Mini-500 Master Blueprints on eBay

Because I don't want to deal with people like you, and that's because the major majority of people simply are unable to assemble a kit helicopter correctly, fly it correctly, and maintain it correctly.
Not that it matters, but I can certainly assemble, maintain, and fly a helicopter correctly - been there, done that.

You're correct that many people can't follow instruction, just don't assume we're all inexperienced.
 
Besides, the Mosquito violates my control patent, as anyone that sold to the USA, or purchased in the USA is about to find out, the manufacturers, owners, dealers and the distributors alike are responsible for and accountable for the infringement.
explain this one to me please,not starting a pissing match,but just wondering how that would be? how is your control system differant then say the Enstrom that has the control rods up thru the shaft.and they where out way before anyone ever heard of the Mini-500. what am I missing here?

would you show a diagram of both controls systems and point out how the Mosquito violates your patent?

like I said just wondering how you can make that statement.

if they have well then bad on them,but I seem to remember the first mosquito designed before the Mini-500 ,but I could be wrong.

and I know the Enstrom had the controls up thru the shaft before the Mini -500.

so what makes yours differant?

not that it matters to me,I dought I will ever own one,or a mini -500 for that matter. but you are basicly saying here that you plan to go after people that own a Mosquito also.

like I said just for educational porposes I would like it explained.
 
Can I get a honest response...

Can I get a honest response...

Let's just say I have $10K to buy the blueprints for Mini-500 and the rights to build those parts. I also developed a relationship with Mr. Fetters to provide technical counsel, but I handled the business aspect and we were to open a machine shop in Northwest Florida that made a complete Mini-500 kit that ran on multiple engine choices.....are you interested in more? Would you buy a Mini-500 kit? A kit helicopter that could be revived into the dominant chopper kit with both single and dual seat versions? How about making sure that each kit buyer has received instruction and building a true equivalent to the Rotorway kits with increased reliability and lower operating cost.

I am an entrepreneur and would love to hear the response for such a quest to improve this business model and keep many years of research from going into the trash.

This might cause a stir, but I would like to hear your thoughts.
 
explain this one to me please,not starting a pissing match,but just wondering how that would be? how is your control system differant then say the Enstrom that has the control rods up thru the shaft.and they where out way before anyone ever heard of the Mini-500. what am I missing here?

would you show a diagram of both controls systems and point out how the Mosquito violates your patent?

like I said just wondering how you can make that statement.

if they have well then bad on them,but I seem to remember the first mosquito designed before the Mini-500 ,but I could be wrong.

and I know the Enstrom had the controls up thru the shaft before the Mini -500.

so what makes yours differant?

not that it matters to me,I dought I will ever own one,or a mini -500 for that matter. but you are basicly saying here that you plan to go after people that own a Mosquito also.

like I said just for educational porposes I would like it explained.

An Enstorm and a Mini-500 control system are totally different in their mechanical function. I don't have a patent on just running tubes up the mast, nor does Enstorm.

The Mini-500 was before the Mosquito, nevertheless, I own the patented control system.

Back in 1994 we informed Mr. Uptigrove that his new design would be in violation of our patent. He wrote us back saying it was not, along with sending us a copy of our patent he used as a blueprint outlining changes he did to try and get around the patent. He didn't change it enough.

Of course, I can't show any evidence outside of the court, but it's close enough now where he, his dealers and the list of people we now know that imported one into the USA will be served, and thats why I waited until now to mention it.
 
Ok I don't know much about patent laws, but I always thought if just 1 thing was differant,then it did not violate it.

seems to me if every company went after people like you are talking about doing,we would all still be rideing horse and buggys.

Good way to keep friends. going after the companys that sold it are one thing but when you go after a buyer, to me that is wrong. and I just lost all respect for you.

sorry but law suit happy people and lawyers are what has ruined general avaition. ( note not meaning you but law suit happy people in general )

I mean I am sorry, but anything that make an aircraft easyer and safer to fly should be a good thing to share. just like the offset gimble head bensen Designed. did you have to pay bensen for the use of his design? just wondering where we would be if everyone thought like you on this.
 
Let's just say I have $10K to buy the blueprints for Mini-500 and the rights to build those parts. I also developed a relationship with Mr. Fetters to provide technical counsel, but I handled the business aspect and we were to open a machine shop in Northwest Florida that made a complete Mini-500 kit that ran on multiple engine choices.....are you interested in more? Would you buy a Mini-500 kit? A kit helicopter that could be revived into the dominant chopper kit with both single and dual seat versions? How about making sure that each kit buyer has received instruction and building a true equivalent to the Rotorway kits with increased reliability and lower operating cost.

I am an entrepreneur and would love to hear the response for such a quest to improve this business model and keep many years of research from going into the trash.

This might cause a stir, but I would like to hear your thoughts.

I would hope you could make it better then Rotorway, trust me,if you ever went on the Rotorway owners Forum. you will see they have alot of problems also. most Rotorways that are flying good are useing after market upgrades.

Now that being said,the way the Economy is,I don't know if I would jump right in with a whole helicopter kit again yet,I think I would offer parts and upgrades for the Mini -500's out there and get a feel for the market.

the only problem I see,and I don't mean this on a personal level,might be still haveing Dennis involved.now I want to clearly state,nothing wrong with that,but the avarage person does not know the real story of what happened to Dennis and the factory and lets just say it is no secret that the smear campain on him has convinced alot of people that he was not on the up and up.

so I feel, that just becouse of that,if the word got out that Dennis was involved, it might would scare people away that do not know the full story.

lets face it old rumors and stuff die hard and lets face it, not every person intrested in Rotorcraft log onto this forum and has a chance to know the full story.

Now that being said. even tho I don't respect dennis as much now after seeing he would go after the owners of another aircraft that.well lets face it they had no idea when buying siad aircraft that their was a legal issue of a design patent.I mean lets face it dennis kept the controls so secret in storys of the helicopter,that the average person if looking at it would still not have a clue that they where even alike.

But I also beleive he probably did what he could to deleiver what he promise.
and I hate what happened to him.

but the fact remains, it could be a big risk to jump in with both feet.

I think if you could re enterduce the 2 seater dennis designed and fit it with a Turbine,then you might have something that would sell. And the fact it is 2 seat you have more people that would look into it.

this is just my opinion. but fact is Dennis's name got smeared pretty good.
you may could counter the smear campain buy posting the real story on yur website you would have for the company and state Dennis is just and advisor to your company.

I know I can't afford it. but I am like you, it was a very sharp machine and I would like to see at least support for the machines out there.

Also if you worked out a good two seater,maybe start a training center for the owners.

Good luck.
 
Ok I don't know much about patent laws, but I always thought if just 1 thing was differant,then it did not violate it.

seems to me if every company went after people like you are talking about doing,we would all still be rideing horse and buggys.

Good way to keep friends. going after the companys that sold it are one thing but when you go after a buyer, to me that is wrong. and I just lost all respect for you.

sorry but law suit happy people and lawyers are what has ruined general avaition. ( note not meaning you but law suit happy people in general )

I mean I am sorry, but anything that make an aircraft easyer and safer to fly should be a good thing to share. just like the offset gimble head bensen Designed. did you have to pay bensen for the use of his design? just wondering where we would be if everyone thought like you on this.

Let's just say you spent several years developing what you thought was a superior designed product that was completely designed with your own intellectual knowledge and imagination. You worked long and hard to perfect it into a working model and eventually a successful product. Now, just before you get ready to profit on your invention someone sneaks into your shop and takes pictures of your design and copies it, takes it to China and mass produces it for a huge profit. This is your design! Do you just say, "Well I'm glad others will enjoy the benefits of my product since it increases safety. I don't need any royalty since it will increase the safety of aviation." Your views are not from a business point of view, but of a personal point. I have experienced similar situations when people have stolen some of my work and tried to use it without paying for it. It defeats our free enterprise system, opposite of what you have stated and a lawsuit is truly in order when these types of infringements have been violated.
 
M500 control system

M500 control system

Just ask Augusto Cicare how Dennis came up with the control system for the M500
 
JasonO,

Think a bit further than your nose is long, here is info available in the public domain, about control systems:

Dennis L Fetters US patent 5163815

Agusto U Cicare US patent 5165854

Rehm N Rehm US patent 5826822

By awarding each designer his own patent, the US patent office states all these very similar control systems are different, good enough proof for me. The one coming from Argentina, the one you are implying Dennis is using, is thus clearly different. Serves the same function, but operates differently.

The inner tube control system also has variants used by Enstrom, as well as Cessna/Seibel.

Get knowledgeable on the subject, before you put your foot into it again.....

To the other guys out there, does anyone know if a control system patent has been issued to the Mosquito designers, thus stating theirs as different? Would like to know if that has been done.
 
Last edited:
Ok I don't know much about patent laws, but I always thought if just 1 thing was differant,then it did not violate it.

seems to me if every company went after people like you are talking about doing,we would all still be rideing horse and buggys.

Good way to keep friends. going after the companys that sold it are one thing but when you go after a buyer, to me that is wrong. and I just lost all respect for you.

sorry but law suit happy people and lawyers are what has ruined general avaition. ( note not meaning you but law suit happy people in general )

I mean I am sorry, but anything that make an aircraft easyer and safer to fly should be a good thing to share. just like the offset gimble head bensen Designed. did you have to pay bensen for the use of his design? just wondering where we would be if everyone thought like you on this.

Well, I'm really sorry you have lost respect for me. I don't think you really mean it, once you think it through. In fact, if it were not for the teeth in our patent system, we would still be riding horse and buggy's. I mean, why would an inventor go to all the time, trouble and expense to create something if someone could download the patent and use it as a blueprint, change one thing and reap the profits? Where is the protection in that? Hell, better not to have a patent office, so at least the thief would have to go to some trouble to steel the design.

I know that you know how it feels to have been cheated and stolen from. You want to be reimbursed, and you know there is no one to go after for your loss. I even tried to help you, but the people involved in your problem just don't have any tangible property to obtain if you did win a lawsuit.

In my case, that is not true. I was robbed, just as you. The fact is, that after I go after the Canadian company that started robbing me, and it gets out into the world news that people buying this aircraft could be sued as well, unfortunately Mosquito will most likely go out of business, and by the time I get my judgment transfered to Canada, all the assets and Mr. Uptigrove will be long gone.

But, in patent and copyright law, the persons purchasing the illegal item is also responsible. One of our founding principles of our Justice system is; Ignorance of the law is no excuse. So yes, a person buying a fake bag, a ripped song, a pirated DVD move, and yes, a helicopter with a ripped-off patented control system is responsible for the owners loss, as well as the thief, if they knew it or not.

So that being said, the only resource of reimbursement from the theft will be the buyers of the illegal product through their insurance, or lean on their home, or taking their savings..... so on. No its not pretty, but that's how the blood-sucking attorneys operate, and that is the teeth the law puts in it to protect the rights of the inventors.

Sure, Mr. Uptigrove knew what he was steeling, but did he warn his buyers that they may be in danger by purchasing this product? You bet your life he didn't. Did he try and work out a fair commission to pay me for the rights to use my patented control system? No, but he could have, and still can for that matter. Will he, and save his business and problems for his customers? Probably not.

What about the Mosquito owners contacting Mr. Uptigrove and telling him to make it right with me so that they don't have to pay for his theft? Do you think he will, or just take the money and run, leaving them holding the bag? That's yet to be seen, but its the best way to end this problem, and I hope thats what will happen.

We fairly warned Mr. Uptigrove that he would be in violation of our patent, he ignored the warning, and failed to warn his customers that they would, probably unknowingly, be part of the crime. If someone buys stolen property, they are not reimbursed when the law retrieves it, and in fact, if they can't deliver the stolen property back, they have to pay the value for it.

If Mr. Uptigrove thought he designed the control system sufficiently different or improved on the concept, then why didn't he have it patented? Because he probably knew it would not be approved due to it violating existing patents.

A person is responsible for their actions, even if they didn't know the details. Where is the different in my case, and why would the law not be available to me as it is available to you or anyone else, if you choose to use it?

By the way, I obtained permission from Dr. Bensen to use the off-set Gimbel head, just as I obtained permission from Frank Robinson to use the "T-stick" design in my Voyager-500 helicopter.

I hope to regain your respect.
 
Last edited:
Just ask Augusto Cicare how Dennis came up with the control system for the M500

Yes, ask him.

It was ordered in a court in his own country of Argentina that the control systems were different, and not in violation of each other.

Mr. Cicare also published the same thing himself, admitting the systems were different and were not violating each others rights.

So, what was the point you were trying to make?

Maybe there are some points of the Cicare patent that Mr. Uptigrove violated as well. But, that would be up to Mr. Cicare to determine, and to seek reimbursement.
 
Hi All


How long are patents good for. I thought it was 15 years.

Doug S
An original invention is good for 20 years, Doug; a design patent is good for 14 years if the maintenance fee is paid every 3½ years.

Some awfully silly things have been patented.

Smuckers (the jelly makers) obtained a patent on a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (U.S. Patent 6,004,596).

An individual obtained a patent for exercising a cat by having it chase a spot from a laser pointer (U.S. Patent 5,443,036).

A patent is presumptive until it’s been tested in court. For obvious good reasons.

I doubt if Mr. Fetters has legal title to any of the intellectual property of the former Revolution Helicopter Co. In a liquidation bankruptcy (chapt. 7), the bankruptcy referee seizes all assets of the liquidated company for disposal and distributes the proceeds among the creditors.
 

Attachments

  • Method_of_exercising_a_cat.png
    Method_of_exercising_a_cat.png
    8.5 KB · Views: 3
I doubt if Mr. Fetters has legal title to any of the intellectual property of the former Revolution Helicopter Co. In a liquidation bankruptcy (chapt. 7), the bankruptcy referee seizes all assets of the liquidated company for disposal and distributes the proceeds among the creditors.

Well Chuck, I guess that shows everyone how ignorant you are about the matter. Revolution Helicopter nor I personally ever went bankrupt.
 
Chuck, I don't think Dennis was that stupid, to have the intellectual property rights of the Mini-500 design registered under his RHCI company. It is good business practice to have the IP of a product under one company, but manufacturing it under another. That way, if the production side of it goes wheels-up, the designer still retains his IP on it. Typical thing with Dennis's situation, Missouri SBA lays claim on the assets of RHCI, but could not touch his IP rights.

Ever thought of why those that bought up all the tools and stock of RHCI did not stick it straight back into production, like Stitt and his gang at Liberty? I think they could buy hardware from the RHCI auction, but could most probably not manufacture any more, because Dennis most probably still has the IP and Patent Rights.
 
Top