Hill Helicopters HX50

[Cyclic Hotline]

Originally Posted by Shagpile

Wow this thread justifying $30k parts that cost $400 to make is like Turkeys arguing the merits of Christmas. Pilots on forums are like the Peoples Front of Judea versus the Judean Peoples Front.

You guys are arguing different things - one is amortizing the $1m R&D cost into the part. The other is talking about a lump of metal being machined for under $1000. You are both right.

Jason Hill is saying he's swallowing the difficult R&D upfront, then he can stamp out machines for realistic prices. The entire merit of this project is modern industrialisation of 20-50 year old concepts, with modern materials, processes, alloys, aerodynamics and so on. Just what a modern helicopter should look like; nothing more or less. There's no fancy hybrid drives, parachutes, etc.

You are all forgetting this is EXPERIMENTAL, with the concurrent certification effort, paid for by profits & builds of the experimental over many years. It's not the same business model as upfront certification and sale of 3rd party parts to compete with OEM's.

Example: One of his videos he says one particular rotor part has about €300 of actual metal/rubber/glue used to make it (yes yes, plus labour etc.). The certified Big Aviation™ part is €30,000. Each. Times three. So once he solves that R&D and develops a manufacturing process, he can bypass all that ridiculousness and multiplied over dozens/hundreds of parts, make a ￡500k chopper, (presumably with heathy profit margin).

I think we've heard enough of the "this won't work" posts that it's not value adding any more. Time will prove these right or wrong, otherwise everybody is just going around in circles. I propose this thread focus more on technical aspects of the program, eg points brought up in the latest video update (https://youtu.be/y9m7nrdwQO4?t=269) such as the shift to a single stage compressor turbine due to bearing loads & secondary air system efficiency/complexity and how do other engines solve this issue.

I believe that this design includes some real innovation and contemporary thinking, so I'm pretty impressed with much of the concept. Maybe the problem here is when other commentators share their personal interpretation of the status of the program rather than following the video and website information, at least this appears to be the source of some of the conflict.

Wow this thread justifying $30k parts that cost $400 to make is like Turkeys arguing the merits of Christmas.

• This appears to be a fundamental part of the discussion but is not a realistic comparison. A programme needs to recover the cost of the investment if it's going to succeed, and no matter how you manage the cost of manufacture you will have to absorb the cost of this in some form or another of contribution for each part. While I know there are definitely well-documented stories of such parts, and I'm sure many more might fall into this category, I don't think you'll be finding too many complex parts falling into this classification as the PMA market demonstrates. The only people that believe and repeat this, are those who have never been exposed to the design, manufacture, test, certification and delivery of an individual part and integration into a larger complete assembly. PMA can short-circuit this, by having none of the original design and development costs to bear.

Jason Hill is saying he's swallowing the difficult R&D upfront, then he can stamp out machines for realistic prices

• R&D costs money no matter how you package it. As do personnel, facilities, equipment, and all the other costs of development and production. Unless you have a supply of free money, at some point all these costs have to be absorbed and included into the cost of the delivered product. This is simple business, and if I'm missing some part of this equation, I'm completely open to being further educated on this, in fact, I have a couple of projects I'd love to pursue utilizing this formula.

You are all forgetting this is EXPERIMENTAL, with the concurrent certification effort, paid for by profits & builds of the experimental over many years. It's not the same business model as upfront certification and sale of 3rd party parts to compete with OEM's.

• This appears to conflict with the information on the website;
  Most aviation authorities do not allow night operation in NON certified aircraft; how is this going to be solved ?
  "The limitations that apply to these aircraft are based on the basis for initial airworthiness. In our case the basis for initial airworthiness is EASA, CS Part 27 or FAR Part 27 so if you deliver an aircraft with the same certification basis as a fully certified aircraft and develop it with a design approved organisation, produce it in a production approved organisation, then you can quite easily justify that it should have the operating privileges of an aircraft that’s come out of that environment. That’s how we do it."

• This product is to be designed, certified and tested in accordance with Part 27 from the outset, so the requirement for design, test, and certification of the product is the same as any other OEM. You are either doing this, or are you claiming something else is occurring? I'm not sure what it is, but all aircraft in the prototyping and pre-certification phase are always experimental. Again, if I'm missing something, I'm completely open to further education.

I propose this thread focus more on technical aspects of the program, eg points brought up in the latest video update (https://youtu.be/y9m7nrdwQO4?t=269) such as the shift to a single-stage compressor turbine due to bearing loads & secondary air system efficiency/complexity and how do other engines solve this issue.

• I would agree completely. This design incorporates some highly innovative ideas, and as it proceeds into the full aircraft, there will be many unforeseen or unconsidered challenges that will be experienced. Just focussing on the engine world, the history of every engine design includes unanticipated issues and failures throughout the product life cycle, not just at initial test, although I can't really think of a new design engine that didn't require some redesign to remedy issues discovered during the certification test stage. Design, material, manufacturing, operational, and maintenance issues can all be involved, and you can review contemporary issues on virtually every engine out there, no matter the age or stage of service life.

I really hope this product succeeds. Mr. Hill is definitely a talented individual and has some great ideas, and his goal of simplicity is highly attractive and commendable. The engine and the entire helicopter appears a great design, and I will be very interested in following the future development and success of the programme. I must make a point of stopping by sometime and seeing it in real life.