Hill Helicopters HX50

[mechpowi]

Originally Posted by hargreaves99

If they run the engine on a test bed for 5,000 hours, 24 hours a day, that will take about 7 months, with no breaks at all.

Then add cycles to the testing…

[CGameProgrammerr]

It's really not hard to stress-test the engine. You run it on a test rig with a load that you might vary, and you can run another engine on a rig that automatically starts and stops it to test how many cycles affect it. Also manufacturers typically have lower initial TBOs, then increase them later post-production after a lot of testing.

[admikar]

All true, but the problem Hill has is that he already promised certain numbers.
So, he can't go with lower TBO. He also can't go with parallel testing as you described it, since that will not represent real life conditions. He needs hours AND cycles.
In summary, Hill will be even more late than he is already.

[Bell_ringer]

Ignoring promises, they are made to be broken, and from the mouth of a sales person you should know better than to trust anything while their lips are moving.
What is the bare minimum testing required for an experimental engine to allow for flight tests?
At the moment I still think he is putting the mental into experimental, but others would consider that visionary.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Originally Posted by CGameProgrammerr

It's really not hard to stress-test the engine. You run it on a test rig with a load that you might vary, and you can run another engine on a rig that automatically starts and stops it to test how many cycles affect it. Also manufacturers typically have lower initial TBOs, then increase them later post-production after a lot of testing.

I imagine there are any number of engine manufacturers around the world, ready to hire you immediately to resolve the issues they face with their products!

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by Bell_ringer

What is the bare minimum testing required for an experimental engine to allow for flight tests?

Technically, there is no minimum requirement for experimental engines as there is no type design/certificate. However, they are following the requirements of FAA Part 33/EASA CS-E for the GT50 build which is around 150 hours of block testing under various condition. And to add, any overhaul periods are strictly determined by the OEM for all aircraft engines.

[Bell_ringer]

Originally Posted by wrench1

However, they are following the requirements of FAA Part 33/EASA CS-E for the GT50 build which is around 150 hours of block testing under various condition.

Can't say the idea of strapping myself to a new, unproven engine with 150 hours on the bench would fill me with excitement.

[212man]

Originally Posted by Bell_ringer

Can't say the idea of strapping myself to a new, unproven engine with 150 hours on the bench would fill me with excitement.

in fairness, it will have also gone through the flight test programme and also the MGB testing.

[CGameProgrammerr]

Yeah, he said that after they successfully test a couple of prototypes, they'll do a lot of production prototypes and then test those a lot. Obviously he does not want to sell dangerous aircraft because accidents can destroy the business.

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by Bell_ringer

Can't say the idea of strapping myself to a new, unproven engine with 150 hours on the bench would fill me with excitement.

My comment was merely in context to your question on a minimum time. Most new turbines will usually have 1000s of hours on them before they go public which is what I expect with the GT50. But keep in mind, the GT50 is more of a “clone” to an existing turbine with millions of flight hours on the design. So its not exactly an unproven design just upgraded to take advantage of modern processes.

[Richard Fiedorowicz]

Originally Posted by 212man

in fairness, it will have also gone through the flight test programme and also the MGB testing.

Sunglasses and a big watch - at least you could go down in style.

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted by wrench1

My comment was merely in context to your question on a minimum time. Most new turbines will usually have 1000s of hours on them before they go public which is what I expect with the GT50. But keep in mind, the GT50 is more of a “clone” to an existing turbine with millions of flight hours on the design. So its not exactly an unproven design just upgraded to take advantage of modern processes.

'Close'? Really? It is his design, his components and his build - trying to piggyback on any designs it was copied from is disingenuous and very far from a credible safety case.

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted by CGameProgrammerr

Yeah, he said that after they successfully test a couple of prototypes, they'll do a lot of production prototypes and then test those a lot. Obviously he does not want to sell dangerous aircraft because accidents can destroy the business.

And all that takes a shed load of time - something he is burning through faster than cash.

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

'Close'? Really? It is his design, his components and his build - trying to piggyback on any designs it was copied from is disingenuous and very far from a credible safety case.

He has publicly stated he used established design architecture on all the main components for the HX50. He even went so far to bring in some of the original design engineers to give input on his versions. Nothing disingenuous about it and is basically how aviation as moved since the early days. In the case of the GT50, he took a legacy modular design, dropped the N1 gearbox, configured the external systems to meet the installation requirements, and adapted the production process to use current manufacturing methods.

[212man]

Originally Posted by Richard Fiedorowicz

Sunglasses and a big watch - at least you could go down in style.

Well I’ll stick to my Wayfarers and GMT II, and SL63, so no chance of going down in an HX50.

[Pittsextra]

Originally Posted by admikar

All true, but the problem Hill has is that he already promised certain numbers.
So, he can't go with lower TBO. He also can't go with parallel testing as you described it, since that will not represent real life conditions. He needs hours AND cycles.
In summary, Hill will be even more late than he is already.

whilst I am not disputing the validity of the view / its sense are you sure that is required for a non- certified aircraft or does the manufacturer convince authority of some acceptable means of compliance? The reason I say that is because in a recent fatal Gyroplane accident the AAIB found that there was an accepted assumption around an ability for the aircraft to maintain integrity under certain g loadings. They proved it to c.+3G and then told authority (who accepted this) that if it could sustain +3g it could also do -3G….

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-rotorsport-uk-cavalon-g-ckyt

[Winemaker]

Originally Posted by CGameProgrammerr

Yeah, he said that after they successfully test a couple of prototypes, they'll do a lot of production prototypes and then test those a lot. Obviously he does not want to sell dangerous aircraft because accidents can destroy the business.

The problem with testing 'a lot of production prototypes' is that they will all have approximately equal hours on them.

[EXDAC]

Many people contributing to this thread seem to have no idea what Experimental Amateur Built means. The builder assumes all responsibility for the airworthiness of the completed aircraft. There is no requirement for the engine, or any other component, to have any approval or certification.

If the GT50 engine fails in less that 40 hours the builder won't get through phase 1 flight test and will not be authorized to carry passengers. After 40 hours the passenger better read the Experimental warning placard and understand what it means.

Hill's business will fail if engines fail at low hours but it will be the builders responsibility not his unless he offers a specific engine warranty. (My experimental Lycoming YIO-360 came with a 2 year Lycoming warranty.)

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted by wrench1

He has publicly stated he used established design architecture on all the main components for the HX50. He even went so far to bring in some of the original design engineers to give input on his versions. Nothing disingenuous about it and is basically how aviation as moved since the early days. In the case of the GT50, he took a legacy modular design, dropped the N1 gearbox, configured the external systems to meet the installation requirements, and adapted the production process to use current manufacturing methods.

So if he has just copied a legacy design, why is he still fiddling with so many internal components of the engine? The fact that his engine is based on another, especially when he is trying to tweak it so much, is not a guarantee of performance or reliability at all.

After 40 hours the passenger better read the Experimental warning placard and understand what it means.

And this is the aircraft rich people want to take their friends and family in to showcase their wealth?
​​​​​​​
'Hey here's my super shiny new helicopter, let's go fly somewhere for lunch - please sign this disclaimer in case we don't come back'

[PPRuNeUser469990]

I think the crunch time will come sometime in 2027 when production is supposed to start properly.