Hill Helicopters HX50

[[email protected]]

Some of the press guff from HeliHub in 2020 - no mention of a clone here

​​​​​​​“The GT50 has been designed and developed by a team of industry veterans using methods, tools, and techniques pioneered over decades,” says Jason Hill. “It is an intelligent ensemble of proven ideas and architecture, embodied into a new engine that fully exploits modern advancements, manufacturing methods, and supply chain opportunities to fulfill a specific market need.” The Hill GT50 employs state-of-art component and gas-path design delivering unmatched efficiencies for an entry-level turbine. The performance and operating range for the compressor and turbines is coupled with an efficient and robust three-can combustor system, offering a low-risk development route, flameout redundancy, and fuel flexibility. The historically expensive and heavy compressor turbine gearbox of current helicopter engines has been eliminated and replaced by a direct-drive starter-generator to dramatically reduce the cost and mechanical complexity of the engine. Extensive use of redundant electrical engine ancillaries further simplifies the engine package and a modular design makes for easy maintenance of the unit’s core components. The engine is also fully electronically controlled and features the Hill FADEC System, providing trouble-free, rapid startup and shutdown, tight RPM management, and optimal engine monitoring and control. Additionally, the Hill team took advantage of today’s economies of scale in manufacturing turbine components. On-demand advanced manufacturing processes and improved supply chains for the specialized materials used in turbine engines allowed for significant cost and time savings in developing, manufacturing, and delivering an affordable new engine. “The availability of reliable, powerful, and affordable engines is what limits light helicopter design today,” Hill adds. “When considering the overall mix of requirements necessary to power a truly ground-breaking aircraft, we saw the opportunity to design a simple turbine engine with unmatched efficiency, power, and cost. In simple terms, by developing the advanced GT50 engine, Hill has completely unlocked the potential of the helicopter in terms of both performance and cost, providing the enchanting opportunity to relaunch general aviation.” Read more at https://www.helihub.com/2020/11/03/h...-for-the-hx50/

[PPRuNeUser469990]

looks like there are lots of "hopefullys" missing from this statement

--

The GT50 has been designed and developed by a team of industry veterans using methods, tools, and techniques pioneered over decades,” says Jason Hill. “It is an intelligent ensemble of proven ideas and architecture, embodied into a new engine that fully exploits modern advancements, manufacturing methods, and supply chain opportunities to fulfill a specific market need.” The Hill GT50 employs state-of-art component and gas-path design delivering unmatched efficiencies for an entry-level turbine. The performance and operating range for the compressor and turbines is coupled with an efficient and robust three-can combustor system, offering a low-risk development route, flameout redundancy, and fuel flexibility. The historically expensive and heavy compressor turbine gearbox of current helicopter engines has been eliminated and replaced by a direct-drive starter-generator to dramatically reduce the cost and mechanical complexity of the engine. Extensive use of redundant electrical engine ancillaries further simplifies the engine package and a modular design makes for easy maintenance of the unit’s core components. The engine is also fully electronically controlled and features the Hill FADEC System, providing trouble-free, rapid startup and shutdown, tight RPM management, and optimal engine monitoring and control. Additionally, the Hill team took advantage of today’s economies of scale in manufacturing turbine components. On-demand advanced manufacturing processes and improved supply chains for the specialized materials used in turbine engines allowed for significant cost and time savings in developing, manufacturing, and delivering an affordable new engine. “The availability of reliable, powerful, and affordable engines is what limits light helicopter design today,” Hill adds. “When considering the overall mix of requirements necessary to power a truly ground-breaking aircraft, we saw the opportunity to design a simple turbine engine with unmatched efficiency, power, and cost. In simple terms, by developing the advanced GT50 engine, Hill has completely unlocked the potential of the helicopter in terms of both performance and cost, providing the enchanting opportunity to relaunch general aviation.” Read more at https://www.helihub.com/2020/11/03/h...-for-the-hx50/

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by Bell_ringer

If it was merely a clone with a few upgrades it should have been operational already, something that may have more to do with the dramatic performance improvements and related techniques these minor upgrades are supposed to yield.

As I’ve stated before the core architecture of the engine is based on the legacy design. Perhaps the use of “clone” was a bit facetious, but it got the intended response. However, never stated these were “minor” upgrades as dropping the N1 gearbox I would consider a major upgrade. Regardless, its my understanding the current issue is not design related but involves transferring the design to the in-house manufacture equipment which is not yielding the predicted finished results.

[PowerPedal]

Originally Posted by CGameProgrammerr

I don't mind him making his own avionics - getting it certified might be impossible (there's a reason Garmin has a near-monopoly) but otherwise it's fine. Making his own engine, though, is something literally no aircraft manufacturer in the world does or has ever done. It's completely asinine. Maybe it'll work out, but it's very likely to tank the whole project, that otherwise might have succeeded.

Don’t Konner helicopters make their own turbine?

[PowerPedal]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

I wonder if the engine will follow the R66 and B206 plants and require the longest 2 minutes in the world every time you complete a flight.

If the French and Italians can do it in 30 seconds you would hope a British design can too!

isn’t the roller in the R66 a British design Dick?

Would love to hear your thoughts on the whole HX50 project

[helispotter]

Originally Posted by PowerPedal

isn’t the roller in the R66 a British design Dick?...

PowerPedal: I know you asked the question of Dick Smith, but part of the answer is readily available on-line via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RR300 :

"...Rated at up to 300 shp (224 kW) at take-off power, the RR300 is a rebadged and downrated variant of the Rolls-Royce [ie: Allison] Model 250-C20..."

So R66 gas turbine is a variation on the Jet Ranger gas turbine.

[mechpowi]

If there is no N1-gearbox, then all oil and fuel pumps must be electric, right? I wonder how much redundancy Hill is planing to engineer in the system to achieve comparable reliability to conventional systems that have mechanical driven primary pumps and possibly additional mechanical or electric driven auxiliary pumps?

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by mechpowi

If there is no N1-gearbox, then all oil and fuel pumps must be electric, right? I wonder how much redundancy Hill is planing to engineer in the system to achieve comparable reliability to conventional systems that have mechanical driven primary pumps and possibly additional mechanical or electric driven auxiliary pumps?

As I recall the oil and fuel engine pumps have double-wound motors with separate power sources. So they are internally redundant. But that is dated info so I don't know if that was the final design. I believe the other reason they went to electric pumps was to configure their locations without the limitations of an external drive requirement.

[PPRuNeUser469990]

some pretty harsh comments in the recent slew of Hill youtube promo videos

[Winemaker]

Originally Posted by hargreaves99

some pretty harsh comments in the recent slew of Hill youtube promo videos

Here's one of the latest YouTube videos.

You Tube

[HeliHenri]

Originally Posted by hargreaves99

some pretty harsh comments in the recent slew of Hill youtube promo videos

.
Harsher than on this forum ? must be difficult...
.

[CGameProgrammerr]

I've never heard of Konner. Sounds like a neat helicopter, but not available in the US. But yes, it seems they really did make their own turbine engine.

[trim it out]

Originally Posted by Winemaker

Here's one of the latest YouTube videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46N5A1tM5_c

27kg of baggage for 5 pob? Are they going to share golf clubs?

[Ascend Charlie]

The performance sounds amazing - full 5 seats (not Murricans) full fuel, 27kg bags for each pax, and HOGE at 10,000' , this new engine must be something astounding. Would have loved to have similar performance in our A109A widebody - 7 POB and 45 mins useable fuel, or full fuel and 2 POB. The only aircraft I have flown that could do full pax and full fuel was the Aerocommander, and it had trouble hovering....

Waiting to see the Hillicopter happen.

[CGameProgrammerr]

I never understood pilots' obsession with "full" fuel. What matters is the endurance/range with a given payload. Manufacturers typically make fuel tanks much larger than what can be used when at MTOW, so that you can get more range if flying less than fully loaded. Like, if your A109 had tanks so small that the non-reserve capacity was only good for 45 minutes, you'd be able to say you're at full fuel with 7 people, but what good would that be?

[Winemaker]

Originally Posted by CGameProgrammerr

I never understood pilots' obsession with "full" fuel. What matters is the endurance/range with a given payload. Manufacturers typically make fuel tanks much larger than what can be used when at MTOW, so that you can get more range if flying less than fully loaded. Like, if your A109 had tanks so small that the non-reserve capacity was only good for 45 minutes, you'd be able to say you're at full fuel with 7 people, but what good would that be?

Except that, if one watches the video I posted above, he is stating five passenger, 27 kg of baggage (it's unclear if that is total or per passenger) and full fuel for three hours duration. So, maximum passenger load, some luggage, maximum fuel and maximum range. Sweet.

[mechpowi]

Originally Posted by CGameProgrammerr

I never understood pilots' obsession with "full" fuel. What matters is the endurance/range with a given payload. Manufacturers typically make fuel tanks much larger than what can be used when at MTOW, so that you can get more range if flying less than fully loaded. Like, if your A109 had tanks so small that the non-reserve capacity was only good for 45 minutes, you'd be able to say you're at full fuel with 7 people, but what good would that be?

I’m used to fill the tanks to the brim after every flight so the aircraft is ready for the next flight and the fuel tanks don’t gather water from condensation. You can’t do that, if you’re not sure how much fuel you can carry on the next flight. I’m aware that I’m spoiled by only fllying helicopters that have adequate performance margin even at MTOW in my operational enviroment. But I guess that’s the kind of ease of use that Hill is aiming for.

[[email protected]]

The performance claims are just fanciful - OGE hover plus 300'/min vertical climb at 10,000' at MTOW and ISA plus 15????????? Utter bolleaux.

A fully laden Gazelle has an OGE hover ceiling of 6600' and a much more powerful engine than the HX50 and that's at MTOW of 1800Kgs and not the 1900Kgs in military use.

Some the comments under the video refer to it as a marketing scam and stating figures like those before the engine has even run, certainly add fuel to the fire.

[Hughes500]

But how heavy is a 341/342 compared to an HX ?

[JDJ]

The intended MTOW for HX50 appears to be 1650kg according to Flight Global. I can’t find the item in Hill’s website.