Hill Helicopters HX50

[Bell_ringer]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

Perhaps I misunderstood you but, to be clear, AD have never applied to E/AB aircraft. AD can apply to certificated components, such as an engine, used in E/AB. This is one of the reasons that E/AB builders may chose an experimental engine rather than a type certificated one.

Once I took delivery of my factory assist E/AB and was issued my repairman certificate I became the only person with any responsibility for its airworthiness.

Not my quote..

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

Perhaps I misunderstood you but, to be clear, AD have never applied to E/AB aircraft. AD can apply to certificated components, such as an engine, used in E/AB.

While its rare, ADs have long been applicable to non-TC aircraft and products provided the AD applicability statement specifically identifies that non-TC item. There’s been FAA guidance on this and even some notable E/AB OEMs have stated this in their documentation as well.

And conversely, if you do use a “certified” engine on an E/AB you do not need to comply with the AD for the certified version unless the AD applicability statement specifically addresses those engines installed on non-TC aircraft. By installing that engine on your E/AB it loses its "certified" status regardless if it still has its data plate or not.

The principal basis for this is every issued AD is a new Part 39 regulation under which there are no exemptions to their compliance. The AD applicability statement is the key to whether the AD is applicable to your E/AB or not.

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by Bell_ringer

Not my quote..

Sorry. I don't know how that happened but I have fixed it.

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by wrench1

While its rare, ADs have long been applicable to non-TC aircraft and products provided the AD applicability statement specifically identifies that non-TC item. There’s been FAA guidance on this and even some notable E/AB OEMs have stated this in their documentation as well.

Can you give any examples (AD reference) of an AD being issued with applicability to an Experimental amateur built aircraft. AC 39-7D does appear to allow for the possibility but the examples it gives (para 9 b) relate only to equipment installed on an experimental aircraft not to the aircraft itself.

e.g:

"(2) “This AD applies to Lycoming Engines Models AEIO-360-A1A and IO-360-A1A. This AD applies to any aircraft with the listed engine models installed.” This statement makes the AD applicable to the listed engine models installed on TC’d and non-TC’d aircraft."

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

Can you give any examples (AD reference) of an AD being issued with applicability to an Experimental amateur built aircraft.

No since they changed from the RGL system to the DRS system. But here's a link to an earlier revision of AC 39-7 that used an aircraft for the examples. As I noted, its rare to see one, but I was merely pointing out that ADs have been applicable to E/ABs for quite some time.
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/71369

[EXDAC]

ref - https://www.eaa.org/~/media/files/ne...licability.pdf

"Big Win for Experimental Aircraft on AD Applicability March 15, 2012 –

EAA and experimental category aircraft owners waited a long time for this piece of good news, but it finally arrived on March 12, when the FAA published an updated Advisory Circular (AC 39-7D) on Airworthiness Directives (ADs). The circular formally set FAA policy that ADs are not applicable on non-type certificated aircraft, except when specifically noted. This is an issue that has been on EAA's "Top 10" list of advocacy issues and has been part of the agenda at the last three EAA/FAA Recreational Aviation Summits. The absence of FAA headquarters guidance had created a patchwork of regional policies that varied and at times conflicted with each other.

"This is an outcome that is the result of many hours of hard work on EAA's insistence that ADs do not apply to experimental aircraft," said Sean Elliott, EAA vice president of safety and advocacy. "It clears up a great deal of confusion by setting a consistent FAA policy."

The circular also maintained FAA's option to include experimental category aircraft in an AD but must state that inclusion. Examples may include an Emergency AD involving an immediate safety of flight issue or products that may be installed on type certificated and non-type certificated aircraft, such as aircraft engines, propellers, and similar products."

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

rThe circular also maintained FAA's option to include experimental category aircraft in an AD but must state that inclusion.

Exactly. That was what I had originally stated above that the applicability statement must specifically state the non-TC item. However, there have been several ADs against E/AB airframes as well with one being a kit helicopter.

[Winemaker]

A bit off topic, so please remove if so. Years ago I visited the Boeing Flight Museum at Boeing Field. There was a home built helicopter on display; the automotive V-belt tail rotor drive scared the shyte out of me. Who would fly such a thing? Not me for sure.

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by Winemaker

A bit off topic, so please remove if so. Years ago I visited the Boeing Flight Museum at Boeing Field. There was a home built helicopter on display; the automotive V-belt tail rotor drive scared the shyte out of me. Who would fly such a thing? Not me for sure.

FYI: the R22/44 and Hughes 269 all use "V-belts" to drive the main transmission....

[Winemaker]

Originally Posted by wrench1

FYI: the R22/44 and Hughes 269 all use "V-belts" to drive the main transmission....

A single? Over six feet or so? Sorry, doesn't matter. Just the sight scared me. And I used to race formula cars...

[[email protected]]

Is the thread drift symptomatic of how slow Hill's progress is? Asking for a friend

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Is the thread drift symptomatic of how slow Hill's progress is? Asking for a friend

Ha. You may want to ask your friend what is he comparing the HX's progress to? Hill's been at the HX for only 5 years and started from scratch with a limited budget. Airbus on the other hand, took 10 years to bring the H160 to market and they had a previous model to work from, plus a technology development prototype, and a $billion dollar budget. Context can be your friend.

[admikar]

So, your context is to compare 5 seat experimental helicopter with a 14 seat fully certified helicopter?
Besides, Airbus was not burning other people's money, so they could take as much time as they wanted.
What is your opinion of Hill's odds of making these latest timelines, considering that he give almost no time for anything to go wrong during initial tests?

[Bell_ringer]

Originally Posted by wrench1

what is he comparing the HX's progress to?

Personally, my comparison has remained unchanged. The best comparison so far is Theranos' Edison machine.
Not an aircraft, but enough similarities.

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted by Bell_ringer

Personally, my comparison has remained unchanged. The best comparison so far is Theranos' Edison machine.
Not an aircraft, but enough similarities.

And plenty bought and drank Theranos' Kool-Aid too..........

[[email protected]]

Just reading another excellent book by David Hill, this one is about the Shoreham crash and subsequent AAIB investigation and CPS prosecution.

Airworthiness of an aircraft has to be owned and when people (including regulators) don't do their jobs properly in order to keep or get something flying that probably shouldn't be because of short cuts taken - the embarrassment at the subsequent Inquiry(ies) court case(s) etc leaves people scratching their heads and wondering how it could have been allowed to happen.

People will queue up to blame the pilot who had his hands on the controls at the time of the accident/incident but forensic examination will show lots of causal factors that were the responsibility of the manufacturers and the regulators.

Perhaps Jason Hill failing to deliver will be the safest outcome for all.

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by admikar

So, your context is to compare 5 seat experimental helicopter with a 14 seat fully certified helicopter?

Only in the context of the timeline. It takes on average 10 years from concept to market for a TC’d aircraft so to expect Hill to take less than half that average is not very realistic especially since he’s using the same regulatory guidance.

What is your opinion of Hill's odds of making these latest timelines, considering that he give almost no time for anything to go wrong during initial tests?

The general opinion, to include mine, is that delays are part of the process in developing a new aircraft and process. And Hill has been overly transparent about these delays and process changes. What I find more interesting is the majority of people who do negatively question his timelines, investors, and progress have zero vested interest with limited to no personal experience of the HX50 or its supporters, nor do they care to. So why do they even bother, especially those who do not fully understand how the E/AB process even works? Even the threads on eVTOLs, which will have a significantly larger impact on rotorcraft industry than the HX50 could ever dream of, come nowhere close to the posts/views of this thread. Why do you think that is?

[Mee3]

Originally Posted by wrench1

Ha. You may want to ask your friend what is he comparing the HX's progress to? Hill's been at the HX for only 5 years and started from scratch with a limited budget. Airbus on the other hand, took 10 years to bring the H160 to market and they had a previous model to work from, plus a technology development prototype, and a $billion dollar budget. Context can be your friend.

There were no previous model for 160, it was intended for originally and then unintended becoming a cleaning sheet helicopter.

[admikar]

Originally Posted by wrench1

Only in the context of the timeline. It takes on average 10 years from concept to market for a TC’d aircraft so to expect Hill to take less than half that average is not very realistic especially since he’s using the same regulatory guidance.

Actually, I agree with you on this, but those expectations were set by Jason Hill himself. No one forced him to put out such an optimistic timeline.......oh, wait, how else would he get the money? Now he should be held responsible for that.

Originally Posted by wrench1

The general opinion, to include mine, is that delays are part of the process in developing a new aircraft and process. And Hill has been overly transparent about these delays and process changes. What I find more interesting is the majority of people who do negatively question his timelines, investors, and progress have zero vested interest with limited to no personal experience of the HX50 or its supporters, nor do they care to. So why do they even bother, especially those who do not fully understand how the E/AB process even works? Even the threads on eVTOLs, which will have a significantly larger impact on rotorcraft industry than the HX50 could ever dream of, come nowhere close to the posts/views of this thread. Why do you think that is?

Promised eVTOLs are a dream in regards to what technology can deliver as of now. Hill's helicopter is a somewhat polished example of already existing stuff and despite that, he is getting delayed before even getting into testing phase (which we know from experience is the most delays incuring stage). Remember flying car concept? How much time it took for public to shake it off after it failed? If this fails, how much time before someone else tries?
Contrary to what some of Hill's supporters think, a lot of naysayers here actually want him to succeed, for the exact reason of not taking decades before someone else tries it again.

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by Mee3

There were no previous model for 160, it was intended for originally and then unintended becoming a cleaning sheet helicopter.

I can only go by what I heard in the Eurocopter/Airbus tents at HExpo years ago that the X4/H160 was an extension/replacement for the 365/155 model line. I think the 175 would be a better example of a standalone model with no previous lineage as the HX is.

Originally Posted by admikar

Actually, I agree with you on this, but those expectations were set by Jason Hill himself. No one forced him to put out such an optimistic timeline.......oh, wait, how else would he get the money? Now he should be held responsible for that.

Except the actual slot owners/investors I deal with don’t share the same concerns you do. Regardless, the people who have invested money did so because of what the HX will provide to the private, recreational market and not specifically when it will fly. So the delays are accepted as part of the process to them. And as I’ve mentioned before, the HX is hardly a “polished example of already existing stuff” as it has no peer in the market. So my question still stands, if you are not a slot owner or investor, why the level of concern about how the HX is progressing if you have nothing at stake?

Promised eVTOLs are a dream in regards to what technology can deliver as of now.

Well, they are hardly a dream anymore. With the 1st eVTOL commercial ops started this year, the Joby and Archer in the final stages of type certification, and the completion of several eVTOL infrastructure projects you’ll be able to see them in action sooner than later. But I’ve detailed this in other threads so no need to derail this one.