Hamilton, not Loehle. You call it what you want, and assign any serial number you’d like. As Tony mentioned in a related post, the kit maker may raise objections if you use their name and have modified the aircraft, but there’s not much they can do if you decide to rename it entirely. Ron Wanttaja http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Response:
Just what *is* a "no-mod agreement"? I obviously know what it *appears* to be, but I’m not sure what it genuinely is. My first inclination would be to think that it might be a good legal move to ward off lawsuit: "They even signed a "no-mod agreement, and look — there’s a different type of nut than the one we specified." Would a jury put some weight behind that? That’s what I’d first assume was going on if someone asked me to sign such an agreement. The second question that I’d have is whether or not something like this is actually binding on the part of the buyer. After all, it apparently doesn’t take much of a design change before a "Brand-X Biplane" kit can be built and registered as a "Billy-Bob’s Biplane". Example: how far is a Piper Vagabond from a kit that was advertised as a Wag-A-Bond (or something like that)? Can a Mini-500 become a Shimmy-500 with a souped up engine? Having seen the shadows of all the fuss that have been cast over this newsgroup, I now assume that the designer was saying, "I think my design is solid, and I don’t want to suffer the fallout of some goofus modification causing one of my machines to prang in". There’s something very reasonable about the *intent*, there, but not very realistic (in my not-at-all-humble opinion). This stuff is, after all, "experimental" — and people are going to experiment. It sounds like someone just did it pretty openly and conspicuously. Wouldn’t it be a little more reasonable for the designer to simply take the stance that any modification to his/her "approved" design would void any responsibility for factory support and necessitate having the builder register the aircraft under some name other than that of the original design? Most people tend to think that if they buy something, it becomes theirs to do with as they wish (so long as the law and the spouse approve). I wonder what sort of reaction there would be if Ford decided to have everyone sign "no-mod" agreements … other than provoking riots in much of rural America? I’m sure that there are plenty of holes that can be shot through this proposal, but it might be a more interesting discussion than the "He said…he said" stuff that’s generating bile at the moment. Bill Robie
Response:
Well, as is not too unusual I think I’ve been used a bit and may have jumped to some premature conclusions. I got a letter from Dennis Fetters tonight and he attached some other correspondence from Mr. Rinke. If what I saw as an email from Mr. Rinke was correct then I don’t blame Dennis for being screaming pissed. I would go at Rinke with full force if the email Dennis forwarded to me is true. I’m not going to go into it in public but I must retract my statements about Dennis Fetters at this point.
I, too, have learned more about the situation between Rinke and Fetters and regret some of my previous statements. I’m not sure which side of the Rinke/Fetters conflict is correct, but Fetters’ side makes as least as much sense as Rinke’s. Note how the original message made it to r.a.h… email passed on between several users, until finally posted by someone completely unrelated to either side. This can be used by someone without media access to publicize a wrong…but it can also be used to screw with someone else’s reputation while retaining the ability to deny you were the source. That said, I do not want to discourage Mini-500 customers who wish to publicly comment on their experiences with the company. Direct information is always welcome. Ron Wanttaja http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Response:
OK – now we hear that Dennis Fetters may have a good reason to be at odds with Joe Rinke – what are the details of this claim? Also, at least one Mini-500 says that his purchase agreement prohibits mods and lawsuits – this is absurd, but did all Mini-500 owners agree to this? And then there is a claim that the EMail presumably written by Dennis Fetters may have been forged – can we confirm one way or another? Is there, or is there not, a lawsuit in progress and a court date set for January 8th? A lot is at stake here, among current owners and future owners, to want to get the facts straight. The best thing would be for these two guys to work together and end up with a safe and reliable piston Mini-500 Charlie model, and a Mini-500T (Turbine) for those that can afford one ($50,000).
Response:
Wishing you the best in 1998, Joe Rinke
I’m simply a blue collar working person and could probably never afford a helicopter of manufactured kit vendor, but I applaud your efferts Mr. Rinke to provide an alternate power source for those who can. I also applaud Mr. Fetters for his efforts to provide kits to those who may not possess the equipment or skills to do it themselves. Jim (I refuse to pay more for a toy than my house) Lewis — Just an opinion mindya Now a Tailwind owner…YES!!! See my Tailwind and my Starduster here http://home.cwnet.com/lewy/hangar.htm
Response:
Think about it for a moment! Why is DF writing you? Why doesn’t he speak directly to the issue.
Perhaps he thinks that absolutely nothing will be settled by a Internet flame fest. Perhaps he feels that only a court decision can resolve your differences. Ron Wanttaja http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Response:
Where’s Perry Mason when you need him? — Keep em Spinning, Dave DeWinter Visit my Web Page at: http://www.mindspring.com/~rv6dd
Response:
OK – now we hear that Dennis Fetters may have a good reason to be at odds with Joe Rinke – what are the details of this claim?
I’ve heard third-hand details, but have utterly no way to confirm the claim. I know neither party, and have no reason to believe one man over the other. If the story is true, it can easily be denied without any way to prove the denial a lie (and thus we’re no better off than before), and if it’s false, I’d be doing Mr. Rinke a disservice by repeating it. And then there is a claim that the EMail presumably written by Dennis Fetters may have been forged – can we confirm one way or another?
Probably not. Most ISPs keep a record of who is mailed, but I think few retain the actual content for anything longer than a couple of days. If Rinke complained to Fetters’ ISP immediately upon receipt, it might have been verifiable. Some PC mail programs/browsers retain sent email, of course, but you’d have to legally sieze the machine. A Habeus Cyberus order? Which means about the only way to prove it is for someone to confess. If Fetters actually wrote it, he’d be an idiot to admit it now, and if Rinke made it up, he’d be a bigger fool to say so. If it was a forgery committed by a third party, they’ve achieved their goal and would have no reason to ‘fess up. If a bunch of other people report receiving similar mail, it does tend to corroborate the claim. Is there, or is there not, a lawsuit in progress and a court date set for January 8th?
Of more interest is the plaintiff’s claim in the lawsuit, if any. I want to know *exactly* what Fetters is accusing Rinke of. All we’ve seen here are vague statements about how it’s going to harm the builders. I’m a big boy now…I’m fully capable of reading and interpreting a legal document to my satisfaction. I’ll ask Tony about any the four-sylable words. Post it, or put it up on a web page. It is the only verifiable fact available to us. Ron Wanttaja http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Response:
Jim (I refuse to pay more for a toy than my house) Lewis
Pardon my curiosity, but why do you say that? What does your house have to do with it? Heck, prior to buying a brand new DeLorean, my sport parachute was worth more than my car. And the DeLorean payments were more than my rent. Richard.
Response:
How about a scanned copy of the order! That would put this issue to rest. Douglas – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – OK – now we hear that Dennis Fetters may have a good reason to be at odds with Joe Rinke – what are the details of this claim? I’ve heard third-hand details, but have utterly no way to confirm the claim. I know neither party, and have no reason to believe one man over the other. If the story is true, it can easily be denied without any way to prove the denial a lie (and thus we’re no better off than before), and if it’s false, I’d be doing Mr. Rinke a disservice by repeating it. And then there is a claim that the EMail presumably written by Dennis Fetters may have been forged – can we confirm one way or another? Probably not. Most ISPs keep a record of who is mailed, but I think few retain the actual content for anything longer than a couple of days. If Rinke complained to Fetters’ ISP immediately upon receipt, it might have been verifiable. Some PC mail programs/browsers retain sent email, of course, but you’d have to legally sieze the machine. A Habeus Cyberus order? Which means about the only way to prove it is for someone to confess. If Fetters actually wrote it, he’d be an idiot to admit it now, and if Rinke made it up, he’d be a bigger fool to say so. If it was a forgery committed by a third party, they’ve achieved their goal and would have no reason to ‘fess up. If a bunch of other people report receiving similar mail, it does tend to corroborate the claim. Is there, or is there not, a lawsuit in progress and a court date set for January 8th? Of more interest is the plaintiff’s claim in the lawsuit, if any. I want to know *exactly* what Fetters is accusing Rinke of. All we’ve seen here are vague statements about how it’s going to harm the builders. I’m a big boy now…I’m fully capable of reading and interpreting a legal document to my satisfaction. I’ll ask Tony about any the four-sylable words. Post it, or put it up on a web page. It is the only verifiable fact available to us. Ron Wanttaja http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Response:
Think about it for a moment! Why is DF writing you? Why doesn’t he speak directly to the issue. Perhaps he thinks that absolutely nothing will be settled by a Internet flame fest. Perhaps he feels that only a court decision can resolve your differences. Ron Wanttaja http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Which means that you guys need to solve it yourselves. The money you spend in court could make a great improvement to the ship. Don’t let this happen to you guys. You both have great products. Work together for the sake of all of us. I’d love to buy a Mini-500 with a 115 hp turbine in it for $30K. I’d scratch a check for one tomorrow if it were available and I’m not alone. I have many friends who are multi-bizillionaires here in Las Vegas who have been following the Mini-500 the the Rinke-mod. I’ll bet you they’d buy about 10 of them just for fun if you guys worked it out. Don’t be stupid! BWB
Response:
I agree any money spent on lawyers would be better spent on customer service and product improvement or even a two place. Pilots like myself and BWB are bored after deacdes of fixed wing nothing rejuvenates and old pilot like a ROTOR except maybe a TURBINE turning that ROTOR, or maybe an F15 and I’m not likely to ever get to fly one of them again or a space shuttle and that aisn’t likely either. Gil Mini-500 serial#76 151 hours of 3D fun. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Think about it for a moment! Why is DF writing you? Why doesn’t he speak directly to the issue. Perhaps he thinks that absolutely nothing will be settled by a Internet flame fest. Perhaps he feels that only a court decision can resolve your differences. Ron Wanttaja http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/ Which means that you guys need to solve it yourselves. The money you spend in court could make a great improvement to the ship. Don’t let this happen to you guys. You both have great products. Work together for the sake of all of us. I’d love to buy a Mini-500 with a 115 hp turbine in it for $30K. I’d scratch a check for one tomorrow if it were available and I’m not alone. I have many friends who are multi-bizillionaires here in Las Vegas who have been following the Mini-500 the the Rinke-mod. I’ll bet you they’d buy about 10 of them just for fun if you guys worked it out. Don’t be stupid! BWB
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Think about it for a moment! Why is DF writing you? Why doesn’t he speak directly to the issue. Perhaps he thinks that absolutely nothing will be settled by a Internet flame fest. Perhaps he feels that only a court decision can resolve your differences. Ron Wanttaja http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/ Which means that you guys need to solve it yourselves. The money you spend in court could make a great improvement to the ship. Don’t let this happen to you guys. You both have great products. Work together for the sake of all of us. I’d love to buy a Mini-500 with a 115 hp turbine in it for $30K. I’d scratch a check for one tomorrow if it were available and I’m not alone. I have many friends who are multi-bizillionaires here in Las Vegas who have been following the Mini-500 the the Rinke-mod. I’ll bet you they’d buy about 10 of them just for fun if you guys worked it out. Don’t be stupid! BWB
Bill, Ron, et al: I have a sneaking feeling that, like the Democrats responding to the Republicans, Fetters has more to gain from making Rinke look just as bad as he looks than Rinke would ever have gained from this "scandal". I hope we don’t fall into the trap of thinking that "both are guilty" and so let up on the true bad actors. Here are the "facts" as I know them: 1) Fetters is *indeed* suing Rinke; and 2) Email can and no doubt *will* be traced when the lawyers go after this. The story WILL come out in the end. My money is, for no other reason than just a gut feeling, on Fetters being the problem, even if Rinke did sign a "no mod" agreement. I think "no-mod" agreements suck tapeworms, when it locks you into bad equipment. If Joe Rinke is telling the truth about not having ever sent email to Fetters, that’s what is going to tear Dennis a new asshole. Forging those emails is actionable, and I for one think that "the Rinke Mini-500" has a nice ring to it. Craig Wall
Response:
Well, as is not too unusual I think I’ve been used a bit and may have jumped to some premature conclusions. I got a letter from Dennis Fetters tonight and he attached some other correspondence from Mr. Rinke. If what I saw as an email from Mr. Rinke was correct then I don’t blame Dennis for being screaming pissed. I would go at Rinke with full force if the email Dennis forwarded to me is true. I’m not going to go into it in public but I must retract my statements about Dennis Fetters at this point. The story is MUCH more complex than meets the eye. Somebody is misrepresenting the facts here and there may even be some blackmail involved. This is way too deep for me. I’m out a here. My only personal hope is that Fetters continues to modify and improve the Mini-500 so I can have one at some point! The Ultimate toy! I do think however, that anyone who can improve on it, especially by putting a turbine engine in it so it will fly at higher altitudes is benefiting the whole project. Unfortunately there appears to be some other problems between Fetters and Rinke that has nothing to do with helicopters. Work it out you guys! Get this shit behind you because I want one. BWB
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, as is not too unusual I think I’ve been used a bit and may have jumped to some premature conclusions. I got a letter from Dennis Fetters tonight and he attached some other correspondence from Mr. Rinke. If what I saw as an email from Mr. Rinke was correct then I don’t blame Dennis for being screaming pissed. I would go at Rinke with full force if the email Dennis forwarded to me is true. I’m not going to go into it in public but I must retract my statements about Dennis Fetters at this point. The story is MUCH more complex than meets the eye. Somebody is misrepresenting the facts here and there may even be some blackmail involved. This is way too deep for me. I’m out a here. My only personal hope is that Fetters continues to modify and improve the Mini-500 so I can have one at some point! The Ultimate toy! I do think however, that anyone who can improve on it, especially by putting a turbine engine in it so it will fly at higher altitudes is benefiting the whole project. Unfortunately there appears to be some other problems between Fetters and Rinke that has nothing to do with helicopters. Work it out you guys! Get this shit behind you because I want one. BWB
Dear Bill: I’ve just read your letter and I am in a state of BEWILDERMENT! You mention that in a letter which you received from DF that you received "some other correspondence…an email" sent to DF from me. How could this be the case??? It’s impossible… I know it’s impossible because I’ve never sent DF an email, I’ve only spoken with DF twice and have never corresponded with him. I spoke with DF on the phone about a year and a half ago when I purchased my tail rotor parts and then in person at Oshkosh this past year when he came up to me very upset about the turbine conversion (and there are witnesses to this event that can attest to how DF handles himself and how he treated me). Other than that, I’ve had absolutely no contact with Mr. Fetters! NONE WHATSOEVER!!! DF even mentions in his email to me that I "don’t even have the guts to write him back". Therefore, I am extremely curious as to what it is that he’s sent you, would you please fax it to me at your earliest convenience? My fax# is 810-786-6864. Let’s just sit back and honestly take a look at this… Why in the world would I have any reason whatsoever to defame DF? Why would I say something that isn’t true? I wouldn’t! Defaming DF does nothing but hurt me!!! You see, I do not sell one-place helicopters, I am not a competitor of DF’s. I simply offer out an alternative power plant to the two-stroke and the only reason I do this is because I wanted it for my own safety and have offered it out because my friends were interested in it and I thought it would help them too. If DF doesn’t sell Mini’s, then how can they be convert to gas turbine? Let’s get real! I’m not sure why DF is doing what he’s doing or saying the things he is, but, I do know that justice will prevail and that the truth will prevail. Think about it for a moment! Why is DF writing you? Why doesn’t he speak directly to the issue. The facts are that he wrote me a scathing letter thinking that it would scare me and make me stop advertising the turbine conversion and when I decided to publish his letter for all to see, it back fired on him. Now, he’s using you as a medium to try to convince others that he’s been wronged. Think about this, just honestly sit back and with your experience in business and through the honesty in your heart just give this some thought. What kind of rubbish is this? If I were you, I’d feel that I’d been used too!!! Please see the facts for what they are! Wishing you the best in 1998, Joe Rinke
Response:
Related Posts
-
No matches
