Hill Helicopters HX50

[Bell_ringer]

Originally Posted by wrench1

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.

Fair enough.
In my experience, with high net worth individuals, there are specific personality types that tend to get ahead, some of that is baked in, some learned.
When someone is not used to hearing "no", is accustomed to do as they please and who contributes to the income of those that are supposed to encourage the right behaviour, then it can end badly.
That is generalising a bit, but it does support the notion that the person makes the pilot.
There are possibly more helicopters around where a swabbed surface would show traces of nose candy, than you might expect.

[[email protected]]

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.

mostly irrelevant, you asserted that wealthy pilots bought the Cirrus because it had CAPS - I suggested they bought it for the performance and kudos.

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.

And if the person is flawed - hubris, arrogance for example - that makes for a pilot less concerned for safety than image. Does wealth automatically breed hubris or arrogance? No, but so many high profile accidents have that as a human factor you could start to believe it.

The HX 50 will be an experimental aircraft and if you don't think that brings additional levels of risk, why does that category even exist - if every homebuilt aircraft is as safe and reliable as a fully certified one, you wouldn't need the experimental category.

WMF - I know many less wealthy people manage to fly through groups and other means, they really are aviation enthusiasts and would probably sell their granny to get in a cockpit - those are not generally the people who buy $1m+ Cirrus though. Wrench1 doesn't think that is a sign of wealth, I do - difference of opinion, move on.


​​​​​​​

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

The HX 50 will be an experimental aircraft and if you don't think that brings additional levels of risk, why does that category even exist - if every homebuilt aircraft is as safe and reliable as a fully certified one, you wouldn't need the experimental category.

Experimental Amateur Built is a sub category of Experimental. Even if there were no amateur built aircraft Experimental aircraft would still exist.

According to FAA - "An experimental airworthiness certificate is issued to operate an aircraft that does not have a type certificate or does not conform to its type certificate and is in a condition for safe operation." (my emphasis)

Ref - https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cer...w_certificates

[flylikebrik]

Latest Hill update

In the beginning of the video you will see mr Hill explain how much trouble they are having just finishing the starter generator (Of course he makes it sound like nothing).
This part is not even close to passing testing and they had to redesign 2 parts already (not budgeted for on timeline i bet).
They have not even started with reliability testing or integration testing.

Every single part in that system will look like that. Test -> Fix design -> repeat

They want to fly at end of the year?
They have 10 years of testing and design updates ahead of them.

Have fun Hill and ..... i told you so.

[[email protected]]

EXDAC - you should have included the whole piece -

Purpose:

An experimental airworthiness certificate is issued to operate an aircraft that does not have a type certificate or does not conform to its type certificate and is in a condition for safe operation. Additionally, this certificate is issued to operate a primary category kit-built aircraft that was assembled without the supervision and quality control of the production certificate holder.

Experimental airworthiness certificates may be issued for the following purposes:

• Research and development: to conduct aircraft operations as a matter of research or to determine if an idea warrants further development. Typical uses for this certificate include new equipment installations, operating techniques, or new uses for aircraft.
• Showing compliance with regulations: to show compliance to the airworthiness regulations when an applicant has revised the type certificate design data or has applied for a supplemental type certificate or field approval.
• Crew training: for training the applicant’s flight crews in experimental aircraft for subsequent operation of aircraft being flight tested in type certificate programs or for production flight testing.
• Exhibition: to exhibit an aircraft’s flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics for air shows, motion pictures, television, and similar productions, and for the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency.
• Air racing: to operate an aircraft in air races, practice for air races, and to fly to and from racing events.
• Market surveys: to conduct market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training for U.S. manufacturers of aircraft or engines.
• Operating amateur-built aircraft, kit-built aircraft, or light-sport aircraft
• Operating Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Optionally Piloted Aircraft (OPA)

​​​​​​​I can't see where selling the aircraft to wealthy punters fits in there anywhere.

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

EXDAC - you should have included the whole piece -
I can't see where selling the aircraft to wealthy punters fits in there anywhere.

Really? It fits under - "Operating amateur-built aircraft,"

Have you over owned or operated an experimental aircraft, or even been in one? I currently own two, one exhibition and racing, the other amateur built. Both have at least the same level of safety as their type certificated equivalents.

[Bell_ringer]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

Really? It fits under - "Operating amateur-built aircraft,"

Have you over owned or operated an experimental aircraft, or even been in one? I currently own two, one exhibition and racing, the other amateur built. Both have at least the same level of safety as their type certificated equivalents.

Are any of them helicopters?

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by Bell_ringer

Are any of them helicopters?

No, I have never owned a helicopter. However, I do not see how that is pertinent to a discussion of whether experimental aircraft are any less safe than type certificated aircraft.

[Bell_ringer]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

No, I have never owned a helicopter. However, I do not see how that is pertinent to a discussion of whether experimental aircraft are any less safe than type certificated aircraft.

It is one of the cruxes of the matter.
Fixed wing aircraft are relatively mechanically uncomplicated, compared to rotorcraft:
Experimental and self-builds are common place for fixed wing aircraft, and even there it hasn’t been plain sailing.
The few attempts to do this in the rotary space have not been successful, for the most part.
You can’t cookie cutter one application to another without fully considering all the additional variables.

How many of your experimental aircraft vendors designed their own engine or have they just recycled the usual suspects from Conti, Lycoming, Rotax etc?

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

The HX 50 will be an experimental aircraft and if you don't think that brings additional levels of risk, why does that category even exist - if every homebuilt aircraft is as safe and reliable as a fully certified one, you wouldn't need the experimental category.

Regulatory aircraft categories are determined by which rules are followed and not by what level of risks they present. An experimental category is needed to cover those aircraft that either no longer conform to their type design, or do not have a type design or type certificate. And for reference, the amateur-built sub-category was implemented due to public demand decades ago to provide an alternate means to build, operate, and maintain an aircraft. No different than why there are Light-Sport aircraft, ultralights, and even the TCCA Owner Maintained category of aircraft. And last I checked the FAA, UKCAA, TCCA, and CASA have initially accepted the HX50 meets the definition of amateur-built.

[Agile]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

Really? It fits under - "Operating amateur-built aircraft,"

The problem that I have is the big gap between what is commonly perceived as a typical experimental aircraft and the HX50. honestly there will be nothing amateur, and nothing that you built.

As cited above typical experimental has a Rotax engine and six pack instruments, but now you have a 500hp turboshaft and an advanced cockpit, that MIP probably has enough wires at the back to make the most seasoned instrumentation technician scratch his head.

The other problem that I have is that the recent accident in New York reminds all of us that when things go wrong in a helicopter, the consequences are fierce. With that image in our mind, the word experimental will not gain in popularity.

[CGameProgrammerr]

Agile, you seem to be forgetting about Vans airplanes, nearly all of which are experimental and nearly all of which use Lycoming engines and usually a glass panel. You're thinking of light sport (US) / ultralight (EU) aircraft which usually use Rotax, but experimentals are not just light sport.

[Bell_ringer]

Originally Posted by CGameProgrammerr

Agile, you seem to be forgetting about Vans airplanes,

While a Vans is faster and larger, it is not materially more complex. There is very little in the way of base DNA that varies between these types, it costs a bit more and you get more bang for your buck.
Vans have not built their own engine, the garmin panel is stock, tried and tested in the industry.
Do they make their own ball bearings?

It still could not be more architecturally different to a rotorcraft and related complexity.

[EXDAC]

Several have asserted that the 51% (minimum) builder of a Hill experimental rotorcraft with not fabricate anything or will not build anything.

Here is a link to the FAA checklist that is used to verify that the builder meets the 51% rule. I would expect Hill to have used this checklist as the basis for deriving one applicable to his specific design.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/fi...CklistHelo.pdf

Some will jump on the fact that Hill's fuselage is composite rather than structural steel tube. For most amateur builders cutting pre-preg and laying it up in molds would not be particularly challenging if done under supervision. (I assume Hill is using pre-preg rather than wet layup. Correct me if that is not true.)

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by Agile

The problem that I have is the big gap between what is commonly perceived as a typical experimental aircraft and the HX50. honestly there will be nothing amateur, and nothing that you built.

Except there are no regulatory limits on complexity or any other parameter for amateur-built aircraft. So long as a builder complies with fabricating and assembling a major portion solely for their own education or recreation it meets the E/AB requirements. This is why of the 30K+ E/AB aircraft flying in the US, they range from a single seat Fly Baby to 4 place helicopters to 500 mph jets.

With that image in our mind, the word experimental will not gain in popularity.

Actually its become the reverse over the past 20 years regardless the headlines. In the US, the Part 91 recreational market has been in a slow decline along with an increasing shift toward the E/AB and LSA options. What the HX50 offers has captured not only the E/AB side but the entire Part 91 rec market as well. And if the FAA’s MOSAIC rule continues on its present course you will see those “experimental” numbers significantly increase as it will redefine what aircraft may be operated and maintained as an LSA to include helicopters.

[Winemaker]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

Several have asserted that the 51% (minimum) builder of a Hill experimental rotorcraft with not fabricate anything or will not build anything.

Here is a link to the FAA checklist that is used to verify that the builder meets the 51% rule. I would expect Hill to have used this checklist as the basis for deriving one applicable to his specific design.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/fi...CklistHelo.pdf

Some will jump on the fact that Hill's fuselage is composite rather than structural steel tube. For most amateur builders cutting pre-preg and laying it up in molds would not be particularly challenging if done under supervision. (I assume Hill is using pre-preg rather than wet layup. Correct me if that is not true.)

Thanks for the link. I printed it out and then went through the task list and assigned manufacturer vs amateur build points, keeping in mind that the amateur will, in a two week build session with no prior experience of the tasks, be both slow and requiring constant supervision. I also assumed the amateur would do no fabrication, but only assembly. Being very generous with points to the amateur I came up with a rough guess of an 80% manufacturer build. I have no idea how Hill comes up with 51% customer build.

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by Winemaker

Thanks for the link. I printed it out and then went through the task list and assigned manufacturer vs amateur build points, keeping in mind that the amateur will, in a two week build session with no prior experience of the tasks, be both slow and requiring constant supervision. I also assumed the amateur would do no fabrication, but only assembly. Being very generous with points to the amateur I came up with a rough guess of an 80% manufacturer build. I have no idea how Hill comes up with 51% customer build.

Fabrication in this context does not mean you have to mine the iron ore and smelt it. Take piece of steel stock and put in CNC machine, press run, out comes a part. Who fabricated that part? What percentage of the task (not the time) goes to the person who pressed Run? The part could not have been fabricated without that contribution so it must be greater than zero.

The biggest part of the work needed to produce that part was creating the design but that is not included in the check list. Only cutting the stock to size, mounting it, running the machine, and dismounting the part contribute to fabrication.

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by Winemaker

I have no idea how Hill comes up with 51% customer build.

Here is a link of the completed FAA checklist for a Hummingbird 300L which is a 4-place E/AB kit helicopter. Perhaps use it as a guide for a possible one of the HX50? And yes there will be fabrication involved as well in the process. Personally I believe it will be closer to a 3 week process due to the use of composites. As of now the UKCAA, FAA, EASA, and CASA have all initially accepted the major portion builder process submitted by Hill. However, a final acceptance won’t happen until the production process has been finalized. They will also be producing a rather unique digital builders log as part of the process which will include video.

[Winemaker]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

Fabrication in this context does not mean you have to mine the iron ore and smelt it. Take piece of steel stock and put in CNC machine, press run, out comes a part. Who fabricated that part? What percentage of the task (not the time) goes to the person who pressed Run? The part could not have been fabricated without that contribution so it must be greater than zero.

The biggest part of the work needed to produce that part was creating the design but that is not included in the check list. Only cutting the stock to size, mounting it, running the machine, and dismounting the part contribute to fabrication.

Oh come on, I understand I don't have to mine and smelt the ore, I was a mechanical designer in aerospace and marine in one phase of my life. Once 'a' part is produced it must be mated these other parts in an assembly, etc. etc. There is no way Hill is going to let a customer assemble a rotor head or a gear box or make up a wiring bundle or run fuel or hydraulic lines, or .... My point was, if you actually look at the FAA percentage calculator, it doesn't seem possible to assign a 51% 'build' to a wealthy customer who shows up for a two week 'assembly' stay and who will probably be spending a great deal of time at the hotel bar.

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by Winemaker

My point was, if you actually look at the FAA percentage calculator, it doesn't seem possible to assign a 51% 'build' to a wealthy customer who shows up for a two week 'assembly' stay and who will probably be spending a great deal of time at the hotel bar.

Except your point is moot considering the FAA and others have already accepted the HX50 builder process to meet the 51% requirement. But stick your "wealthy" theory if that makes you feel better as it seems that is the only qualifying issue that bothers you and others.