Hill Helicopters HX50

[[email protected]]

You really do have a very large chip on your shoulder

No, you'd be quite wrong about that.

C'mon Crab, you're better than this. You really should have a long conversation with yourself about why this project so upsets you. Nothing that you say about the project is wrong, but the nature of your attacks reveal more about you than they do about Dr. Hill. Do you feel like wealthy amateurs somehow undermine your professional standing ? I don't think so. You stand on your own mountain, and nothing that wealthy amateurs do can alter that.

You and Hughes are wrong about my reasons for decrying many wealthy amateurs - nothing to do with envy and everything to do with safety.
How many wealthy amateurs have created smoking holes and taken innocent people with them? And that is in fully certified aircraft not experimental ones.

Much like letting inexperienced but wealthy drivers into very high performance sports cars - ends in tears far more often than it should.

​​​​​​​High performance aircraft (which is what Hill is promising) take amateurs beyond their skill level far quicker and with far less room for recovery than more sedate models.

The project only upsets me because of the wild claims about planned performance with absolutely no evidence to back them up - a classic sales technique - keen wealthy amateurs drink this sort of stuff like coolaid and throw their money (their prerogative of course) at Hill. If just one of those guys or girls ends up dead because of the short-cuts Hill is taking (using the experimental category) then it will be too much.

My professional career hinged around flight safety and training and I will continue to rail against things I feel compromise those aspects of aviation.

[[email protected]]

Regardless, how it all works out in the end is the $64K question and I guess where you are at in the food chain will determine whether you will like the answers or not.

So if people get hurt or just ripped off with a substandard product, this 'disruption' of the aviation industry is OK?

[[email protected]]

In the US, we have people who regularly buy $1M+ Cirrus SR22s to fly on the weekends who can hardly be considered “rich” with its CAPS being the main reason they buy one and not as a status symbol

Hilarious - being able to buy a $1M+ dollar aircraft doesn't make you rich??? The need for the CAPS is because the Cirrus is a high performance aircraft with poor spin characteristics - we are back to amateurs in aircraft they don't have the skills for but want the performance and kudos of.

You can have a Ballistic Parachute recovery system on a C42 but of course that's not sexy enough for your 'wealthy keen amateurs'

[Wide Mouth Frog]

You and Hughes are wrong about my reasons for decrying many wealthy amateurs - nothing to do with envy and everything to do with safety.
How many wealthy amateurs have created smoking holes and taken innocent people with them? And that is in fully certified aircraft not experimental ones.

I don't believe for a moment it's envy, but I'm equally sure it's nothing to do with safety. If I were to guess I'd say it's more about an aggrieved righteous sense of who deserves to have the flying experience.

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted by Wide Mouth Frog

I don't believe for a moment it's envy, but I'm equally sure it's nothing to do with safety. If I were to guess I'd say it's more about an aggrieved righteous sense of who deserves to have the flying experience.

How many of the GA pilots ever push to improve their skills and knowledge beyond PPL level? The odd few might go CPL and IR if they want IMC transits, the majority are just happy to pass their licence renewal ride every year, gaining flying hours in the meantime but not necessarily gaining experience in difficult conditions or more complex scenarios. Meanwhile, in their minds they have been flying for a few years and know all they need to know.

Professional pilots know that every day is a school day, simulator training is essential for the stuff you can't practice in the aircraft (TR malfunctions for example) and they gain skills and experience of things other than straight line A to B in VMC.

Which of those two groups do you think would be safer in an uncertified and unproven helicopter?

Professionalism in aviation is earned not bought.

[Bell_ringer]

Maybe Mr Hill does the impossible, he creates a ship with docile and forgiving handling, good power margins and that wafts to the ground gently in autorotation, which never happens because the engine is so unbelievably reliable.
Think of all the craters that will be avoided by the Robbie converts.
Then again...

[Wide Mouth Frog]

Anyone, professional or private, that flies a new type (and certainly an uncertified one) is running a substantially greater risk. My sympathies extend to all those who are persuaded to do so as passengers, especially when they are children and lack informed consent. Likewise to any unfortunates on the ground caught up in accidents.

So if that's your point I'm with you 100%.

The project only upsets me because of the wild claims about planned performance with absolutely no evidence to back them up - a classic sales technique - keen wealthy amateurs drink this sort of stuff like coolaid and throw their money (their prerogative of course) at Hill. If just one of those guys or girls ends up dead because of the short-cuts Hill is taking (using the experimental category) then it will be too much.

But that's not what you said.

[Bell_ringer]

Originally Posted by Wide Mouth Frog

My sympathies extend to all those who are persuaded to do so as passengers, especially when they are children and lack informed consent.

Which lay person has any understanding what the experimental sticker actually means? How many even notice it?
There is nothing wrong with experimental aircraft, but in this rotary application, where it is going to be used by families, friends, colleagues, it is pushing the boundaries somewhat, and shifting the burden of responsibility to the "builder" is convenient.

[SWBKCB]

Our UK registered microlight has a placard on the dashboard explaing that it is an un-certified a/c. Wouldn't the Hill HX-50 have something similar?

Also, my technical ability is stretched at changing light bulbs. I wouldn't want to fly in anything I'd been involved in building.

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

being able to buy a $1M+ dollar aircraft doesn't make you rich???

No, especially in the context where a new Cessna 182 costs $650K and a new Piper single is $500K and quite a few take out loans to pay for them just as they would on a new home or vehicle. I think your definition of “wealthy” may need a bit of an update at least in this context.

High performance aircraft (which is what Hill is promising) take amateurs beyond their skill level far quicker and with far less room for recovery than more sedate models.

Interesting. So your contention is that if two people, both possessing a private pilot certificate with helicopter rating, one gets into an R22 and one gets into a HX-50, the HX50 will crash and burn before the 22 will because they are “amateurs”?

The need for the CAPS is because the Cirrus is a high performance aircraft with poor spin characteristics - we are back to amateurs in aircraft they don't have the skills for but want the performance and kudos of.

Not quite. The Cirrus was to have CAPS from day one due to what happened to one of its co-developers. So when it came to certification time, Cirrus requested an exemption to spin recovery tests due to the CAPS and the FAA granted it. However, the EASA does not offer such exemptions and the Cirrus had to demonstrate its spin recovery to obtain its EASA TC. So the Cirrus recovers from a spin just fine. And there’s plenty of official docs to this point had you taken the time to research it.

Originally Posted by [email protected]

So if people get hurt or just ripped off with a substandard product, this 'disruption' of the aviation industry is OK?

That comment was directed to the use of performance based consensus standards for certification under Part 27, power lift, and MOSAIC. But given your delicate views you may want to stay away from any MOSAIC info as it will allow the poor folk to fly and maintain certain helicopters under LSA and their drivers license.

​​​​​​​

[Bell_ringer]

Originally Posted by wrench1

Interesting. So your contention is that if two people, both possessing a private pilot certificate with helicopter rating, one gets into an R22 and one gets into a HX-50, the HX50 will crash and burn before the 22 will because they are “amateurs”?

Not exactly a fair comparison that, but I would suggest that anyone flying a 22, the exception being mustering, has a healthy respect and understanding of aircraft performance and limitations and is less likely to let the aircraft get away from them.

If you want to compare to another certified light turbine helicopter, I would be amazed if you think a new, experimental model is in any way safer, or more reliable.
Perhaps in time, but at present that would be statistical anomaly.

[[email protected]]

I think your definition of “wealthy” may need a bit of an update at least in this context.

Perhaps your does. The wealth inequality in the US worse than the UK so maybe you are lucky enough to be in the top 10% that holds 67% of household wealth or maybe you have to be in the top 1% holding 30% of the country's wealth to make you rich in your eyes.

How many of the bottom 50% who own only 2.5% of the total household wealth own Cirrus or Pipers or Cessnas?

[[email protected]]

Not quite. The Cirrus was to have CAPS from day one due to what happened to one of its co-developers. So when it came to certification time, Cirrus requested an exemption to spin recovery tests due to the CAPS and the FAA granted it. However, the EASA does not offer such exemptions and the Cirrus had to demonstrate its spin recovery to obtain its EASA TC. So the Cirrus recovers from a spin just fine. And there’s plenty of official docs to this point had you taken the time to research it.

Splitting hairs once more.

[CGameProgrammerr]

Originally Posted by SWBKCB

Our UK registered microlight has a placard on the dashboard explaing that it is an un-certified a/c. Wouldn't the Hill HX-50 have something similar?

Yes. I'm only familiar with the US but it would be required to have a placard where passengers can see it, and also the words "EXPERIMENTAL" in 2" high letters somewhere that the passengers can see when boarding (does not have to be external). The pilot is also required to verbally brief passengers on the nature of experimentals.

[admikar]

Hill is late to the game?
https://www.konnerhelicopters.com/en/k2

[PPRuNeUser469990]

"permit to fly" aircaft in the UK (which the HX50 will be) have to display this placard

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by hargreaves99

"permit to fly" aircaft in the UK (which the HX50 will be) have to display this placard

Is the spelling error mandatory?

[Wide Mouth Frog]

Perhaps your does. The wealth inequality in the US worse than the UK so maybe you are lucky enough to be in the top 10% that holds 67% of household wealth or maybe you have to be in the top 1% holding 30% of the country's wealth to make you rich in your eyes.

How many of the bottom 50% who own only 2.5% of the total household wealth own Cirrus or Pipers or Cessnas?

FFS Crab, every time I try and dig you out of a hole you jump right in to another one. What the actual F would someone in the lower 50 percentiles of income be doing owning a light aircraft ?

When you start having disposable income, first you rent, and then you might consider group ownership, and if you happen to be a Doctor or something, then you might consider buying a killing machine named after you all for yourself. That's the bracket that the HX50 is aimed at. Some of those new owners might choose to rent to others, and thus the entire industry is sustained at whatever level of expenditure they can afford.

Or you get the head of state to hire you so you can have a wild time in some of the most extraordinary machines that mere mortals cannot afford.

Some of the poorest people I have ever met are in the flying industry trying to earn a living at it whilst living in a beat up old caravan on the airfield. If you're going to turn this into an argument about how society is structured, then I think we're a little off topic.

[VM325]

Meanwhile, blades are coming...

You Tube

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by Bell_ringer

Not exactly a fair comparison that,

My comment was more toward the “wealthy amateur” implication that somehow wealth breeds an inferior pilot. I’ve always believed the person makes the certificate and not the other way around.

I would be amazed if you think a new, experimental model is in any way safer, or more reliable.

Never said it would safer or more reliable, only that it would equally safe and reliable based on my experiences with experimental and certified aircraft and what I've reviewed with the HX50 progress. And it was that experience that led to being asked to review the HX prior to money being spent on a production slot.

Originally Posted by [email protected]

How many of the bottom 50% who own only 2.5% of the total household wealth own Cirrus or Pipers or Cessnas?

None. You’ll find aviation itself, regardless of aircraft type, is too expensive for the lower 50% percentile even in the US. Most Part 91 recreational aircraft owners come from upper 50% of the income earners with the average around the 75% level or about $85,000/year income. And the Cirrus or new Cessna owners come in around $100,000+/ year group.As to defining wealthy that has been politically defined for years at $400K+ /year or the top 1.5% earners. And people at that level and above tend to be flying around in their personal PC-12 or C208 or TBM instead of a Cirrus.

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Splitting hairs once more.

Not at all. Merely stating the facts that were left out. And had you researched it, you would have also learned that the cuffed wing on the Cirrus was designed in part by NASA to “greatly reduce” a spin during a stall. No haircut required.