Hill Helicopters HX50

[Nige321]

Mr Hill has an answer for every question bar one, and I am not sure his business case (taking money up front from the government then prospective customers) is that bad either

The one question he cant answer is 'show me an engine, show me a hull, show me an actual helicopter on your brand new production line'.

Until then it takes a massive leap of faith to hand over your deposit. I will wait until the tiktok guys have flown 100 hours, although I might then beat a path to Mr Hill's door.
Except the people who have had the personal presentations have probably signed an NDA, then seen more than we have here...

[Bravo73]

I put a deposit down for the 'new' TVR back in 2016, with a view to taking delivery in 2018. Gordon Murray, Cosworth... what's not to like?

Well as it turned out, quite a lot! The CEO talked a good job there too. And got some funding from the Welsh government.

If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

22/12/20:

https://www.tvr.co.uk/noise/post/noise/2020/12/22/factory-gets-green-light

[helihub]

How many home builders spend more than $600k on a kit?

Bell_ringer >> The Hill HX50 is not a big box of parts for you to take home and spend unsupervised hours in your garage putting together. Notice the words "Build School" in this short video:-
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA_njoJiB3Y

[[email protected]]

The words from his own mouth raise far more questions about costs - all his R and D is in house and so is all his manufacturing, that is expensive, very expensive with all the machines, tooling, facilities etc.

You need a big expensive autoclave just to make the fuselage parts let alone anything else.

Making his own engine using 'vast experience of the automotive trade' doesn't inspire confidence either - how many cars have gas turbines?

I'm sorry but I think this is a front-loaded con and I will be surprised if anyone gets what they have signed up for. Very happy to be proved wrong but I won't hold my breath.

[PEASACAKE]

The words from his own mouth raise far more questions about costs - all his R and D is in house and so is all his manufacturing, that is expensive, very expensive with all the machines, tooling, facilities etc.

You need a big expensive autoclave just to make the fuselage parts let alone anything else.

Making his own engine using 'vast experience of the automotive trade' doesn't inspire confidence either - how many cars have gas turbines?

I'm sorry but I think this is a front-loaded con and I will be surprised if anyone gets what they have signed up for. Very happy to be proved wrong but I won't hold my breath.

We watch with interest, the company Hill Helicopters Ltd is only 7 months old so no track record to review, hope it all works out for everybody.

[Nige321]

The words from his own mouth raise far more questions about costs - all his R and D is in house and so is all his manufacturing, that is expensive, very expensive with all the machines, tooling, facilities etc.

You need a big expensive autoclave just to make the fuselage parts let alone anything else.

Making his own engine using 'vast experience of the automotive trade' doesn't inspire confidence either - how many cars have gas turbines?

I'm sorry but I think this is a front-loaded con and I will be surprised if anyone gets what they have signed up for. Very happy to be proved wrong but I won't hold my breath.

So the hundred odd people who have had the private briefing and have put down deposits in the last month are all wrong?
And the Innovate UK inspectors who authorised a £1M grant are wrong too??

[toptobottom]

So the hundred odd people who have had the private briefing and have put down deposits in the last month are all wrong?
And the Innovate UK inspectors who authorised a £1M grant are wrong too??

Nigel - you know as well as anyone that there are many industries where, over many years, there have been many extraordinary successes and failures that have changed those industries forever. Only time will tell, so let's not get into another bun fight over what might happen, but wait and see.

I've had the personal briefing and while the pitch and Q&A were polished, I simply wasn't convinced enough to hand over a £100k non-refundable deposit; there are just too many doubts over all the claims - performance, running costs (purchase cost!), specs, etc. that were addressed with hopes and dreams, not products.

[Hughes500]

the laugh is you can make Rolls Royce compressor wheels for around hundred quid each, yet they become £ 2000 " to cover R and D" that was paid for by the US military in the 1960's. A gas turbine is very simple to build and actually cheap to build. It is just the manufacturers saying, oh its aviation so we will take the piss. As for safety compared to the car industry aviation is mickey mouse , just ask my QA manager who used to do it for JLR before as he says going into the dark ages on safety by working in aviation
So i dont see why he can build one, why does ne need his own autoclave unit ? Cabri didn't have their own to start with yet they can build a certified 2 seater for euro 300, make it a bit bigger with a gas turbine, Robinson did it with a certified RR 300 ( a slightly modified 250 ) on their 66

[Bravo73]

a £100k non-refundable deposit

Non-refundable? Ouch. Now, that is a risk.

I presume that Mr Hill has already got sufficient VC capital to get the first few airframes to market.

[[email protected]]

Hughes500 - he said all his build is in-house so yes, he does need his own equipment.

I am sure the actual manufacturing is straightforward once you have proved the design, got the tooling, sourced the raw materials and tested sufficient failure modes.

The £100K up front is enough of a question mark but non-refundable????? He saw you coming, the 100 who have invested.

[toptobottom]

the laugh is you can make Rolls Royce compressor wheels for around hundred quid each, yet they become £ 2000 " to cover R and D" that was paid for by the US military in the 1960's. A gas turbine is very simple to build and actually cheap to build. It is just the manufacturers saying, oh its aviation so we will take the piss. As for safety compared to the car industry aviation is mickey mouse , just ask my QA manager who used to do it for JLR before as he says going into the dark ages on safety by working in aviation
So i dont see why he can build one, why does ne need his own autoclave unit ? Cabri didn't have their own to start with yet they can build a certified 2 seater for euro 300, make it a bit bigger with a gas turbine, Robinson did it with a certified RR 300 ( a slightly modified 250 ) on their 66

Agree with Aviation as an excuse to take the pi$$, but manufacturing something that has already been designed, built, tested and certified is a totally different proposition to making something from the ground up, no matter how many examples you may have looked at. Neither the Cabri, nor the R66 include all the other luxury frills either: air con, retractable gear, etc.

[CGameProgrammerr]

It's true that this might not succeed, but it is at least clearly legitimate I think and not a scam, like that flying car from a while back. Certification adds a huge amount to price, as does the premium from being aviation (like how horrendously overpriced Garmin avionics are). This does not use Garmin avionics but rather an iPad and their own in-house displays (obviously the actual panels are Samsung or whatever) so that results in huge savings, especially for the experimental version. So that does help things, cost-wise. But we'll see.

The non-refundable deposit is just like Kickstarter; you're effectively investing in the company to help bring the product to market. It is obviously not for anyone that would miss $100k but there are plenty of rich people that won't.

[Jetexec]

It's true that this might not succeed, but it is at least clearly legitimate I think and not a scam, like that flying car from a while back. Certification adds a huge amount to price, as does the premium from being aviation (like how horrendously overpriced Garmin avionics are). This does not use Garmin avionics but rather an iPad and their own in-house displays (obviously the actual panels are Samsung or whatever) so that results in huge savings, especially for the experimental version. So that does help things, cost-wise. But we'll see.

The non-refundable deposit is just like Kickstarter; you're effectively investing in the company to help bring the product to market. It is obviously not for anyone that would miss $100k but there are plenty of rich people that won't.


I think you nailed it. As I said before, I threw in my 100K. I haven't signed an NDA nor been told I couldn't discuss anything. That said, if you want to know more, sign up for their presentation and they are better suited to explain to you the entire process better than I could. Some of you doubt the simplicity of a turbine engine, but consider that with the technology to produce them today as compared to 50 years ago, how tough is it? Someone else mentioned something about the Garmin panel. How much would Garmin want for an entire glass panel similar to what you may have seen in the HX50? 6 figures for sure. I think everyone is already flying with an iPad now, how simple would it be to get that iPad to talk to the rest of the electronics just like your cell phone does when you jump into a vehicle and it automatically connects to CarPlay? I'm not here to sell the product and I still realize that there is risk in my investment. One interesting portion I saw on one of the live Q & A's with Jason Hill. One of the fellows listening in wanted to invest in Hill Helicopters and he was turned down point blank. Jason Hill stated that he did not require (nor want) any further outside investment. Now, if I were looking to scam money, I would never turn more money down..........Food for thought. I guess some of us (in this group) are going to be saying "I told you so" in a few years. I can live with that if I am the one being told.

[206 jock]

£100k non-refundable deposit

WTAF?

I have a grudging administration that they managed to persuade Innovate UK to bung them a load of grant funding but depositors stumping up their own cash? Chapeau to them.

[Agile]

I think everyone is already flying with an iPad now, how simple would it be to get that iPad to talk to the rest of the electronics just like your cell phone does when you jump into a vehicle and it automatically connects to CarPlay?

lettings the tablet have a critical role to fly the aircraft … or corrupts the integrity of the onboard avionics.. NO Thank you

the amount of effort puts into the design, the testing, the manufacturing of aviation grade avionics is a world away from consumer electronics for good reasons.
they freeze it, bake it, shake it, bombard it with magnetic fields, test it in context….there is no pressure to cut corners it is 100% safety. yes it is expensive but you get exactly what you paid for.

this video of how they work at Garmin really exemplify the spirit well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUSZALnHw20

[megan]

yes it is expensive but you get exactly what you paid forJust because it has "Aircraft" stamped on the side doesn't mean it's not subject to failure, you don't get exactly what you pay for, reliability, A320 written off because the automatics wouldn't let the crew flare for landing, A330 automatics in Western Australia which took the crew and pax on such an exciting ride that the Captain retired with PTSD (occurred due to the combination of a design limitation in the flight control primary computer software), 777 again in Western Australia where automatics took the folks on an exciting ride (the crew experienced a situation that had previously been considered not possible).

A320 http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/8B514392-B79A-46DC-A7C8-DC1BA137D076/23171/2001_006_A_ENG1.pdf
A330 https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3532398/ao2008070.pdf
777 https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24550/aair200503722_001.pdf

[Agile]

Yes three accidents and maybe a few more over the last 20 years, indeed nothing is perfect, how many accident if consumer electronic was involved in control of your aircraft?
point I was trying to make there is no new business model where the X50 will be more rational or cost effective because I bring my $500 tablet onboard.

Just as an annex the A350 lets you indeed plug in a portable device into the system of the aircraft and upload flight plan that you prepared offline (supposedly in your hotel room)
The device is also an Airbus device that looks like one of the first generation Toshiba laptop computer, brick size, 2 inch thick and probably fire walled in hardware not software.

[PEASACAKE]

Hughes500 - he said all his build is in-house so yes, he does need his own equipment.

I am sure the actual manufacturing is straightforward once you have proved the design, got the tooling, sourced the raw materials and tested sufficient failure modes.

The £100K up front is enough of a question mark but non-refundable????? He saw you coming, the 100 who have invested.

I read on the Hill Helicopters website that " they have an excellent working relationship with the regulators". Now retired after 30 years working with regulators I never really succeeded in having any sort of relationship with UK/ EASA / FAA regulators, and that was for just normal aviation operations, not major modifications or manufacturing.

One question I do have, do we manufacture under EASA regulations now or is UK independent.

[Jetexec]

lettings the tablet have a critical role to fly the aircraft … or corrupts the integrity of the onboard avionics.. NO Thank you


Folks, let's just understand, we are not attempting to fly Trans Atlantic in Boeing Triple 7's with this set up (although there are some adventurous folks in the group that have circumnavigated the globe by helicopter using their iPads). We are typically VFR flights in helicopters. I currently fly with my iPad or iPhone although I also have a Garmin 430 and 530 in my 407. I call the Garmins my "boat anchors" but appreciate the fact that I can use them to communicate with other aircraft or Airports with them when needed. I've flown some of the most remote areas in Canada with iPads........but to age myself, I've flown the most remote parts of Canada with a compass and map. Aside from the redundancies built into the Hill panel, if everything failed (the entire panel, my iPhone, my iPad).........heaven forbid, I may have to actually navigate with a compass and a map again. I know I may have many of you holding your chests and gasping for air, but (as I wipe a tear from my eye), we may have to put our past training to task. And..........if we forgot some of that training...........we may have to land at the next clearing to re-evaluate our circumstances. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue resorting to all these life threatening situations?

OK, I got a bit sarcastic here, I would equate this argument to losing your navigation screen in your Prius.............just keep driving or stop and ask questions.

Good constructive criticism is always welcome. With the world economy what it is, spewing all the negative things going on just makes you a candidate for Main Street Media. I've thrown a ton of questions at Jason Hill............I forgot to say, before being a pilot, I took Aircraft Engineering. I haven't stumped him yet (he's kind of like that guy on that Brit show "The Beast" ;-). Will there be over-sights? Probably. Will it come out on schedule? Hopefully. All I know is that some of this banter is good and some of it is the reason parents shut their kid's internet down at 8pm (or so). Most of you will never come out of your parent's basement to try and do something awesome. For those of you that do, my hat comes off to you!

[Bravo73]

Most of you will never come out of your parent's basement to try and do something awesome.

🤣 ‘How to make friends and influence people’.

I hope that Mr Hill has a better manner of communicating with his peers than yourself.

[CGameProgrammerr]

You can talk about potential issues with consumer electronics, but the fact is that a lot of people (frankly, seems like vast majority) fly with iPads or mounted cellphones and we never see a failure. (iPads can overheat, especially during daylight, but they have coolers for it, as obviously will Hill.) So clearly they work. They are not suitable as a PFD (something called a real-time operating system is required for that, among many other considerations) but as a MFD they're just fine.

[[email protected]]

'Took Aircraft Engineering'? - what as a hobby, degree level, chartered or certified aircraft engineer??? Not a very clear endorsement of Jason Hill unless you specify your credentials.

Map and compass is easy peasy over land - try doing it miles out to sea

[206 jock]

It's your money, do what you like with it. Maybe Jason Hill is the Messiah, but personally I doubt the rest of the industry is quaking in its boots.

[megan]

"they have an excellent working relationship with the regulators"Boeing had an excellent working relationship with the FAA and look where that got us.

[aa777888]

But wait, there's more...

https://youtu.be/SAvnMrmR8Q4

[Ascend Charlie]

Looks interesting.

But then the kid in the backseat hooks his tablet into the wifi and the pilot gets MarioKart on his main screen.

[Agile]

As an habitual HX50 sceptic, I admit, there are some detail that make sense for pilot awareness. large screen for map of the ground - power line indication...

I still believe its too soon to try to breed a 2021 Mercedes S-Class dasboard with a Tesla tablet-like center display and a Lamborghini Aventadorr center console.

In the air, I prefer a system that I can understand and has redundancy I can quickly comprehend

[PPRuNeUser0211]

As an habitual HX50 sceptic, I admit, there are some detail that make sense for pilot awareness. large screen for map of the ground - power line indication...

There's some things I really like about it. But some of it is absolutely honking. You can tell a car designer had input - classic example is the 3d view showing you powerlines being obscured almost completely by the instrument cluster. In a car, nav is a "secondary function" so it looks cool to have a moving map behind your instrument cluster but all you really need is turn by turn. For obstruction alerting, unless they do something clever with that it's pretty naff.

A lot of good as well, don't get me wrong. Big proponent of doing things digitally. Be interesting to see if the wide format displays have a split down the middle and left/right segment redundancy, or whether they've cut costs by not doing that.

[CRAN]

There is more information on their website:
https://www.hillhelicopters.com/digital-cockpit

[[email protected]]

Does it fly yet???????????

[Agile]

Does it fly yet???????????

No, but honestly his rendering work is really top class, I have not seen virtual modeling that good that I can remember. So maybe the actual hardware will also be top class?

[casper64]

Good luck certifying all of that....
oh, and nice and shiney plastics reflect like crazy in windscreens and destroy your outward vision.... just a hint 😉

[aa777888]

It's so different from a Garmin/Collins/Honeywell/etc. setup that I was immediately turned off. Hell, it doesn't even seem to have and speed, altitude and heading bugs but maybe I missed those. The were some quite prominent autopilot controls. Love the pop-up emergency procedures. Maybe it is time for some out of the box thinking. It will undoubtedly evolve a lot over the next year or so. I'll probably never fly one but I'd give it a chance :)

I guess they got a lot of questions about redundancy because Mischa made another video about that:

https://youtu.be/M94AHVdhe7k

[toptobottom]

"Synthetic Vision" looks like a fast track ticket to the Darwin Awards for the "hold my beer" VFR pilot

[Hot and Hi]

There's some things I really like about it.

Sure, without a doubt. But is that the question? I am sure many of us have the experience, imagination and vision to come up with great ideas of features that would be really nice to have.

Greatest example: Twice the capabilities at half the price :-)

I also applaud the outside-in perspective. Many sectors could benefit from this, and all insiders fight this tooth and nail.

But the claim here is not alone that it would be nice, but that it can be done, within time and budget, and safely. It’s easier said than done.

[HeliHenri]

It’s easier said than done.

Like everything except speaking, so ... ?
.

[CGameProgrammerr]

"Synthetic Vision" looks like a fast track ticket to the Darwin Awards for the "hold my beer" VFR pilot
What an odd thing to say about a technology that has already been widely deployed in all kinds of aircraft for years.

[[email protected]]

It's not been that accessible for pilots of light single helis though - I think that is his point, 'amateur' owners looking to push on in poor weather using synthetic vision.

[aa777888]

It's not been that accessible for pilots of light single helis though - I think that is his point, 'amateur' owners looking to push on in poor weather using synthetic vision.
Synthetic vision is available to every Foreflight and Garmin Pilot user on the ever ubiquitous cockpit iPad, which describes nearly every light single pilot I know.

That said, I've never seen anyone fly based on synthetic vision. I personally find it terribly distracting. For me it is much easier to think in terms of the basic instrument readings. I wonder that if that is because synthetic vision contains no 3D cues.

[[email protected]]

Ah yes, forgot about the ipad - I was meaning having the capability provided by the manufacturer. I wouldn't be relying on an ipad app to save my life in poor weather.

[Bell_ringer]

Ah yes, forgot about the ipad - I was meaning having the capability provided by the manufacturer. I wouldn't be relying on an ipad app to save my life in poor weather.

For modern aircraft, it's available in newer generations of the Garmin suite, so no need for an ipad.
Hill needs to remember that there are countries where the sun shines regularly and temperatures are well above "mild". In these conditions an ipad will go thermal in minutes.

It would be really good to see an actual aircraft prototype. So far it is all style over substance.
I still can't see how he is reinventing the helicopter, it just seems like the same stuff made a lot prettier, but then that is what Steve Jobs did to the mobile phone.

With all the premium vehicle analogies, perhaps he should rather have put his expertise to Britains version of Tesla.

[[email protected]]

With all the premium vehicle analogies, perhaps he should rather have put his expertise to Britains version of Tesla. Lets hope the shut lines and build quality are better:)

[CGameProgrammerr]

Bell, there are iPad mounts with fans specifically for aircraft; I've had CFIs use one while flying R44s. Obviously Hill's mount would do the same. You cannot use an iPad for anything important but for an MFD it's fine. The PFD displays need to use a real-time operating system and be especially resilient.

[krypton_john]

It's not been that accessible for pilots of light single helis though - I think that is his point, 'amateur' owners looking to push on in poor weather using synthetic vision.

It is becoming so. Widely available on Garmin EFIS models, so commonly available on the likes of B407, B505 etc. Add to the now widely available HeliSAS stabilised autopilots and it's a VFR pilot's temptation into IFR.

[206 jock]

I wonder what you get if you don't opt for the HDC? And if I read it right the standard spec is for a skid configuration (never seen a pic of that) and the autopilot is an option.

I managed to configure one for >£650k. But that does include a Homelink so I can open my hangar door remotely from inside the cockpit. Very important, that.

[CRAN]

I've seen their presentations, wheels and HDC are standard. Two axis autopilot is standard also, the four axis version is the optional upgrade. Skids are a no-cost option for those that are prepared to trade off some
cruise speed for better off-airport landing capability.

[206 jock]

I've seen their presentations, HDC standard. .
Not according to their online configurator. I am sure the sands are shifting.

Anyway I don't care, I won't be buying but following with interest.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/900x2000/screenshot_20210428_201842_024e2b014476036680b2fab0236c5888e c2f1808.jpg

[CRAN]

Click on the 'i' next to the item, it explains what's additional in 'Advanced' digital cockpit over the 'standard' one.

if you ask me, you don't need any of it, the standard HDC is fine for a VFR helicopter.

[Mee3]

cheap and certification does not gel. But obviously kit flyer does not value certification as priority. I still have not figure out how does a five seater can get away without certification.

Notwithstanding certification is the largest obstacle for avionic to be up to date, that's another story of its own. But as Hill himself compared lux car to aircraft, similarly lux car is also not comparable to updates received for a device. Neither the scale of market nor the replacement cycle puts these 3 categories comparable.

It all depends on how many people buy into this dream. If Hill gets the number then one or two major updates in 10 years could be possible if it remains non certified. Otherwise owner will be chasing for bug fix since day one.

[CGameProgrammerr]

In the US there are no limitations at all on what aircraft can be experimental; literally anything can. In fact manufacturers have experimental prototypes or testbed aircraft they use for testing the aircraft, or potential changes to it, before certification.

[Agile]

I still have not figure out how does a five seater can get away without certification
that's my key question too.
a two seater: you and maybe willing buddy, short trip, good-weather-only, experimental makes sense, its cheaper and the same fun.
a five seater: its diferent type of mission,
how do you explain to the passenger at the back. that, you know... ... its home made.......
how do you explain the word experiemental in big letter that shows brightly when you open the door
I would not climb onboard and would not let my familly climb onboard.

do the authority even investigate the crash on non-certified aircraft?

[md 600 driver]

In the US there are no limitations at all on what aircraft can be experimental; literally anything can. In fact manufacturers have experimental prototypes or testbed aircraft they use for testing the aircraft, or potential changes to it, before certification.

Yes the US rules are a lot easier for flight testing but as this is is a UK product manufactured in the uk and presumably tested in the uk surely it will need some sort of certification in the uk to allow flight in uk airspace
The uk has only one type of home built helicopter flying in uk airspace AFAIK

[CRAN]

UK CAA are type approving it hence the 5 seats and day/night VFR. Their website explains this in the GA2.0 area.

[md 600 driver]

UK CAA are type approving it hence the 5 seats and day/night VFR. Their website explains this in the GA2.0 area.
If that’s true thats fantastic
As the uk CAA have already agreed to type approval before any flight why couldn’t they do that before with other home built helicopters that have thousands of hours flight time already the CAA are a strange bunch one rule for 1 person and another for the next

[PEASACAKE]

The website states "it is built in our UK CAA approved factory".

So has one actually been built in the UK CAA approved factory ?

[r88]

Can experimental aircraft be used for aerial work ? Or why does it have hook option ?

[Bell_ringer]

Can experimental aircraft be used for aerial work ? Or why does it have hook option ?

Thats where the sales department attach the line and sinker :}

[Evil Twin]

If that’s true thats fantastic
As the uk CAA have already agreed to type approval before any flight why couldn’t they do that before with other home built helicopters that have thousands of hours flight time already the CAA are a strange bunch one rule for 1 person and another for the next

They once designed a missile named the Civil Servant, didn't work and you couldn't fire it!

[[email protected]]

Bell ringer - I don't think you are taking this earnest sales pitch seriously:)

[500e]

"The hook mount is optional", so making the hull to accept the hook mount would be a sensible idea , especially as they say "going for type approval at a later date"
Would be nice to see a prototype, or even a running turbine

[Rigga]

A prototype or concept development aircraft needs to be able to fly to prove its designed systems and concepts. If the CAA didn’t approve the build, no new designs would fly in UK at all. Much of the snag-busting should have been done during simulations and ground runs, hopefully with every sensor you can shake a stick at. The only item not calculated might be the noise generated in flight....

[CGameProgrammerr]

The excerpt said the factory was CAA-approved. It did not say anything about the helicopter being CAA approved.

[Bell_ringer]

The excerpt said the factory was CAA-approved. It did not say anything about the helicopter being CAA approved.

Can a regulator approve a factory? What does that even entail?

[Mee3]

Can a regulator approve a factory? What does that even entail?
It means either a POA or at least an AMO.

[Rigga]

It means either a POA or at least an AMO.
A Factory is a Production Organisation that can produce batches of materials for stock and sales
A maintenance organisation can only fabricate small parts for a particular project i.e not produce stock parts.

A Factory can be the like of BAES or Airbus that have to demonstrate how they have control of the suppliers, materiel and processes to produce a constant result.

If they can produce a standard part they can be awarded the right to issue a Form 1. If they can produce an aircraft, they can be awarded for a Form 52. It can take 5-10 years for a Form 52.

[Mee3]

A Factory is a Production Organisation that can produce batches of materials for stock and sales
A maintenance organisation can only fabricate small parts for a particular project i.e not produce stock parts.

A Factory can be the like of BAES or Airbus that have to demonstrate how they have control of the suppliers, materiel and processes to produce a constant result.

If they can produce a standard part they can be awarded the right to issue a Form 1. If they can produce an aircraft, they can be awarded for a Form 52. It can take 5-10 years for a Form 52.
If it remains a kit, then AMO is sufficient. Its good to have anyways, not mandatory.

[PEASACAKE]

The website states "it is built in our UK CAA approved factory".

A FACTORY, not an approved maintenance organisation.

Not EASA approved, but CAA approved..........

[Rigga]

If it remains a kit, then AMO is sufficient. Its good to have anyways, not mandatory.

Slightly incorrect...anyway!
A ‘Kit’ still has to be ‘manufactured’, i.e. in a factory, and properly certified (Forms 1 and/or 52). But a purchased Kit can be “assembled” by an AMO or even a private person (with appropriate supervision) and released with a SMI-CRS.

[Mee3]

Slightly incorrect...anyway!
A ‘Kit’ still has to be ‘manufactured’, i.e. in a factory, and properly certified (Forms 1 and/or 52). But a purchased Kit can be “assembled” by an AMO or even a private person (with appropriate supervision) and released with a SMI-CRS.
I was talking about the assemble part, otherwise its just a kit, isn't it?

[Agile]

There is still a huge disconnect with the complexity of the proposed final aircraft and my idea of a "kit".
Rotorway, Helicycle ... that is my idea of a kit ....
So much more to mess-up with a 500hp turbine, and don't get me started with the complexity of the wire harness for those nice screens.

[PEASACAKE]

As nobody has built (or even seen) the helicopter or engine, the build instruction manual is going to be an interesting detailed read, The manual will have to be extremely detailed as every single part small or large on the helicopter will have to be detailed in fitting instructions, in fact as soon as a manual is available I would like a copy please for bedtime reading.

[Mee3]

CAA only qualifies rotorcraft kit with 2 seats or less. I tried the configuration, no option for other than 5 seats. This is another interesting point too.

[Rigga]

CAA only qualifies rotorcraft kit with 2 seats or less. I tried the configuration, no option for other than 5 seats. This is another interesting point too.

That only means that a) the factory doesn’t want to do it yet or b) that the CAA haven’t done more than two seats to date. When the factory is ready, the CAA must expand with that need or lose that need to be developed abroad - and their 21G revenue with it - meaning that the CAA will be accused of driving any prospective builder abroad.

The CAA haven’t built a large Airship in living memory, but they are prepared to certify the next Airlander - a 40 tonne mass of aircraft....?

Your discussion on HOW to build it is the reason why I stated earlier “with appropriate supervision”. Kit building is normally about the airframe and undercarriage, not the bigger or more important assemblies.

Anyone building an aircraft will have to have ‘Build Inspections’ and approvals by nominated engineers from the first opening of the crate to count the parts through the whole assembly and especially key points of that build. Any gearbox is very unlikely to be built in a home environment and engines will be supplied as complete as possible to prevent tinkering with them. ‘Witnessed’ performance runs will be done before first flight.

Builders will not be left to their own interpretations and devices regarding building something that could endanger people on the ground.

[JDJ]

"HX50 however is not sold with a type certificate. Instead, it receives an initial type approval from the UK CAA to the latest certification standards of EASA CS-27, meets FAA Part 27 and is provided to customers with an amateur-built airworthiness approval. Each aircraft is factory constructed during a two-week fully supported build course in the UK."

https://www.hillhelicopters.com/general-aviation-20

[PEASACAKE]

I am quite impressed that it will only takes 2 weeks to build, must be modular.......the owner will probably just watch the process, which in the eyes of the CAA is "participation".

Most of the "type training engineering" courses I have been on have been longer than that, and that is just basic type maintenance training. Even a Robinson maintenance course is 2 weeks........

I found this statement from Hill Helicopters interesting on Helihub regarding Frank Robinson.

In the last sixty years, there have been only two people who have developed new helicopters for private pilots and seen commercial success with them – and let’s set that bar at 200 sales and helicopters up to 6 seats. Those two are Frank Robinson and Bruno Guimbal. Both brilliant engineers. Both with employment backgrounds focused on helicopter manufacture. But crucially, neither with any experience as a successful helicopter owner and user. Their focus was entirely on engineering what they believed to be the best solution for a market they had not participated in. Read more at https://helihub.com/2020/11/11/exclusive-interview-jason-hill-founder-of-hill-helicopters/

[homonculus]

I have been round a number of car manufacturers and been impressed with how little they do. The body comes in one entrance, engine another and the two are connected. I suspect Hill will do the same. Nobody is going to be asked to 'make an engine' but the purchaser may tighten the bolts before an engineer checks it properly. Whilst recognising this is Hill's novel way to reduce costs and get a commercial aircraft in several years' time, I see many benefits in pilots knowing their aircraft inside out.

But I need proof of concept before handing over any money. We need to see it fly.

[CGameProgrammerr]

You guys are acting like the concept of experimental aircraft is new or unfamiliar. It is not. Nobody ever builds engines or gearboxes; they buy those fully assembled.

[Bell_ringer]

You guys are acting like the concept of experimental aircraft is new or unfamiliar. It is not. Nobody ever builds engines or gearboxes; they buy those fully assembled.

experimental or amateur built aircraft aren’t new.
A production aircraft, disassembled, so the owner can “assemble” it, is just a creative way of trying to avoid certification costs.
The complexity of building an RV and a turbine helicopter, and one of this proposed quality, are not the same thing.
Amateur-build helicopters have not gone well, partly because the sort that want to build their own are tight-arses or have no social life and have a profound love of sheds.

[Maoraigh1]

The FAA requires 51% of the build be done by the builder. An FAA inspector checks before first flight
in the UK the LAA checks fixed wing builds, and authorizes the flight.It would need investment in engineering expertise for the LAA to take on this Hill responsibility.

[cattletruck]

After being shown this link (posted by NutLoose) I immediately thought of the HX50 with it's modular build approach.
https://newatlas.com/wigetworks-airf...m=article-body (https://newatlas.com/wigetworks-airfish-8-ground-effect-vehicle/56184/?itm_source=newatlas&itm_medium=article-body)

With 3D printing and access to better materials, techniques and knowledge, I think we are entering another era where your average back yard entrepreneur/inventor is capable of creating incredible things more easily. Modularity in design helps this process a lot, and perhaps Mr Hill has been a visionary of this all along but choosing the middle ground between back-yarder and full fledged factory plant, time will tell.

Meanwhile I can only wish his company the best of success and do hope they deliver a very desirable product at the end of the day.

[CGameProgrammerr]

The FAA requires 51% of the build be done by the builder. An FAA inspector checks before first flight
That's only true for kit-built experimentals but it is not true for factory-assist experimentals. I bought/built an experimental a few years ago and we built it in the factory in two weeks. At the time, they didn't even offer a kit.

[etudiant]

After being shown this link (posted by NutLoose) I immediately thought of the HX50 with it's modular build approach.
https://newatlas.com/wigetworks-airf...m=article-body (https://newatlas.com/wigetworks-airfish-8-ground-effect-vehicle/56184/?itm_source=newatlas&itm_medium=article-body)

With 3D printing and access to better materials, techniques and knowledge, I think we are entering another era where your average back yard entrepreneur/inventor is capable of creating incredible things more easily. Modularity in design helps this process a lot, and perhaps Mr Hill has been a visionary of this all along but choosing the middle ground between back-yarder and full fledged factory plant, time will tell.

Meanwhile I can only wish his company the best of success and do hope they deliver a very desirable product at the end of the day.

Surely very much agree with your closing thoughts.

Still, aviation is very much a regulated industry, where new technologies have to prove their claims and provide measurable quality levels.
Outside the labs of places like GE's propulsion operations, has anyone done aviation grade 3D parts printing? Has anything so made been certified in civil use?

Imho, the product is incredible because the price is too low.
In another thread, someone had pointed out that the personal lift device guy from New Zealand was offering his gizmo for $230,000 before the business folded.
This was someone who had working hardware. Here there are only charts and virtual reality simulations. Feel free to invest, but YMMV.

[PEASACAKE]

Surely very much agree with your closing thoughts.

Still, aviation is very much a regulated industry, where new technologies have to prove their claims and provide measurable quality levels.
Outside the labs of places like GE's propulsion operations, has anyone done aviation grade 3D parts printing? Has anything so made been certified in civil use?

Imho, the product is incredible because the price is too low.
In another thread, someone had pointed out that the personal lift device guy from New Zealand was offering his gizmo for $230,000 before the business folded.
This was someone who had working hardware. Here there are only charts and virtual reality simulations. Feel free to invest, but YMMV.

That certain guy in New Zealand is an engineering genius, he worked tirelessly 18 hours a day for decades on successful products, his life is total aviation, his product did not make it to market using an existing engine so cannot se how any new small helicopter can. He even managed to get them to aviation shows and fly them. I agree though, this helicopter is priced VERY low for what should be delivered, I would settle for a scale model on my desk it is so pretty..

[helipixman]

I notice that on the 26th May 2021 four more Hill HX50 helicopters have been registered - all to Hill Helicopters Ltd.
They are:-
G-DIAS c/n PP02
G-GELB c/n PP03
G-ODDB c/n PP04
G-OISY c/n PP05

Does this mean that some form of production is near ? Or is this a paperwork exercise to make it look so, lets face it have we seen the prototype yet G-DRJH c/n PP01 ?

[jimjim1]

Outside the labs of places like GE's propulsion operations, has anyone done aviation grade 3D parts printing?

Rocket grade?

50 seconds in.
https://youtu.be/jf9PGYVBoZc?t=50

https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-worlds-largest-3d-metal-printer-is-churning-out-rockets

[Bravo73]

Well, you can’t knock it: their CGI is pretty good.

https://youtu.be/aU7CUdOPx6s


[Bell_ringer]

Well, you can’t knock it: their CGI is pretty good.


The marketing department is using imovie to the full.
An announcement about an announcement :}

[HeliHenri]

.
Sorry to be positive (I know it's almost prohibited here) but as I love helicopters, I say : Best whishes to Hill Helicopters ! :ok: :ok::ok:
.

[MikeNYC]

Surely very much agree with your closing thoughts.

Still, aviation is very much a regulated industry, where new technologies have to prove their claims and provide measurable quality levels.
Outside the labs of places like GE's propulsion operations, has anyone done aviation grade 3D parts printing? Has anything so made been certified in civil use?


Delta Air Lines is working on it: https://news.delta.com/new-state-art-engine-shop-enables-future-repairs
TechOps is pursuing three broad streams of Additive Manufacturing technologies for parts. The first is polymeric and polymeric-composite parts for cabin interiors, part masking and prototype tooling. The second is weldable metallic alloys for engine, components and aircraft structural parts. The last is traditionally unweldable cast alloys and/or single crystal super alloys.

[500e]

https://www.materialise.com/en/cases/spacecraft-titanium-inserts-metal-3d-printing

[Bravo73]

An announcement about an announcement :}

And the announcement is… (drumroll, please)…












’WE’RE GETTING CLOSER.’

🤣





https://youtu.be/gLHO7ciJSWI

[CGameProgrammerr]

From the video's description, the announcement appears to be that they're working on three prototypes that they expect to test sometime in 2022. I remain skeptical but hopeful.

[[email protected]]

It's like Boris's promises of sunlit uplands - hype with some glossy bits and catchphrases.

This is like being asked for your bank details by a scammer promising you an unbelievable return on your investment.

[206 jock]

It's like Boris's promises of sunlit uplands - hype with some glossy bits and catchphrases.

This is like being asked for your bank details by a scammer promising you an unbelievable return on your investment.
I am with you Crab. If they had asked £1m for it, I would have taken it a bit more seriously.

[Ant T]

And the announcement is… (drumroll, please)…

’WE’RE GETTING CLOSER.’

🤣
Not their most informative piece of publicity!



There seem to be a lot of companies that have very good cgi and marketing, but with claims that are hard to believe.



Slight thread drift, but I haven’t seen anything on PPRuNe about the Vertical VA-X4, a proposed 4-passenger, commercially certified and piloted VTOL air-taxi vehicle - Hill Helicopters do not seem to be the only ones with some pretty impressive claims.



https://vertical-aerospace.com/investors/



While they obviously have a lot of investment, and a highly qualified design team, a lot of their claims seem just about unbelievable to me.



“We have consistently developed our plans based on a piloted aircraft, as we expect that passengers and regulators alike will require a pilot in their vehicle for at least the next decade. With a pilot on board, we expect to need at least four passengers to make the economics work, meaning the aircraft will have to be at least 2,500 kilos or 5,000 lbs.”



Their design is for a 1 pilot plus 4 passenger seat aircraft. As they suggest they “expect to need at least four passengers to make the economics work”, this seems to imply that they will have to have the aircraft at least full, if not more than full, for every trip . . .



“This readily available technology, coupled with our unique business model and partnership ecosystem, means that we are now able to build and operate our aircraft at an estimated cost of one dollar per passenger mile. At this level, we believe eVTOL will clearly be a mass market proposition, not a niche opportunity”



Will it really be a “mass market proposition”? If it was, would the airspace system cope? Can a commercially piloted $1.6m aircraft really be operated profitably at $1/passenger mile?



“The VA-X4 is going to be 100x quieter than a helicopter, 100x safer than a helicopter, zero carbon, and of course it’s going to be a fraction of the cost.” Elsewhere it quotes 1/5 the cost of an equivalent helicopter, so with a price per aircraft of $1.6m I presume they must mean operating costs, as it certainly is not equivalent to an $8m helicopter.

In fact, with a 100 mile range, I am not sure what their “equivalent helicopter” might be.



Elsewhere they say “15 dBa quieter” than an equivalent helicopter - I am not very good on dB - is that consistent with “100x quieter” ?



“For key shorter missions, such as linking airports to city centres, the high vehicle efficiency means that we use only a small fraction of the battery energy, enabling rapid charging in ten minutes or less” If this is true, why hasn’t the electric car industry managed this yet?



“On pilot training, the inherent benefits of electrically powered aircraft combined with our partnership with Honeywell provides a major advantage. Leveraging Honeywell’s ‘Simplified Vehicle Operations’ capabilities in flight controls and avionics (or cockpit displays), the VA-X4 will be incredibly simple and safe to fly and operate. All of this results in a pilot workload for standard FAA defined tasks that is reduced by 80% compared to existing commercial aircraft.”



So this is going to be incredibly simple to fly and operate, only 20% of the workload of a normal aircraft? Do they imply that pilots will be quicker and easier (and cheaper) to train and certify. Will there be a new category of licence for this simplified form of flying . . .



And as for “100x safer” than a helicopter - in an aircraft with 4 x tilting rotor/propellers and 4 x folding rotors, an endurance to empty batteries of about 30-40 minutes (based on their claim of 100mile range at 200mph), what could possibly go wrong! What about weather/icing/air traffic delays etc.



They certainly seem to have a lot of investment (Microsoft/ American Airlines/Honeywell/Rolls Royce) and claim “up to” 1000 pre-orders (although I think “up to” can mean the same as ≤ , which includes 0 )



There seem to be quite a few of this type of design around - the Lilium 7-seater has a mere 36 ducted fans.



I wonder if any of them will ever become successful.

[CGameProgrammerr]

Every 3 dB is a doubling of actual volume. So 15 dB quieter means 3% of the original volume. But that sounds hard to believe since even electric propellers are very loud, and small ones are louder than large ones due to the necessarily higher RPM. But for sure it would be much quieter than a helicopter.

eVTOL sounds dubious to me but there are a lot of major companies pursuing it so there must be merit to it. I believe they have no auto-rotation capability though.

[ApolloHeli]

A quick look on the "recent registrations" on G-INFO and it shows that Hill Helicopters Ltd. have registered G-DIAS, G-GELB, G-ODDB, and G-OISY as Hill Helicopters HX50 S/N PP02-PP05 respectively. Hopefully we see a working, flying prototype soon.

[aa777888]

Elsewhere they say “15 dBa quieter” than an equivalent helicopter - I am not very good on dB - is that consistent with “100x quieter” ?
For power (not voltage) the conversion from decibels (dB) to linear is y = 10^(x/10) where x is the value in dB. Thus for x = 15dB then y = 31.6. So, no, not even close to "100x quieter".

To go from linear to decibels when measuring power the equation is x (in dB) = 10log(y).

Still worse is that because of the way humans (not machines) perceive sound, each factor of 10 equates to twice as loud or half as loud, depending on which direction the calculation is going. Hence something that is a factor of 10 (10dB) less is half as loud (2 times quieter), and a factor of 100 (20dB) less is a quarter loud (4 times quieter). Thus if this wonderful aircraft is 15dB quieter than a helicopter it is somewhere around 3 times quieter as the human ear perceives things. So very much not even close to "100x quieter"!

Then there is the subtlety of the fact that they use the sound pressure level "A weighted" scale. That's where the "a" on "dBa" comes in. But at this point it's not worth quibbling about how much crazier their numbers are ;)

[Ant T]

For power (not voltage) the conversion from decibels (dB) to linear is y = 10^(x/10) where x is the value in dB. Thus for x = 15dB then y = 31.6. So, no, not even close to "100x quieter".

To go from linear to decibels when measuring power the equation is x (in dB) = 10log(y).

Still worse is that because of the way humans (not machines) perceive sound, each factor of 10 equates to twice as loud or half as loud, depending on which direction the calculation is going. Hence something that is a factor of 10 (10dB) less is half as loud (2 times quieter), and a factor of 100 (20dB) less is a quarter loud (4 times quieter). Thus if this wonderful aircraft is 15dB quieter than a helicopter it is somewhere around 3 times quieter as the human ear perceives things. So very much not even close to "100x quieter"!

Then there is the subtlety of the fact that they use the sound pressure level "A weighted" scale. That's where the "a" on "dBa" comes in. But at this point it's not worth quibbling about how much crazier their numbers are ;)

Thanks for that (and thanks to CGameProgrammerr as well). So as I thought, their claim to be “near silent when in flight” might be a bit economical with the truth, and very unlikely to be “100x quieter”. I’m sure there will still be a lot of prop noise! It’s a bit like people thinking that electric cars are “silent” - they might be at very slow speeds, but at cruising speed they are barely any quieter than combustion engined cars as most of what you hear is road noise.

[Ascend Charlie]

Certainly is a smart website and pdf download. But 100 x safer than a helicopter? With only a 30-minute endurance. And I can't see how 4 tail-rotor-size props and 4 teensy 4-bladed props all screaming away to lift 5 pax, the craft and their baggage will be quieter than a real rotorcraft.

[CGameProgrammerr]

To be fair, electric cars are much quieter inside the cabin than equivalent gas cars, especially when accelerating or on surface streets. (On the highway they're somewhat similar.)

Regarding the Hill registrations, Mischa Gelb and Ruben Dias are doing sales/marketing for the company, so those two registrations were clearly named after them, which is pretty neat.

[WillyPete]

Thanks for that (and thanks to CGameProgrammerr as well). So as I thought, their claim to be “near silent when in flight” might be a bit economical with the truth, and very unlikely to be “100x quieter”. I’m sure there will still be a lot of prop noise! It’s a bit like people thinking that electric cars are “silent” - they might be at very slow speeds, but at cruising speed they are barely any quieter than combustion engined cars as most of what you hear is road noise.

They're likely only referring to forward flight noise comparisons.
If truly "V" TOL then they're just as likely to be as noisy in the hover.

[Petit-Lion]

They certainly seem to have a lot of investment (Microsoft/ American Airlines/Honeywell/Rolls Royce)
Means nothing, as these companies are used to take interest into every techno-startup just to keep a eye on new trends. Remember Lockheed Martin taking interest in the techno-scam EEStor, then EEStor bloating about it, while it was only one more line in the LM techno watch budget.

[ETOPS]

Still wondering about the buyers of the private version having to participate in actually building their machine at the factory...........

[CRAN]

Still wondering about the buyers of the private version having to participate in actually building their machine at the factory...........

What part of it are you wondering about?

CRAN

[ETOPS]

What part of it are you wondering about?


Whether or not they would send their chauffeur to do the actual spanner work :eek:

[Nige321]

Now available with skids... (https://www.hillhelicopters.com/skids?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Skids_Unveil_20210824&utm_medium=email)
Wasn't there a patent issue with Eurocpter over EC130 style skids??


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1587/screenshot_2021_08_24_at_14_13_58_7a99a73043843d0f1ddd25d03b 845f898616cd28.jpg

[toptobottom]

I wonder how much cheaper the skid version will be over the (much more expensive) retractable gear version?! :}

[Nige321]

I wonder how much cheaper the skid version will be over the (much more expensive) retractable gear version?! :}
If you clicked on the link you'd find out... :ugh:

[Hot and Hi]

Doesn’t immediately say whether it’s cheaper. Using the configurator it seems to be price neutral.

[toptobottom]

Thanks for the friendly reply Nige :D

I did click on the link - it doesn't show any price change, hence my question...

[Nige321]

Thanks for the friendly reply Nige :D

I did click on the link - it doesn't show any price change, hence my question...

Sorry, it’s there in black and white.
Scroll down.

The fixed skid landing gear option, available at no extra cost

[CGameProgrammerr]

The skids have always been on the configurator; this is merely the first render of them.

[jeepys]

More glossy pics.

They do seem to be very good at marketing.

Has anyone seen any ‘real’ pics.

I may have missed it but I would have thought their engine would be on show somewhere seeing as next year there will be a working prototype.

[Bell_ringer]

Wonder how the positioning wheels attach to the skids? Perhaps the art team haven’t spoken to anyone in engineering yet.
Every marketing image just looks like a cgi-designer’s wet dream.
If the final product comes close to any of this, they would have done well.
Skepticism turned up to 11.

[Ascend Charlie]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/948x882/screen_shot_2021_08_25_at_7_25_27_am_815fcae84657d199d0e04ac d669af9c7c77497f1.png
Wow, that glass goes all the way around the transmission tower - what the heck supports it?
And the structural strength of the cabin relies on the skinny bits between the glass panels.

Having looked at the full presentation (must have cost a heap, good CGI) all I see is a shallow floor, which would have trouble containing a fuel cell - must be under the back seat?
Where do the floatation bags fit?
Where are the air vents for (a) air conditioning, and (b) fresh air?
The cargo compartment shows a dished pan as its roof, I can only suppose that is the fireproof container below the engine bay.
That cyclic stick - well, Frank Robinson showed us that unusual ideas can work, so let's wait for the reports from real pilots when the real aircraft does a real flight.

[CGameProgrammerr]

Agreed, a lot of this seems impossible. They claim to have flying prototypes by next year but I think that will either not happen or they will bare virtually no resemblance to the CGI.

[CRAN]

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/898x696/1328c12b_1a12_4836_9994_940227e08348_effff7eefa6b141133cfd6e 3da7d6adfbb435593.jpeg
Explain your structural concerns to me again about the amount of glass around the cabin roof...I'm not sure I follow?

[CGameProgrammerr]

That Bell has nothing on top of the cockpit. You could literally remove the windshield, making it open-cockpit, and it would still fly just fine. But the Hill has the mast, and possibly fuel, above the rear seats. On a hard landing it seems like the roof would collapse, killing people. Seems like it might collapse even in ordinary circumstances.

[Tickle]

There's three black supports coming out from under the cowling, one going towards the front. Hard to see but it's there. Feels like there should be another two coming out to the front door pillars.

[[email protected]]

Everything about this marketing ploy seems like 'Get rich quick' 'Learn the secret way to burn fat without dieting' and 'Improve your golf swing in 5 mins' type of selling - trying to suck you in with promises of 'information not made available to the public' if you sign up for a presentation - that sounds like Amway ffs.

I'm with Bellringer on the Skeptic scale

[206 jock]

To add to the cheap feeling marketing approach mentioned above, I must have had 15 emails extending the deadline for signing up for their pressure sales pitch with Agent Orange and Ruben thingy. I signed up for a session in the early days then cancelled when I read the comedy price point. The first deadline was in April I think!

Reminds me of a furniture discounter with their permanent sales.

"We have just added more options for you to book your HX50 Helicopter private presentation, until the 27th of August.

You can book yours here:

https://calendly.com/hillhelicopters/hx50-presentation-by-hill-helicopters (https://xj3zl.mjt.lu/lnk/AWIAAAk-KGsAAAAOkLgAAFnDfUUAAAAAw7gAAMMfABUkNQBhHqVsJFoi6v-nSXiOq-eQRuNaewAUnuQ/1/qPEDPcvzO9pf1PNcmIt1Ng/aHR0cHM6Ly9jYWxlbmRseS5jb20vaGlsbGhlbGljb3B0ZXJzL2h4NTAtcHJl c2VudGF0aW9uLWJ5LWhpbGwtaGVsaWNvcHRlcnM_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1tYWls amV0JnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj0yMDIxMDgxOV8tX1BQX09wZW5fU2xvdHMmdXRt X21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbA)

Looking forward to share with you many details such as the disruptive technology, the price and the opportunity to pre-order.

Cheers,

Ruben Dias"

[CRAN]

I think healthy skepticism and debate is a good thing and let's not forget that these comments are against a backdrop of an industry substantially deprived of innovation and product development, where nothing ever really changes, so it's not surprising that people that haven't engaged with the company have their doubts - if you take the time to talk/listen to the team behind this I have little doubt you too would be convinced. Nor is it surprising that a pretty complacent industry is now squealing a little as their apple cart is disrupted...

One thing is very clear though, lots of very experienced private owner-operarors, themselves very savvy, hard-nosed business people can see what has been done and are convinced this is what us private owners have been waiting for. Furthermore, whether you like their marketing approach or not, it's working - HX50 is selling like hot cakes!

[cattletruck]

When it comes to the battle of the felt tip fairies on who has the best CGI renderings, I can see more things in here that I can relate to a workable helicopter than I can see in the electric shuttle offerings.

[[email protected]]

One thing is very clear though, lots of very experienced private owner-operarors, themselves very savvy, hard-nosed business people can see what has been done and are convinced this is what us private owners have been waiting for. Furthermore, whether you like their marketing approach or not, it's working - HX50 is selling like hot cakes! Same as Ponzi and pyramid schemes did, all the way to the inevitable collapse.

[CertGuy]

[QUOTE=Ascend Charlie;11100674]
Wow, that glass goes all the way around the transmission tower - what the heck supports it?
And the structural strength of the cabin relies on the skinny bits between the glass panels.


Have you not heard of transparent aluminum? Have you not seen the Star Trek movies? That was classic!

[CGameProgrammerr]

Oh I really hope this gets produced, it would be very exciting, but it seems very pie-in-the-sky. We'll see. I do agree it is much more practical than e-VTOL designs (i.e. "manned drones"), especially autonomous ones.

[206 jock]

I think healthy skepticism and debate is a good thing and let's not forget that these comments are against a backdrop of an industry substantially deprived of innovation and product development, where nothing ever really changes, so it's not surprising that people that haven't engaged with the company have their doubts - if you take the time to talk/listen to the team behind this I have little doubt you too would be convinced. Nor is it surprising that a pretty complacent industry is now squealing a little as their apple cart is disrupted...

One thing is very clear though, lots of very experienced private owner-operarors, themselves very savvy, hard-nosed business people can see what has been done and are convinced this is what us private owners have been waiting for. Furthermore, whether you like their marketing approach or not, it's working - HX50 is selling like hot cakes!
Cran, your enthusiasm for the project is to be admired, I just hope you don't lose your shirt (assuming your real name isn't Jason, that is)

But the inference that those of us who aren't 'in the club' are somehow mis- or under-informed grates a little.

Is the rest of the industry really quaking in its boots? Any real evidence of this? Not the people I have talked to, they think it's all at best pie in the sky, at worst a big fat scam.

And is it really selling like hot cakes? If so, why are the 'once in a lifetime/don't miss out' marketing presentation deadlines constantly extended? A normal company with a runaway success story would be saying "initial orders are full, so the price is going up and you can't get one until 2025".

[Jetexec]

Cran, your enthusiasm for the project is to be admired, I just hope you don't lose your shirt (assuming your real name isn't Jason, that is)

But the inference that those of us who aren't 'in the club' are somehow mis- or under-informed grates a little.

Is the rest of the industry really quaking in its boots? Any real evidence of this? Not the people I have talked to, they think it's all at best pie in the sky, at worst a big fat scam.

And is it really selling like hot cakes? If so, why are the 'once in a lifetime/don't miss out' marketing presentation deadlines constantly extended? A normal company with a runaway success story would be saying "initial orders are full, so the price is going up and you can't get one until 2025".

I'm not sure if I read it in this thread or somewhere else, but consider your deposit similar to sending money to Kickstarter. Hell, in business I've done many silly investments, but every once in awhile you hit one out of the park. I don't personally know Cran, but I don't think there is anything wrong with his positive spin. I've sat through many Q & A's with Jason, Mischa and Ruben. I encourage you to do the same. They welcome questions from everyone in the chat. If you are worried about the structure and how the windscreen is going to support the mast, this is probably the wrong place to ask. Too many armchair quarterbacks who don't hold a chance of answering your questions accurately and beside all of that, joining one of these sessions is free with no high intensity marketing to take your money. You can turn your video off and probably join under an assumed name if you like (I'm not tech savvy, but I'm sure you could). What holds you back? I put in a deposit for #24. I feel good about it and realize I'm rolling dice. There hasn't been a phone call with Jason that was ignored or a question directed at his team (that I was privy to) that was dodged. If you sit in several of these Q & A's, you'll hear questions asked you never even thought of asking yourself and they are all answered. He gives us regular updates as purchasers. Insinuating a"Ponzi scheme" is a real stretch, but I am guessing Jason and his team have heard it all. At the end of the day, it either happens or it doesn't. Without any disrespect to anyone on this board, I am betting that as affordable as Jason makes this helicopter, it is still out of reach for many. Don't let that fact pull you to the side of the naysayers. When your kid was learning to ride a two-wheeler, did you wish them to fall and get hurt or did you encourage them to succeed? I know that we are talking two different fish here, but join a Q & A and put your mind at ease (or not). How much criticism did Frank Robinson take over the years, but his helicopters still fly. Can you imagine the chatter if we had internet forums such as this back in the late 70's? Frank would have been lambasted. Cheers, Matt

[DroneDog]

Well I hope Hill helicopters do get to produce this, I remember reading some of Hill helicopters thoughts on current designs and I agree with him certainly on the interiors. They are a bit agricultural, having watched countless videos on various types the turbine start-up procedures seem a bit quirky and 1970s. The contortionist position, leaning over to twist the throttle on the collective whilst hold in a button watching temp gauges etc.
If cars were based on helicopter design I'd still be setting my ignition timing manually as I drove.
In some older machines, the instrument binnacle looks like someone threw the instruments at it randomly and yes I appreciate pilots have a system of scanning the gauges but I frequently see a mishmash and large wasted areas on many machines.

One modern machine I really like, well given its price point is the Bell 505. Its interior and instrument cluster are so elegant and functional, the turbine start up procedure is very 2020, just one control and let the dual Fadecs do there thing and the simple switch on the collective, Idle or Fly, surely that's were helicopter design should be.

On Hill Helicopters FB page there are some great renderings showing very modern interiors, the instrument cluster looks as if it has been lifted straight from a German luxury wagon, an Audi A7 or a large Merc and why not, the technology is there today. I hope they are successful and perhaps it will kick start a change in the industry.
You can probably guess I am not a pilot ( I did not have the money) but I have flown in many types for business, if my fortunes improve a PPL is on my list.

[Jetexec]

I understand over 80 people have paid £40,000 deposit, with a possible delivery date around 2024....

I believe the number is closer to 325 orders with 100K deposits.

[Bell_ringer]

I also hear it will have some sort of "automatic autorotation" feature that will enter an auto if the engine fails

Bit hard to do without FBW. But why not, let’s also add that to the spec.

[Petit-Lion]

Helitrak has a STC'ed device which does that for Robinsons, simple and no FBW. Should be standard at least on R22s IMO.
https://www.helitrak.com/collective-pull-down

[aa777888]

Helitrak has a STC'ed device which does that for Robinsons, simple and no FBW. Should be standard at least on R22s IMO.
https://www.helitrak.com/collective-pull-down
That device is by no means any sort of autopilot for autorotations.

[[email protected]]

Two problems with that pull down device:

1. Since it can be 'easily overcome by the pilot' if you are frozen in fear at the engine failure it probably won't overcome you.

2. If, as many seem to manage, you make an approach to a high hover and overpitch enough to droop the RRPM (not enough power available) - at the point where a gentle lowering of the lever might save you and allow a gentle descent regaining RRPM - the pull down device activates and you are fighting that too as it tries to get the lever on the floor.

The answer is to keep current on autos so the muscle memory kicks in - practice isn't just for the sorties leading up to your PPLH.

[Petit-Lion]

Crab, the first is not a device problem, it's a simultaneous dual failure (engine and pilot) that no auto-gizmo could overcome. At least it should not aggravate things.
The second is more worrysome though... Maybe the device could be rigged to deactivate itself should it sense any human resistance, like autopilots do...
Of course it cannot replace practice.

[Hughes500]

Crab, they must have thought of that situation. I would assume it is like autorelight systems, low rpm horns , where the engine rpm gets to a certain value then the igniters fire in case of auto relight. I would suggest if it is set at that sort of value you describe you have lost the plot already

[[email protected]]

Hughes 500 - pilots are taught to recover from overpitching as part of basic training - as you know you just need a slight lowering of collective and throttle opening to recover the NR, even from the low Nr horn state.

What you don't need is a device that pulls the lever all the way down when you are already in a critical stage of flight - ie landing in a confined area or approaching an OGE hover.

Petit-lion - the device doesn't automatically deactivate, there will be a clutch in the motor system which can be overridden by the pilot.

[Hughes500]

Crab
I realise that but what i was very badly saying is I am assuming that the pull down device is set at such a level that unless you entered autorotation you would never recover Nr. I cant see how else the system would work given your scenario and presumably they must have thought of that. Mind you a fine line of, where do you draw that line of when does it auto activate or not. As you said training the best way forward, but now we are not allowed to simulate an engine failure by chopping the throttle in most small pistons. Both Schweizer and Robinson prohibit throttle chops ( what is the definition of a chop I suppose ) in their FM's It is not quite the same as shutting / chopping the throttle to, practice engine failure 321 go ! If you left it that long in most piston machines Nr is already past the red line

[[email protected]]

Hughes 500 - I think the only inputs to the device would be Nr itself, probably fed from wherever the tacho gen for that is on a Robbie.

Clever interpretation might allow you to modify that with a calculated rate of Nr decay - using the same source - but I can only see a specific Nr being used to trigger the action and can only imagine it is at or slightly below the Nr that sets off the low RPM horn.

[Bravo73]

go to you tube and search for "Traveling to the UK for the first HX50 Global Meetup"

https://youtu.be/40U_XwofLrA

[Bravo73]

I’ll be honest: after watching that vid, I’m finding the situation even more impressive.

I’ve got a feeling that crab (& others) better start warming up their humble pies.

[Agile]

I’ll be honest: after watching that vid, I’m finding the situation even more impressive.

I’ve got a feeling that crab (& others) better start warming up their humble pies.

Actually quite the opposite, all I see is:
a room nicely staged. with some newly leased CNCs
machining in process on some centrifugal compressor (which is not nearly as hard as the hot section turbine blade)
a mockup of a tail section that looks so heavy its probalby made of wooden/fiber glass molding (not real areospace grade structure)

Real work is done in machining center that are dirty and smelly, feel like being taken for an idiot by being shown such a sanitized and conspicuous rendering

[CGameProgrammerr]

No, I think you are not familiar with aircraft factories. I have toured the Robinson helicopter factory and it is very clean, and they make more helicopters than anyone else in the world. That said, while the video proves it's not an actual scam, it's still does not prove that they're anywhere near having a functional prototype, since a little fenestron unit is a ridiculously tiny part of the helicopter. They did not even show an engine.

[Mee3]

since a little fenestron unit is a ridiculously tiny part of the helicopter. They did not even show an engine.
On contrary, no, the fenestron is a big part and the detail on the mechanism seem to indicate they acquired the patent and capable of putting it in use shows real engineering. But still not convince they can pull off the certification with that claimed budget. Still curious to also see if CAA actually accepts kit for 5 seats. No where seen in their rule nor any request for comment.

[Nige321]

Actually quite the opposite, all I see is:
a room nicely staged. with some newly leased CNCs
machining in process on some centrifugal compressor (which is not nearly as hard as the hot section turbine blade)
a mockup of a tail section that looks so heavy its probalby made of wooden/fiber glass molding (not real areospace grade structure)

Real work is done in machining center that are dirty and smelly, feel like being taken for an idiot by being shown such a sanitized and conspicuous rendering

Err.. not really, think more in terms of this, Mercedes F1 machine shop. Dirty and smelly it isn't...

some newly leased CNCs
Best thing to do. Hill would be nuts to buy them...

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x480/34_brackley_13_ead72f420d950a68dd676a11420051aecdc02961.jpg

[Bravo73]

https://helihub.com/2021/12/17/hill-helicopters-opens-sales-for-certified-version-hc50/

“ (https://helihub.com/2021/12/17/hill-helicopters-opens-sales-for-certified-version-hc50/)Hill Helicopters yesterday held their first Global Meetup & Discover Event at their Development Centre in the UK. Hosted by Dr Jason Hill, the event brought together around 100 people in person – mostly existing owners/customers – and over 1000 online.

Jason Hill announced that the company’s current order book for their HX50 model – being developed in the experimental rule category for private pilots – now stands at 342 from 38 countries around the world. He also announced that sales of the certified version – to be known as HC50 – have now been opened and the headline price will be £725,000 (US$963,000 at today’s exchange rate). The HC50 will thus be the variant that can be operated commercially.

Orders for the HC50 can currently only be booked by people in UK, US, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. These geographical limitations are due to initial plans for certification of the HC50 – which notably do not include EASA in Europe or ANAC in Brazil. HeliHub.com understands these will follow in due course and have not been included in the initial list to ensure the program team are not stretched with too much to do and/or too little time. That said, the experience in recent years of other manufacturers may have raised a note of caution. The HeliHub.com article R66 European certification delayed by huge EASA charges from January 2014 may be part of that.

There is also a six week window where HC50 orders are only being taken from people who have already placed an order for an HX50 model – up to 30th January 2022. From 1st February anyone in the listed countries will be able to place a deposit of £50,000 for an HC50.

Deposits on around 20 HC50s were placed during the event yesterday evening.”

[CGameProgrammerr]

I'm sure many of them would have gone to nothing. My suspicion is most buyers may already own a helicopter but are interested in replacing it with this one. This is partly because only people involved with helicopters would likely be aware of this company's existence, and people who want to buy a helicopter, and can afford to, are not likely to wait years when they could be flying now.

[Bell_ringer]

They seem to be targeting Robinson’s main sales regions, given the price point it looks like they are after the upper end of that market or countries where warbirds (ala gazelle) are popular.

They have some interesting regulatory hurdles to cross, particularly the complicated experimental sector. Hill has always had the whiff of trying to hide a (semi) production built aircraft behind self-build rules.

20 deposits make the splurge on showy marketing and free booze a no-brainer.
Making a machine fly, safely and certificated, is a bit more complicated.
Good luck to them.
The flock of CNC machines no doubt got many oohs and aahs.

[Kemble Pitts]

To end up with a certificated, viable, helicopter you need to go from 'bright idea' to 'finished product'. That journey will involve building a team, establishing a design and development facility, purchasing machinery and equipment, proving production processes, making prototypes and test pieces, carrying out certification testing, building a prototype, flying it and completing certification.

When I first heard about this programme my first impression was 'crikey, that is a bit too ambitious to have much of a chance'. However, having had some small involvement with the Hill team, and seeing the current state of affairs, and realising how much funding (non-refundable) has been raised through deposits on three hundred-odd aircraft, my view quickly changed.

I've been involved in the aircraft design and certification world for several decades and, to me, this programme is very real and viable. There are no certainties in this world but this programme is moving very sensibly along that path from 'bright idea' to 'finished product'. The team is comprised of more PhDs than I've seen in a long while, the facilities are real and high quality, things are being done logically and at pace. Most importantly Jason has a vision and the drive to achieve it.

Do not count this one out.

[[email protected]]

Over 400 orders now...
Is there one flying yet?

[[email protected]]

Oh, so it will all be OK by Christmas.....................

[HeliboyDreamer]

Very interesting project....

In the cockpit they seem to be going for ALT on the left and speed on the right while most of the glass cockpit out there (including airplanes) have it the opposite way. I wonder why they went that route?
At lot of power on paper but from the picture my perception is a very small fenestron, hopefully powerful enough. We will see

Good luck to them it seems to be very impressive product on paper

[[email protected]]

an ambitious project for sure, but they do have a truckload of money.lots of other people's money it would seem

[Kemble Pitts]

lots of other people's money it would seem
Indeed, and an awful lot of it from significant, non-refundable deposits on, now, over 500 aircraft.

They have a strong, well funded team and a leader who knows how to make things happen.

[[email protected]]

They have a strong, well funded team and a leader who knows how to make things happen. They'll need that when they have to manage customers expectations downwards

[[email protected]]

They'll probably charge and arm and a leg for spares - those windscreens won't come cheap....

[SWBKCB]

They'll probably charge and arm and a leg for spares - those windscreens won't come cheap....

Are other manufacturers in this market sector known for the availability of reasonably priced spares?

[[email protected]]

Are other manufacturers in this market sector known for the availability of reasonably priced spares? No but they are not promising ground breaking performance at budget prices.

[Encyclo]

Unfortunate I did not see them at Heli-Expo in Dallas, last month. That would have been a great venue to showcase all the progress they are making. They could possibly have given some tips on rapid prototyping and production to both airframe and engine OEMs, or at least on how to make the best computer aided graphics in the business!

Fly Safe, Always :ok:

[Kemble Pitts]

They'll need that when they have to manage customers expectations downwards

Whilst I can appreciate a healthy scepticism in the world of brand new aircraft development, you are writing as though you have some knowledge of the Hill operation, more than just an observer. You seem to know something that others don't. Can you illuminate us on what that is?

[[email protected]]

No, just a bigger dose of scepticism than others I guess - the promises of people who need your money to make their dreams come true always ring alarm bells with me.

The old adage of 'If it looks to good to be true, it usually is' - is easily applied to a company making a brand new helicopter and engine from the ground up that will beat all the existing offerings from companies who have huge R and D budgets and promises a revolution in light helicopter ownership.

Dry weight of 850Kg and 800Kg of payload, minimum cruise of 140Kts, MAUM OGE hover at 10,000' with a 500'/min vertical climb rate? If that doesn't all sound far too good to be true then I've got some ideas you might want to invest in......

[Kemble Pitts]

Well, only a fool would spend his own money on such a venture. Dr Hill is no fool.

[Bell_ringer]

Well, only a fool would spend his own money on such a venture. Dr Hill is no fool.

Have you heard of Theranos?

[[email protected]]

Have you heard of Theranos? Now I have to clean the keyboard of coffee...............

[CGameProgrammerr]

My biggest concern / point of skepticism is that they are developing their own engine. I don't even see the point of doing that, but then I know nothing about engines. But that's a huge risk. It sounds like they don't even have a working engine yet, yet they have ambitious goals about creating a flying prototype soon? And there's no way they'll meet their price target, but if the experimental version costs no more than a Bell 505 and it actually works as well as they hope, then it should sell. Of course sales would be limited to the private market, at least in countries that prohibit commercial operations in experimentals.

[Bell_ringer]

Now I have to clean the keyboard of coffee...............

Pack it in rice and it will be good as new. :E
If Newton were around today, his laws would define the most powerful force of all - FOMO.

[Bell_ringer]

i think the price of HX50 is about £500,000, which is less than half the price of a new Bell 505?

Comparing vapourware to a product that actually exists and is fully certified for commercial ops, seems like a pointless exercise.
When (if?) it actually exists, has proven specs and a final price tag, comparisons can be drawn.
Until then, it is all just intellectual masturbation.:}

[[email protected]]

HX50 after managing downwards customer expectations
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x450/used_robinson_r66_turbine_2011_main_600x450_ee1b9994dd60fb3d cfbce0192610d08426b7ea70.jpg

[206 jock]

I guess the market for the HX50 is the private owner who doesn't fly much. Hence the R66 makes no sense as it costs £700,000 and you have to pay a lot (£270,000 ?) for a rebuild after 12 years.

Whereas the HX50 is £500,000 and has no "rebuild clock ticking" as soon as you buy it.

Other options are Hughes 500 (expensive, cramped), Bell 206 (expensive, old), EC120 (expensive, unpowered), AS350 (v expensive)

....which is probably why Hill has so many orders! (that, and the 4 axis AP and glass cockpit)

Yeah but if you placed a deposit for £100k for an HX50 and don't get a helicopter, that's not quite so good.

I think we all get that the HX50 proposition represents a remarkable deal. It's my view that it's way TOO remarkable. As soon as the first customer machine flies, I'll eat my words and tip my hat to the Hill team. Until then, it's just blah blah.

[[email protected]]

Whereas the HX50 is £500,000 and has no "rebuild clock ticking" as soon as you buy it. But doesn't actually exist yet..................R66 available used and new right now.

[Hughes500]

I dont see what the issue of their own engine. Lets be honest a gas turbine engine is actually quite simple and been around longer than I have and I am 59 this year. And I have said before my neighbour used to make the compressor wheels for a certain popular gas turbine engine. The wheels cost to make was barely £ 100, not the thousands the OEM charged for them
!!!

[casper64]

I dont see what the issue of their own engine. Lets be honest a gas turbine engine is actually quite simple and been around longer than I have and I am 59 this year. And I have said before my neighbour used to make the compressor wheels for a certain popular gas turbine engine. The wheels cost to make was barely £ 100, not the thousands the OEM charged for them
!!!
Ever thought about the development costs that went into these engines for an OEM? Stating that Developing, certifying and then producing a turbine engine for aviation use is “simple” is plain stupid.
Have a look at modern turbine blade capable of coping with 1000 deg C. Nothing simple about that.

[casper64]

I guess the market for the HX50 is the private owner who doesn't fly much. Hence the R66 makes no sense as it costs £700,000 and you have to pay a lot (£270,000 ?) for a rebuild after 12 years.

Whereas the HX50 is £500,000 and has no "rebuild clock ticking" as soon as you buy it.

Other options are Hughes 500 (expensive, cramped), Bell 206 (expensive, old), EC120 (expensive, unpowered), AS350 (v expensive)

....which is probably why Hill has so many orders! (that, and the 4 axis AP and glass cockpit)
NEVER going to happen for 500K…. NEVER. (Unless you accept huge losses of course…. I mean, theoretically you can give a helicopter away for free..)

[bellblade2014]

NEVER going to happen for 500K…. NEVER. (Unless you accept huge losses of course…. I mean, theoretically you can give a helicopter away for free..)

I am pretty familiar with the light end of the helo certification standards. I find it hard to understand why folks have put money down on a single engine aircraft that will be demonstrably less safe than a Robinson or Bell. There is rrally no prior demonstrated performance to justify the trust in the Hill team. Have they certified a part 27 aircraft or a part 33 engine? Or developed a certified or TSO’d cockpit suite? Or even made a flying prototype of anything?

It is hard enough to get insurance on private use single engine helicopters certified to latest standard and amendment… this will be impossible to insure and nearly impossible to certify even if they surprise everyone and get one into the air.

[CGameProgrammerr]

It will be very difficult to insure, you're right. Some owners may just not insure it and accept the risk, but I think most will insure it for a year or two (at very high prices) and then stop.

By the way, Robinsons do not require the full 12-year overhaul if they're not flown commercially and are well under 2200 hours by then (most private owners would have 1200 hours or less). You have to replace some calendar components then, and do an inspection, but not the whole overhaul. It's still expensive of course, but I think it's 1/3 the price of the overhaul...?

[Bell_ringer]

NEVER going to happen for 500K…. NEVER. (Unless you accept huge losses of course…. I mean, theoretically you can give a helicopter away for free..)

Supply shortages have caused huge cost increases in all materials - the ones you can get.
Anyone who believes that a cost guesstimate, from simpler times, will be honoured needs to stop drinking the coolaid.

Though,I suppose they have built nothing, and anything materialising is far enough out to hope the problem goes away.

[CRAN]

Or materials cost are not significant in the overall cost breakdown...

Why not go and look up the cost per kg of typical aerospace materials multiply it by 850kg and see what number you get...

[Bell_ringer]

Or materials cost are not significant in the overall cost breakdown...

Why not go and look up the cost per kg of typical aerospace materials multiply it by 850kg and see what number you get...

Supply issues and inflation affect everything from the workforce to manufacturing equipment.
I don't agree with the notion that materials are not a significant cost component of manufacturing an aircraft.
Anyone who has ever attempted a build-your-own can attest to that.

You may have a point on a $4M aircraft, something at this price point will have a higher relative cost %.

[Shagpile]

Wow so many haters! I know aviation is full of cynical old people but I didn't think it was this bad -- where's the excitement for something trying to revolutionise GA the same way the RV's did for owner-operated fixed wing.

Disclosure: I have an order in for this in the low 300's. It's up to 500 orders now .I don't care if you get one or not - I just want to explain a bit more about this project.

I know this project intimately well after watching every video (there's an owners app that has about 20x more content than on YouTube, although the last couple of monthly updates on YouTube are fairly good), and spending 10 days in-person at the Hill development centre consulting with some software stuff. This project is 100% happening. Jason Hill is probably the smartest person I've ever met and knows his helicopter inside out and is just as excited about door hinges as he is about rotor shaft modes of vibration and nickel super-alloy metallurgy. Also a solid beer drinker (but not as good as an Australian ha ha)!

Jason told me small engines are actually difficult to do well (read: thermal efficiency, lightweight) compared to large ones. He has some good videos about the challenges of modern (efficient) turbines like making sure the pressure/temperature distribution of the compressor casing is modelled along with blade tip lean at 60,000 rpm to make sure the tip clearance remains as low as possible, which is where the efficiency comes from. Really difficult stuff, but he's basically hired half of former Rolls Royce/turbo-machinery-industry for all this stuff & finalised most of the designs and already stamping out parts. The engine has no accessory gearbox but instead a 10kW starter/generator on the cold section (basically a bit that pokes out and a fixed stator around it). Epicyclic gearbox designed to modern standards 30mins dry. 400hp max continuous, 440 takeoff (5mins 2x/hr), 500hp (30 seconds contingency 2x/hr).

Fuselage is probably where half the big gains come from: he's got some former F1 composite guys that have made a single piece "monolage" from laid up dry-cloth impreg with resin under bag vacuum - you can pick up the 1/3 scale model with 1 finger. The design has had to change to add more structure to the roof (less overhead window) so some early comments about this were correct. Lightning mesh. They are just about to do the first full-scale prototype.

Hub is fully articulated using elastomeric bearings, which have degraded failure mode (rubber crumbs away over time) and held in compression. He said these are 13k euros each to buy from Big Aviation™, but this is the kind of stuff he can just make himself with sandwiches of metal & rubber and some effort. Rotor is going to be composite with twist & planform distribution and tapered tips for optimum efficiency. The whole mast is cowled really tight which is apparently the key to reducing drag.

Performance wise it's all on the website and public videos: max gross (800kg payload) gives a vertical 500fpm takeoff at 10,000ft ISA+15. Ducted fan tail rotor is huge giving authority in 35kt wind from any direction. 5hrs range 700NM is just epic (with 3 large blokes payload). And if it goes faster than 140kts (which he is incredibly tight lipped about, but says the drag is significantly below budget, so 140kts is possible on much less than 400hp max continuous, meaning it could probably do more like 150, 160, ... hopefully higher!! at MCP) which would make the range increase significantly too. Or take 3hrs fuel and 5 big blokes and go 500 NM, vertical in/out of anywhere basically.

Haters gonna hate but for the rest of us with orders in, it feels like massive information asymmetry here - we know something others do not. Instead of ****ting on projects like whining primadonnas, we actually spend time doing research, and if there's no blockers - lock in the early-bird price discounts! Sure there will be some issues & unknown-unknowns, but from what I can see so far it's bang on schedule, on-price, exceeding performance margins and I genuinely think is going to revolutionise the light helicopter market. I think everybody is over-estimating the risk for what is basically just a conventional helicopter design using modern aerodynamics and manufacturing techniques by some of the smartest people I've met.

[[email protected]]

I hope you get a discount from them for that Shagpile:) You are definitely on the very evangelical end of the Hill spectrum.

[206 jock]

Wow so many haters! I know aviation is full of cynical old people but I didn't think it was this bad -- where's the excitement for something trying to revolutionise GA the same way the RV's did for owner-operated fixed wing.

Disclosure: I have an order in for this in the low 300's. It's up to 500 orders now .I don't care if you get one or not - I just want to explain a bit more about this project.

I know this project intimately well after watching every video (there's an owners app that has about 20x more content than on YouTube, although the last couple of monthly updates on YouTube are fairly good), and spending 10 days in-person at the Hill development centre consulting with some software stuff. This project is 100% happening. Jason Hill is probably the smartest person I've ever met and knows his helicopter inside out and is just as excited about door hinges as he is about rotor shaft modes of vibration and nickel super-alloy metallurgy. Also a solid beer drinker (but not as good as an Australian ha ha)!

Jason told me small engines are actually difficult to do well (read: thermal efficiency, lightweight) compared to large ones. He has some good videos about the challenges of modern (efficient) turbines like making sure the pressure/temperature distribution of the compressor casing is modelled along with blade tip lean at 60,000 rpm to make sure the tip clearance remains as low as possible, which is where the efficiency comes from. Really difficult stuff, but he's basically hired half of former Rolls Royce/turbo-machinery-industry for all this stuff & finalised most of the designs and already stamping out parts. The engine has no accessory gearbox but instead a 10kW starter/generator on the cold section (basically a bit that pokes out and a fixed stator around it). Epicyclic gearbox designed to modern standards 30mins dry. 400hp max continuous, 440 takeoff (5mins 2x/hr), 500hp (30 seconds contingency 2x/hr).

Fuselage is probably where half the big gains come from: he's got some former F1 composite guys that have made a single piece "monolage" from laid up dry-cloth impreg with resin under bag vacuum - you can pick up the 1/3 scale model with 1 finger. The design has had to change to add more structure to the roof (less overhead window) so some early comments about this were correct. Lightning mesh. They are just about to do the first full-scale prototype.

Hub is fully articulated using elastomeric bearings, which have degraded failure mode (rubber crumbs away over time) and held in compression. He said these are 13k euros each to buy from Big Aviation™, but this is the kind of stuff he can just make himself with sandwiches of metal & rubber and some effort. Rotor is going to be composite with twist & planform distribution and tapered tips for optimum efficiency. The whole mast is cowled really tight which is apparently the key to reducing drag.

Performance wise it's all on the website and public videos: max gross (800kg payload) gives a vertical 500fpm takeoff at 10,000ft ISA+15. Ducted fan tail rotor is huge giving authority in 35kt wind from any direction. 5hrs range 700NM is just epic (with 3 large blokes payload). And if it goes faster than 140kts (which he is incredibly tight lipped about, but says the drag is significantly below budget, so 140kts is possible on much less than 400hp max continuous, meaning it could probably do more like 150, 160, ... hopefully higher!! at MCP) which would make the range increase significantly too. Or take 3hrs fuel and 5 big blokes and go 500 NM, vertical in/out of anywhere basically.

Haters gonna hate but for the rest of us with orders in, it feels like massive information asymmetry here - we know something others do not. Instead of ****ting on projects like whining primadonnas, we actually spend time doing research, and if there's no blockers - lock in the early-bird price discounts! Sure there will be some issues & unknown-unknowns, but from what I can see so far it's bang on schedule, on-price, exceeding performance margins and I genuinely think is going to revolutionise the light helicopter market. I think everybody is over-estimating the risk for what is basically just a conventional helicopter design using modern aerodynamics and manufacturing techniques by some of the smartest people I've met.

Sounds great! So Jason is the best engineer and the best businessman ever - quite a combination. To be fair I've met some brilliant people but usually they are pretty good at one and not so much the other. He's persuaded 500 people to part with a big fat non-refundable deposit and he can build what's usually 13k part for the price of a sandwich. And the (on paper...but that's just boring detail) performance is exceeding expectations Truly amazing.

Hey, it's your money, you spend it how you want. But I'd be careful calling anyone who is a bit sceptical a 'whining primadonna'.

[rudestuff]

Let's hope this thing actually gets to fly. We've all looked at a $100 washer and thought "Why?"
Why does a low tech 50+ year old engine cost 30k when i can buy a whole car for half that?
Maybe this guy can make it work, look what Musk has achieved.

[Hughes500]

Rudestuff, quite right
Here are some examples
MD helicopters a mesh screen infront of compressor $ 15000
Schweizer a steel tube 12 inchs long $ 1500
Dont even get me started on Augsta prices

[Self loading bear]

let's hope the build quality and reliability is better than what Musk achieved

What Musk delivers isn’t too bad.
Sometimes it needs to be reset during a trip but it stays on the road while you do that…..

oh wait…

[admikar]

Only thing that bothers me in all this is why non-refundable deposits?
If this comes to fruition, there will be hundreds of people waiting in line to get one of these birds. No need to "secure" orders.......oh, wait, nevermind.

[Kemble Pitts]

I don't know for sure why the deposits are non-refundable. However, my guess is - it secures the funding.

[Mee3]

Rudestuff, quite right
Here are some examples
MD helicopters a mesh screen infront of compressor $ 15000
Schweizer a steel tube 12 inchs long $ 1500
Dont even get me started on Augsta prices
Engineers don't eat dirt and have bills to pay. Safety=certification=cost. Manufactures had no choice but to spread the entire cost on the few that care for their life more than saving a few dime.

[Bell_ringer]

Nothing in low volume can be produced cheaply.
musk’s Roadster, which took 100’s of million $ investment to produce, cost $109k - in a largely unregulated environment, using many off the shelf components.

History shows snakeoil salespeople are good at their craft.
When the dream leaves youtube and flies reliably, without injury, then they can claim success.
I seriously hope they get it right, just the whole system is designed to prevent success. As it has been sold, anyway.

[Hughes500]

Mee3
What utter bollocks. The US military paid for the development of both machines. Are you really telling me that a piece of garden mesh on a plastic frame is $ 15k. I get a blade on the same machine is the same price ! My neighbour used to make compressor wheels for RR 250. They cost a fraction and i mean a fraction of what RR charged them out . So it is possible to make a machine that doesnt cost the earth

[Bell_ringer]

Mee3
What utter bollocks. The US military paid for the development of both machines. Are you really telling me that a piece of garden mesh on a plastic frame is $ 15k. I get a blade on the same machine is the same price ! My neighbour used to make compressor wheels for RR 250. They cost a fraction and i mean a fraction of what RR charged them out . So it is possible to make a machine that doesnt cost the earth

What a stupid comparison. Do you think the sell price of anything in life is based on the cost of manufacture? Maybe pencils. Supply-demand. The large investment in R&D, to supply a small industry, and one which is not consumer/volume based.
An iphone costs $100 to make, if that.

It costs a truckload of cash to develop a safe machine which doesn’t cost much to make.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

What Musk delivers isn’t too bad.
Sometimes it needs to be reset during a trip but it stays on the road while you do that…..

oh wait…
Whilst a slightly tongue in cheek comment, let's not forget that Musk's other company makes human-rated spaceships ....

Quality is exactly what they choose it to be (i.e. what they think they need to do to produce something to a price point where it makes money).

Whilst I'm not 100% sold on Hill, don't underestimate the value of vertical integration, particularly in Aerospace - above example, see how much per kg the cost of an orbital launch has come down since SpaceX entered the market. A lot of that is due to vertical integration, only some of it is due to reusability.

[Hughes500]

Bell Ringer

No it doesnt, one is dealing with technology that is in most cases 50 years old plus. Now if one is building a new concept then I would agree with you. So how can for instance the PMA boys design and manufacture items for ones aircraft that are better quality, cost less and last longer than anything an OEM can make. To use the example of the MD inlet barrier mesh, it its cheaper to go to AFS filters and but a new dog house, 2 replaceable filter elements an emergency air door and a differential pressure switch cheaper than a mesh screen. Another example for you 2 of my customers a few years ago needed a new clutch in their 341's. one was on The Bosnian reg the other on the UK reg. Clutch for the Bosnian one £ 8k couldnt fit one overhauled in Bosnia to the UK one as no EASA Form 1. The clutch had to come from Airbus with a Form 1. Opened the box to find it had been overhauled in Bosnia, so all Airbus had done is put a piece of paper on it and charged almost £ 20k for the piece of paper. Now if Jason can bring sensible engineering practice to his machine you can see where the cost savings will be. Lets be honest all a helicopter is, is a blow torch turning a gearbox with some blades on it, it isnt rocket science

[[email protected]]

Lets be honest all a helicopter is, is a blow torch turning a gearbox with some blades on it, it isnt rocket science And if he were tweaking or upgrading existing designs I would tend to agree - but he isn't, he is creating new from the ground up which just cannot be cheap.

[ApolloHeli]

If anyone thinks designing a helicopter from the ground up is straightforward; look no further than the numerous iterations and design revisions that the Kopter SH09 (recently re-branded AW009) has gone through - sure, it is being designed with CS-27 certification in mind, but the funding and work that has been piled into it shows that what works in theory for a helicopter usually needs more money and time than originally budgeted for, to work in practice. Best of luck to the Hill team and I hope that we see a flying prototype soon

[Hughes500]

Crab

Having had a reasonable insight and lent him a hand all he is doing is taking best practice from loads of different industries and putting them together with an eye to making the machine as light, slippery and practicable as one can get.
He spent ages going through and looking at the design of a 500 main rotor head as it is relatively simple with a strap pack enormously strong as has been proved over 50 years. Has decided, having seen the 342's fenestron to go down that avenue as it makes the aircraft quicker ). As for the body shell look what Bruno has done with the Cabri, he is passionate about making the aircraft as clean as possible to reduce drag and increase the speed as this obviously reduces the need to carry so much fuel and hence reduces power required.
Will he get there ? having seen behind the scenes and a few long chats with him i think he will. Yes there will be some problems, but he has taken the best part of 400 orders, bear in mind Airbus sold just over 500 EC120's ( rubbish machine ) in 25 years !!!

[212man]

If anyone thinks designing a helicopter from the ground up is straightforward; look no further than the numerous iterations and design revisions that the Kopter SH09 (recently re-branded AW009) has gone through - sure, it is being designed with CS-25 certification in mind, but the funding and work that has been piled into it shows that what works in theory for a helicopter usually needs more money and time than originally budgeted for, to work in practice. Best of luck to the Hill team and I hope that we see a flying prototype soon
I think you mean CS-27 (Small rotorcraft). CS-25 is 'Large Aeroplanes

[CGameProgrammerr]

Deposits are non-refundable because they are really investments and you cannot refund investments. The company needs those for funding; they'll go bankrupt if people withdraw their deposits. I'm sure this is made clear to all investors.

[admikar]

Deposits are non-refundable because they are really investments and you cannot refund investments. The company needs those for funding; they'll go bankrupt if people withdraw their deposits. I'm sure this is made clear to all investors.
Deposits for funding project development is fully understandable. Only reason why people would withdraw deposits is if Hill does not deliver on claimed performance/price. Since supporters are so adamant that he will and he promises that he will, why non-refundable?

[CGameProgrammerr]

Because that's not how people work - if they were refundable then he would get many more deposits and may spend that money, but then the flaky people will want to refund those deposits and he might not have the cash reserves to pay them, thus having to declare bankruptcy and liquidate the company. And people might refund deposits for any reason - they decide they want the money for themselves at that point, or a spouse dissuades them from buying a helicopter now, or they just get impatient and decide to buy another helicopter or retain their current one instead.

[[email protected]]

He is essentially crowdfunding his R and D

[206 jock]

Because that's not how people work - if they were refundable then he would get many more deposits and may spend that money, but then the flaky people will want to refund those deposits and he might not have the cash reserves to pay them, thus having to declare bankruptcy and liquidate the company. And people might refund deposits for any reason - they decide they want the money for themselves at that point, or a spouse dissuades them from buying a helicopter now, or they just get impatient and decide to buy another helicopter or retain their current one instead.
Sorry, that's BS. Very easy to create a wait list, so if you pull out , the person below you jumps up the queue and you lose your place. Many pages ago I mentioned TVR (a UK car brand of sports cars 'resurrected' by some chancers).. I placed an order - with a refundable deposit - back in 2016 on the promise of delivery in 2018. There is still no sign of any new car and I pulled my deposit years ago. It was refunded in a few days.

Crab is 100% correct. Jason is using deposits to fund the development, together with an Innovate UK grant that he obtained.. If that's ok with potential buyers that's great, but it doesn't sit right with me so I will sit on the sidelines chewing popcorn. Watching with interest!

[[email protected]]

The big question is - what will the 'investors' do when Jason comes back to them to ask for more money?

[toptobottom]

The big question is - what will the 'investors' do when Jason comes back to them to ask for more money?
Good question. If he has 450 orders at £100k a pop, he has £45m in non-refundable deposits. What percentage will Innovate UK match? Even if it's 50%, Jason will have £67m, which I don't think will be anywhere near enough to complete the programme.

[206 jock]

Good question. If he has 450 orders at £100k a pop, he has £45m in non-refundable deposits. What percentage will Innovate UK match? Even if it's 50%, Jason will have £67m, which I don't think will be anywhere near enough to complete the programme.

Hill received £1.4m from Innovate UK. https://app.dimensions.ai/details/grant/grant.8483424.

"This project will create growth and new jobs in the South-West". Interesting - I thought Rugeley was in the Midlands........still, what's a little white lie among friends, eh?

Anyway, good to know that the Allison 250 engine had an original (not achieved ) development budget of $6.4m. In the 1950s. https://verticalmag.com/features/thelittleenginethatdid/. Given inflation that's $63.2m in today's money. Just for the engine, that didn't work as originally designed. However, St Jason didn't sprinkle his magic pixie dust over it.

Still, we're all just being whingeing primadonnas,

[[email protected]]

Still, we're all just being whingeing primadonnas, apparently all that is required is blind faith and deep pockets.....

[hargreaves99]

I have a copy of the purchase agreement for the HC50. The deposit and payment, delivery etc is all explained in it. PM me and I can supply.

[rudestuff]

Anyway, good to know that the Allison 250 engine had an original (not achieved ) development budget of $6.4m. In the 1950s. https://verticalmag.com/features/thelittleenginethatdid/. Given inflation that's $63.2m in today's money. Just for the engine, that didn't work as originally designed.Everything costs money when you start from scratch. This isn't that. There are now hundreds of small gas turbine engines available to draw inspiration from, along with modern CAD techniques, improved metallurgy etc. Like Everything else it should get cheaper every year. Add the word "uncertified" and what Hill are trying to achieve suddenly becomes quite realistic.

[[email protected]]

Has anyone talked to insurance companies regarding the underwriting of an uncertified helicopter that carries 5 people?

[CRAN]

Yes. He's sorted it.

[SWBKCB]

I met someone who paid a £40,000 deposit and has a "build order number" around 270.

So what's the anticipated build rate? If all goes to plan when would a/c 270 be available?

[SWBKCB]

"Late 2024" I think he said

Isn't that 2 a week from now??

[[email protected]]

Yes. He's sorted it. at what cost?

[admikar]

IDK if this is industry standard, but some interesting stuff in Hill's contract.

[admikar]

You are putting deposit for base spec helicopter (which seems to be nice enough as it is) with options/options pricing TBD, so basically Hill can charge whatever he wants for options. You as a buyer have 3 choices: go with base spec, pay whatever is asked if there is something you really want/need or cancel order forfeiting your deposit.
I don't know how it is defined by UK law, but in my country, overdue payment penalty interest is defined by central bank. Hill charges 4% on top of that.
If customer refuses to take delivery (doesn't state what is reasonable refusal), buyer is due full price+plus any storage expenses.
Some other things, but I am not versed enought in legal contracts to be able to fully understand implications.

[CRAN]

Why not ask them directly? Sign up for a presentation and/or join the live Q&A session they are doing on Tuesday. The company is totally transparent and will answer any questions you have...Hill himself has answered this question many times.

Indicative pricing for options is listed on the website. It would make no sense for them to price options unreasonably.

[hargreaves99]

Latest news is..... 6-12 month delay apparently.

"Prototype flying by Mid 2023"
"Production starts Sept 2024"

[toptobottom]

The first of very many

[[email protected]]

The first of very many yes what a huge surprise............

[Bell_ringer]

yes what a huge surprise............

And here I had bought a hat to eat, guess I better return it now. :E

[hargreaves99]

And...they are "planning to produce 500 aircraft a year in a new 330,000 square foot factory"

[206 jock]

I did get the invite to listen in yesterday's webinar, but sadly I was busy doing something else. As others have said, the delay is no surprise and there will be many other obstacles to overcome for buyers.

Somewhere above someone asked about insurance, a depositor said the equivalent of 'Jason has it sorted'. Digging through the FAQs, this is what it says (live, on the website, today):

"
Do you expect to have an insurer that would be able to insure Hill Helicopters around the world for a reasonable amount?
Our primary focus has been on the hull insurance and that will definitely be available around the world as that will be partly underwritten by us. In terms of liability insurance around the world, 3rd party, we haven’t done anything on that yet but we will also be trying to tie that in with the insurance that we provide so we expect to be in a position where we can provide a single source for coverage around the world.

Doesn't exactly sound 'sorted' to me.

[FlimsyFan]

yes what a huge surprise............

I’m certainly not going to wang around words like primadonna as I have a great deal of respect for your experience and knowledge Crab.

I also understand your cynicism, but I just wish that the community at large would be more supportive.

We should embrace people who put a lifelong commitment into creating real, physical products in the UK attracting interest, investment (wherever that comes from), jobs and tax revenues.

I work in manufacturing and am proud to see raw materials being turned into products I see daily all across the nation being used by individuals and corporates alike.

Like Dr Hill, I’ve been through the curve of massive investment and the associated sleepless nights. Also like Dr Hill I’ve heard (but not listened to) the voices that say it won’t work.

Those voices normally originate from people who have neither the drive nor the vision to push themselves to do something remarkable, often from a position of professional and financial comfort. Not suggesting thats’s you Crab, but as I see it, the world is a much better place for having guys like this giving it their best shot.

And remember, if / when Hill is successful, there will be positive repercussions throughout the industry. The utterly shameless profiteering from peddling 1960s technology with its associated piece of paper by the OEMs will be shown up to be the racket it is.

I’ve not ordered an HX50 and have no affiliation whatsoever, but I genuinely hope he delivers the machine that’s promised and gets the success his determination, ambition and graft deserve.

[[email protected]]

I agree Flimsyfan - you need innovators and if he produces what he has promised I will, like Bellringer, order a hat to eat and be impressed with what he will have achieved.

The cycnic in me still doubts that though and I worry that his workforce could be left without jobs and investors left without their funds if it is a flop.

Innovators can create jobs and wealth but pipe-dreamers can cause the loss of the same.

Let's hope I am wrong but it is a massively ambitious project he is attempting.

[PhlyingGuy]

I also understand your cynicism, but I just wish that the community at large would be more supportive.

It's not that we're not supportive, we just heavily punish unrealistic timelines and statements based on experience and knowledge of the industry. Especially anything requiring new certification.

[Kemble Pitts]

PhlyingGuy

Straight question, what experience do you have of certifying aircraft?

Lots of people have 'experience of the industry', far fewer have directly applicable experience, particularly in the context of what Hill Helicopters is attempting.

I'm very much with Flimsyfan on this one.

[PhlyingGuy]

Nearly two decades at an OEM working with PMs pursuing multiple certifications... some based on updated variants and some completely new.

Again, I'm not hating on it. I think the design is brilliant and beautiful. But just ask the eVTOL community what they think about certification after they got bait and switched on the standards they had thought they had agreement on for years. Or the 525 or 609 on certification. Or the fact that it's not just about the aircraft, but the production cert, building cert, etc.

I'm really hoping this is a great aircraft, but it's going to be more of a "kit" than a certified helicopter for a LONG time IMO. And I'm sure the watchdogs are really going to take a look at what a 51% build ACTUALLY looks like.

[Petit-Lion]

And...they are "planning to produce 500 aircraft a year in a new 330,000 square foot factory"
Only Robinson sold more, in 2012 and 2013, on three models. And they don't make engines.
Hill may manage to design a fine airframe, and build some, but their engine is the real pipe dream.

[Mee3]

PhlyingGuy

Straight question, what experience do you have of certifying aircraft?

Lots of people have 'experience of the industry', far fewer have directly applicable experience, particularly in the context of what Hill Helicopters is attempting.

I'm very much with Flimsyfan on this one.
Lot of us here are in the industry as in design and certification, including me. We are not just skeptic. But a lot of the claim does not makes sense in the industry.

[Kemble Pitts]

Lot of us here are in the industry as in design and certification, including me. We are not just skeptic. But a lot of the claim does not makes sense in the industry.

... and I'm one of those with just that experience (Head of Design, Chief of the Office of Airworthiness, Technical Director of an OEM, blah), so am not blind to the challenge. However, every new venture starts form zero and either gets there or it doesn't.

Hill Helicopters is setting itself a serious challenge, that's for sure, but they are going about it in an equally serious way. At first glance, I too was sceptical. However, from what I've seen of their activity they are as well equipped in terms of funds, expertise, drive and vision, not to mention order book, to have a decent chance of success.

There will be set-backs and upsets without doubt, and there will be delays (QED) but that doesn't automatically lead to failure. Show me a single successful aircraft programme of recent (or maybe any) years that hasn't had such problems.

Its very easy to stand on the side-lines as the cynical nay-sayer, but I, for one, am cheering from the side-lines and wishing them great success.

[Kemble Pitts]

... almost forgot, for what it's worth, I reckon the eVTOL 'industry' is fooling itself and its investors, big-time.

[bellblade2014]

Lot of us here are in the industry as in design and certification, including me. We are not just skeptic. But a lot of the claim does not makes sense in the industry.

I fully agree with this and will also share that the comments above about profiteering using 1960’s technology by current OEM’s is ridiculous and incorrect. The reason Sikorsky commercial, MD and a variety of smaller players have gone bankrupt or closed their commercial divisions in the last few decades is because the regulatory environment is staggeringly bad and deters new technology. None of the aircraft OEM’s is as healthy as most of the primary suppliers like engine and avionics OEM’s. The industry would love to iterate and improve like automotive but the barriers are crushing and shameful by regulators who crush innovation and deter safety enhancements.

[DarrenL]

I've watched with interest from the sidelines the escalating presence of the Hill Helicopter, as there seem to be an abundance of advertisements promising what seems (to me) to be the unachievable.

And all the way through I've wondered just how they are going to transition from talking about a machine, to actually producing a real, flying example.

I'm no expert (in anything, sadly) but suspect that approval from the regulators (CAA, FAA, etc) is a painfully slow process.

It wasn't until today, after chancing upon an article written about Hill Helicopters in an obscure magazine, that I learned that essentially this is going to be a kit-built helicopter...!! (Apologies if you guys have mentioned that fact in this or other threads, I simply had not seen this rather significant element before.....)

So, if my understanding is correct, the new owners will go to the factory and 'build' their machine, then circumvent a huge tranche of the current regulations by flying it as an experimental (or amateur-built kit here in the UK) aircraft on a Permit to Fly. Don't the rules associated with Permit aircraft somewhat stifle the potential usability of the machine - I'm thinking maximum 4 POB, no night flying, UK airspace only, VFR only, etc.etc......

If they plan to be actually delivering machines to customers by 2024, how long will those early customers have to wait to exercise all of the capabilities and refinements of their wonderful (and it does indeed look wonderful) aircraft? No point in having five seats if you can't fill the fifth one for half a decade; all those fancy avionics just to fly VFR in the daytime, etc.

It's a shame, because I, like everyone, would love to see the industry shaken up, and to see the massive overpricing for parts that are 'aviation' brought to an end, so flying can be more realistically available.

I used to look at all the hype and the ads for Hill and think 'Wouldn't it be great if they actually could...."

But now, sadly, I just think "It's a Rotorway, in a posh frock....."

Not that I'm knocking Rotorway, oh no! They've been in the industry for a very long time now, and produce a genuinely (almost) affordable helicopter. And they've sold hundreds and hundreds of them.

But that amazing looking Hill machine........a kit? It just doesn't seem right......

[hargreaves99]

HX50 will be "permit to fly", owners have attend factory to "build 51%" of their aircraft (ie attend for 2 weeks)

https://www.hillhelicopters.com/blog/advantages-hx50-build

HC50 will be certified

https://helihub.com/2021/12/17/hill-helicopters-opens-sales-for-certified-version-hc50/

[PhlyingGuy]

I learned that essentially this is going to be a kit-built helicopter...!!

Yes, that's why I'm saying it'll be a kit helicopter for quite a while. When their target market is private owners flying 1-4 people flying in VFR conditions... this aircraft is designed exactly for that market at the right price point between an R44 and R66. And for folks who can afford this, they can afford a two-week "vacation" performing 51% of the "build" while sipping their espresso. The question is will that price point be actually able to be held because of their vertical integration/high technology machines or if it starts climbing. And of course, does the aircraft (and ENGINE!) perform?

As mentioned in the latest Hill video, BREXIT has actually helped them because they're only dealing with the CAA and not EASA. For the HC50, I'm sure they're going to try and use all the flight data and deliveries to try and pressure the CAA/EASA/FAA to accept any of their deviations or whathaveyou, but that's likely going to get a big, fat, no. But if they have enough revenue (and deposits) from HX50 deliveries, I could see this being done by 2030.

[hargreaves99]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/400x300/scope_triangle_158146a96793557a742c34e1d5e443e64154d938.png

This is an old saying in business that you can't have all three sides of the triangle.

ie

if you want it on time, it will either be more expensive, or less quality/specs
if you want it to cost as agreed and the quality/specs as agreed, you will have to wait

you get the idea

[CGameProgrammerr]

This helicopter is 100% VFR only; even the certified version cannot be flown in IMC. But in the US, the ONLY limitation of "experimental" aircraft is that they cannot be used commercially, except for training. There are tons of IFR/IMC-capable experimental airplanes for example. Anyway, the HX50 can definitely be flown at night here, and with no passenger limit. But if you're in the UK, being limited to GB does seem like a pretty big disadvantage. So perhaps the HX, if it ever actually exists, will primarily be sold overseas.

[206 jock]

If you have a spare couple of hours....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itttc9qLSJY

Interesting updates on the engine, around 1'12". I'm no psychologist but Dr. Hill looks distinctly uncomfortable talking about the changes they are making to the engine design

[Bell_ringer]

Interesting updates on the engine, around 1'12". I'm no psychologist but Dr. Hill looks distinctly uncomfortable talking about the changes they are making to the engine design

It's called tap dancing.
I liked the phrase: "It is envisaged to be.." :E
Delays are inevitable, but in his position it must be spun to a positive - it's not a delay, it's a product improvement for your benefit.
Pretty standard stuff for these types of ra-ra events, to keep the punters happy and interested.
My inner cynic is always wary of anyone who only emits positives, but that is his job.
Looking forward to seeing the engine and aircraft at their next broadcast.

[[email protected]]

Single stage centrifugal compressor, two stage compressor turbine and single stage free power turbine and an annular combustion chamber - not exactly a revolutionary design is it?

With all the R and D available to the major engine manufacturers, if this performance vs weight vs efficiency was possible, why wouldn't they have done it already?

Do Hill helicopters risk being overtaken by electric technology?

[admikar]

Single stage centrifugal compressor, two stage compressor turbine and single stage free power turbine and an annular combustion chamber - not exactly a revolutionary design is it?

With all the R and D available to the major engine manufacturers, if this performance vs weight vs efficiency was possible, why wouldn't they have done it already?

Do Hill helicopters risk being overtaken by electric technology?
Snake oil rings a bell?

[Bell_ringer]

Do Hill helicopters risk being overtaken by electric technology?

We’re all just over the Hill :E

[Kemble Pitts]

... For the HC50, I'm sure they're going to try and use all the flight data and deliveries to try and pressure the CAA/EASA/FAA to accept any of their deviations or whathaveyou, ...

Why are you 'sure'?

Their intention is to meet or exceed all of the CS-27 requirements for HC50, and to meet or exceed almost all of them for HX50 too.

[Mee3]

Why are you 'sure'?

Their intention is to meet or exceed all of the CS-27 requirements for HC50, and to meet or exceed almost all of them for HX50 too.
Start from everything combined burn tested for the interior and per frame all in is under 1M sterling?

Bell still pulling their hair for not leaving part 29 for their 429.

[CGameProgrammerr]

The idea of an electric helicopter is laughable; there is a reason why there are literally none, not even proofs of concept. There are electric ultra-efficient airplanes and they have an endurance of one hour at most.

I found the video very interesting and candid and it gave me more confidence that they are actually doing things. He said he expects to have a couple on the floor at the next conference around late spring or summer 2023, but it doesn't sound like they would actually be working prototypes. But who knows.

[rotorspeed]

I’m amazed the myth of the Hill helicopter ever being a reality has lasted so long. And it wouldn’t matter if it wasn’t for the fact that presumably a reasonable number or people have been induced to put deposits into what is bound to be a doomed business.

Why? Because if it sounds too good to be true, it is….. Simply look at their web site headlines: 140kts, 700nm range, 5000 hrs engine TBO. And all for just £495k. Never going to happen. Or even get close. The existing manufacturers have vastly more competency and have been infinitely better funded than Hill, and haven’t got near that performance in 50 years. Sorry, but it’s just laughable. And if the industry giants of Leonardo, Airbus, Bell and Robinson don’t think it viable to make their own engines, how on earth can Hill consider it? Perhaps because at least they’re keeping the myth in-house, with no OEM supplier to undermine it…..

To be fair though, fabulous futuristic shape and interior design. And amazing how far that seems to have taken them.

[Bell_ringer]

..The existing manufacturers have vastly more competency and have been infinitely better funded than Hill, and haven’t got near that performance in 50 years. Sorry, but it’s just laughable. And if the industry giants of Leonardo, Airbus, Bell and Robinson don’t think it viable to make their own engines, how on earth can Hill consider it?

I see where you went wrong, the existing manufacturers got this right decades ago and have been sitting on it so they can keep raking in HUGE profits.
It only really costs a fiver to make a typical aircraft. :}

[CGameProgrammerr]

It sounds too good to be true, but it's definitely not an actual scam. Their goals may be overly ambitious, time will tell, but the existing manufacturers are using very old technology and that's largely due to the very high cost of certification. Hill is creating almost everything by themselves which seems crazy and would require a million certifications for the HC50 version, but the HX50 is more realistic if it works. And unlike airplanes, there are very few experimental helicopters because the private helicopter market is very small at the moment, so manufacturers have largely ignored it. Robinson is one of the few exceptions.

[Bell_ringer]

It sounds too good to be true, but it's definitely not an actual scam. Their goals may be overly ambitious, time will tell, but the existing manufacturers are using very old technology and that's largely due to the very high cost of certification. Hill is creating almost everything by themselves which seems crazy and would require a million certifications for the HC50 version, but the HX50 is more realistic if it works. And unlike airplanes, there are very few experimental helicopters because the private helicopter market is very small at the moment, so manufacturers have largely ignored it. Robinson is one of the few exceptions.

Very old technology? That “revolutionary” turbine they’re designing isn’t new..

[[email protected]]

Maybe it's made from pixie dust and unicorn's tears.................