Hill Helicopters HX50
Presumably that angled drive at the front goes into the MRGB but he talked in the video about taking the power from the rear of the engine.
Does that mean they still have a shaft running forward from the rear and underneath the engine and if so, where is the TR drive coming from?
I can't remember if there was any talk of an electric TR on this but if you take the TR drive from the engine instead of the MRGB you have no TR drive in the event of the engine failing.
Does that mean they still have a shaft running forward from the rear and underneath the engine and if so, where is the TR drive coming from?
I can't remember if there was any talk of an electric TR on this but if you take the TR drive from the engine instead of the MRGB you have no TR drive in the event of the engine failing.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Presumably that angled drive at the front goes into the MRGB but he talked in the video about taking the power from the rear of the engine.
Does that mean they still have a shaft running forward from the rear and underneath the engine and if so, where is the TR drive coming from?
I can't remember if there was any talk of an electric TR on this but if you take the TR drive from the engine instead of the MRGB you have no TR drive in the event of the engine failing.
Does that mean they still have a shaft running forward from the rear and underneath the engine and if so, where is the TR drive coming from?
I can't remember if there was any talk of an electric TR on this but if you take the TR drive from the engine instead of the MRGB you have no TR drive in the event of the engine failing.
Plank driver here.
In picture above - assume power then travels to rotorhead by a right angle gear out of picture to the left?
So - does gas coming in actually flow around the lower section of the rotor mast to the face of the axial compressor?
In picture above - assume power then travels to rotorhead by a right angle gear out of picture to the left?
So - does gas coming in actually flow around the lower section of the rotor mast to the face of the axial compressor?
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assumed the mounting on the front to be the direct drive electric starter motor mentioned. I believe the power turbine running through the rear of the engine will be rigged to drive a common MR/TR driveshaft as is the setup in a single Squirrel (through some reduction gears, the power turbine output is translated downwards to the driveshaft below the engine, and the output RPM is also reduced).
If they have gone down the Arriel style route then they have only reduced complexity a little since you need a reduction gearbox at the back of the engine, something they didn't refer to or glossed over.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manitoba Canada
Age: 72
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Thanks apolloheli, I'm very familiar with the set up in the 365 with the Arriel engine but that angled projection at the front of the Hill engine looks like a very strange way to mount a direct drive starter.
If they have gone down the Arriel style route then they have only reduced complexity a little since you need a reduction gearbox at the back of the engine, something they didn't refer to or glossed over.
If they have gone down the Arriel style route then they have only reduced complexity a little since you need a reduction gearbox at the back of the engine, something they didn't refer to or glossed over.
It is around the 10 minute mark of the video.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me the direct drive starter/generator looks like that gaffer tape roll thing just behind the 45 degree angled engine output drive shaft. Perhaps angling the drive shaft as illustrated allows the engine to be installed lower down in the aircraft making it less top heavy.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
That output shaft speed is labelled @ 6,000 rpm. Main rotor rpm is normally no more than 300 and they have to be mounted on a substantial shaft. It certainly needs more than a right angled gearbox.
Arriel 2B has an
There is no way to transmit 39K RPM in the main gear box as might have been suggested
this requires much different technologies on: the gears, the bearings, the oiling, the assembly rigidity...
much different than handling 6K RPM
note the power is generally distributed as follow
- N1 = 52,110 RPM
- N2 = 39,095 RPM
- and an output speed: 5990 RPM
There is no way to transmit 39K RPM in the main gear box as might have been suggested
this requires much different technologies on: the gears, the bearings, the oiling, the assembly rigidity...
much different than handling 6K RPM
note the power is generally distributed as follow
- 82 % main rotor
- 10% tail rotor
- 8 % efficiency losses in gear box + accessories
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EC130 tail rotor drive shaft spins at 6000 rpm, perhaps its Fenestron likes that input speed as it itself turns at 3584 rpm.
Going the other way, the MGB uses epicyclic gears which are very good at converting all that rotational energy into mast torque.
Going the other way, the MGB uses epicyclic gears which are very good at converting all that rotational energy into mast torque.
https://verticalmag.com/news/hill-he...oval-strategy/
Rather interesting approach.
I doubt many supercar owners, who seem to be the target market, will want to build it themselves.
Sell some kits, then try certify it.
All a bit convoluted.
Sounds more and more like vapourware.
Rather interesting approach.
I doubt many supercar owners, who seem to be the target market, will want to build it themselves.
Sell some kits, then try certify it.
All a bit convoluted.
Sounds more and more like vapourware.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoa:
Wait!
495k GBP (well, maybe + VAT + 2 weeks of owner operator factory work at Hill Helicopter's)?
That's about 545k Euros or 660k US Dollars.
And 5000 hours on condition maintenance schedule come as the icing on this cake? Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a native english speaker and might have missed some "details".
For a brand new single turbine 5 seater this sound very attractive - if you can live with the "private use only" stamp and if you can wait until 2023.
They say that the "commercial" version of this machine will be available about 3 years later and for about double the price point.
Of course, we'll have to se the flying prototypes in action, but man, this sounds (and only sounds until now) amazing.
Thracian
495k GBP (well, maybe + VAT + 2 weeks of owner operator factory work at Hill Helicopter's)?
That's about 545k Euros or 660k US Dollars.
And 5000 hours on condition maintenance schedule come as the icing on this cake? Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a native english speaker and might have missed some "details".
For a brand new single turbine 5 seater this sound very attractive - if you can live with the "private use only" stamp and if you can wait until 2023.
They say that the "commercial" version of this machine will be available about 3 years later and for about double the price point.
Of course, we'll have to se the flying prototypes in action, but man, this sounds (and only sounds until now) amazing.
Thracian
I guess it depends how your local regulator treats amateur builds, both from owner effort required, resale and flight restrictions.
Helicopters don't have the best track record in this category and were fundamentally aimed at a different market.
An aircraft that has been presented with super-car styling, design and build quality seems quite at odds with amateur building.
$660k buys you a fair amount of already assembled aircraft, though nothing as swish as Hill proposes.
I just find their messaging and sales strategy confused and conflicting.
At $1.3M certified, they are putting themselves into an interesting market but it's not exactly making flying accessible to the masses.
It's also a fair amount of money to invest in something where the reputation needs to survive the problems usually associated with amateur builds.
Helicopters don't have the best track record in this category and were fundamentally aimed at a different market.
An aircraft that has been presented with super-car styling, design and build quality seems quite at odds with amateur building.
$660k buys you a fair amount of already assembled aircraft, though nothing as swish as Hill proposes.
I just find their messaging and sales strategy confused and conflicting.
At $1.3M certified, they are putting themselves into an interesting market but it's not exactly making flying accessible to the masses.
It's also a fair amount of money to invest in something where the reputation needs to survive the problems usually associated with amateur builds.
Thread Starter
https://verticalmag.com/news/hill-he...oval-strategy/
Rather interesting approach.
I doubt many supercar owners, who seem to be the target market, will want to build it themselves.
Sell some kits, then try certify it.
All a bit convoluted.
Sounds more and more like vapourware.
Rather interesting approach.
I doubt many supercar owners, who seem to be the target market, will want to build it themselves.
Sell some kits, then try certify it.
All a bit convoluted.
Sounds more and more like vapourware.
The only person I know who buys Ferraris just loves his factory visits to see and touch his car being built.
Same with Bentley...
most regulators require an experimental aircraft to have been part constructed by the owner.
there isn’t a Super car owner alive who would put in their own spark plugs.
Actually that's not true; factory assist (aka build assist) is a real thing. Yes it can feel like cheating but it's legitimate. The biggest caveats for a helicopter that's technically E-AB is it will be more difficult to insure (though the much lower purchase price should counteract that) and it can't be used for commercial purposes. (You can train in it if you're the owner and are the one receiving training because it's your own aircraft.)
I still feel like this thing is a pipe dream, but if they somehow make it a reality than the E-AB version would be a serious competitor to even the R44. But until they have a flying prototype I'll remain a bit skeptical.
I still feel like this thing is a pipe dream, but if they somehow make it a reality than the E-AB version would be a serious competitor to even the R44. But until they have a flying prototype I'll remain a bit skeptical.
it becomes very difficult for a certification body to argue that ‘Oh, it’s a terrible idea, it’s very dangerous, it’s too risky,’ if we’ve got 1,000 or 2,000 of them out there already with an exemplary safety record.”
customers will be required to assemble their aircraft in a “carefully choreographed” two-week factory course
an exemplary safety record
Thread Starter