Hill Helicopters HX50

[xbdt]

Most of these aircraft are bought by first time builders (yes also like the RotorWay, Hummingbird, Safari...), build time is approx 1000h without thinking of everything at nights. These were perfectly AT LEAST 51% built by their purchasers. Not like 2 weeks tire-kicking at Hill factory.

[Gadget freak]

Evolution was factory build assist only. 1 week per month at the factory for seven months.

[xbdt]

Forgot to say, in some countries like France, Belgium and maybe others the CAA needs to physically see the kit first (before you start) so they are sure it is a new kit and not an already assembled kit by someone else. If it is already built, you are not eligible to be the builder and you cannot do the maintenance on your own kit.
There are 3 inspections: before start, middle of assembly (mostly to see the drive train, controls etc) then final inspection. That is of course only applicable to aircraft that are authorised as a kit by that particular CAA. (see in detail one of my previous posts).

[admikar]

Originally Posted by Gadget freak

Evolution was factory build assist only. 1 week per month at the factory for seven months.

That's still over 3 times more than Hill is proposing.
Not to mention that just the mixer unit and rotorhead makes it more complicated than the whole fixed wing aircraft is.

[Gadget freak]

Originally Posted by admikar

That's still over 3 times more than Hill is proposing.
Not to mention that just the mixer unit and rotorhead makes it more complicated than the whole fixed wing aircraft is.

I'm not offering any opinion whether I support the application of amateur built status one way or the other, just trying to provide some background.

For example, CAA CAP 659 actually excludes rotor heads from the 51% rule. "This means that he would not be permitted to commission someone else to build his aircraft or even, subject to the provisions of the 51% rule, significant parts of it, with the exception of the engine(s), propellers, and helicopter or gyroplane transmissions, rotor heads or rotor blades."

That document (which is actually only guidance) does limit amateur built helicopters to 2 seats which might be more of a problem!

[Pittsextra]

Question - what value add does it give, some clueless pilot bolting 51% of something together verse the same clueless soul being supervised to bolt 51% together? What are we actually trying to achieve? Or not achieve as the case maybe.

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by Pittsextra

Question - what value add does it give, some clueless pilot bolting 51% of something together verse the same clueless soul being supervised to bolt 51% together? What are we actually trying to achieve? Or not achieve as the case maybe.

In what context? The 51% rule is merely one benchmark to meet the requirements of obtaining a Special AWC to operate an amateur-built aircraft.

Originally Posted by xbdt

Not like 2 weeks tire-kicking at Hill factory.

You’ll find most build assist programs here have a similar 2-3 weeks time frame, so the HX process is simply in line with what the industry currently does. And given it uses a composite airframe vs a riveted monocoque structure, I see no reason why a HX couldn’t be finished in that time frame with a defined build plan, however, I still think it will be closer to 3 weeks than two.

Originally Posted by Bell_ringer

That, to me, sounds incredibly vague and open to interpretation. A percentage is absolute, it compares two very specific and quantifiable measurements to each other. That said, 100% of the HX50 currently appears to be fabricated.

True. But in the context of determining the builder’s major portion (51%+) compliance there is further guidance defining the fabrication and assembly via job aids and checklists. At least with the FAA. And when the HX build plan is finalized and accepted by any involved regulatory agency, I anticipate it will be void of any vagueness or mis-interpretations.

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Hill has been lauded by many on these pages as a 'disruptor' because he isn't using the same playbook as mainstream manufacturers but has the same aim - ie to bring a fully certified aircraft to the market, eventually.

So, if you are confident the development of the HX isn’t playing by the rules, why haven’t you, the many others, or the mainstream OEMs brought this to the UKCAA’s attention to have this “disruption” reviewed again?

[Pittsextra]

In the context of the level of emotion attached to comments here. I.e whatever the % number happens to be 51, 100, zero. Don’t you just want it built properly with appropriate oversight? Got to be honest I wouldn’t fly anything I had built 51% of!

[Ascend Charlie]

How long does it take to build from zero (no panels made or metal cut or instrument panels assembled or blades made) to 49%? And then in 2 weeks, the last 51% is finished by a clueless mug? Don't get offended here, Wrench, it doesn't apply to you, as you are clueful.

[[email protected]]

So, if you are confident the development of the HX isn’t playing by the rules, why haven’t you, the many others, or the mainstream OEMs brought this to the UKCAA’s attention to have this “disruption” reviewed again?

Because it doesn't even fly yet - it only exists as a series of grand promises and mock-ups.

And the CAA/FAA, as you keep reminding us, have agreed in principle to the concept.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

But there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip- as they say oop North.

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by Pittsextra

In the context of the level of emotion attached to comments here. I.e whatever the % number happens to be 51, 100, zero. Don’t you just want it built properly with appropriate oversight? Got to be honest I wouldn’t fly anything I had built 51% of!

Amateur-built is not for everyone. However, on the other side of the spectrum from your personal concern, there are many people, to include professional pilots, who would not fly a small aircraft unless they built it or worked on it. I think what makes the HX so popular is that it appeals to a hybrid market that draws interest from both the E/AB and type certificated worlds which doesn’t happen often at this level and especially with rotorcraft.

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Because it doesn't even fly yet - it only exists as a series of grand promises and mock-ups.

And the CAA/FAA, as you keep reminding us, have agreed in principle to the concept.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

But there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip- as they say oop North.

Okay. So why are you whining about the pudding if it’s not cooked yet?

[Agile]

Originally Posted by wrench1

there are many people, to include professional pilots, who would not fly a small aircraft unless they built it or worked on it.

I would not fly a small aircraft unless a professional organization worked on it! Making sure that the holes in the swiss cheese do not align, its experience, procedure, documentation, tracability, trusted overhaul partners.... its somebody's full time job to stay on top of it.
Even in a helicopter as rudimentary as an R22, the type of simple "do it yourself" maintenance mistake carry far-reaching consequences. I hope none of these HX50 get worked on by profesional pilot who think of himself as A&P operating way above their head as a part time job/hobby.

[Wide Mouth Frog]

I wouldn't fly ANY aircraft, professionally or privately built, until it had a solid track record of day to day operational performance. And that's nothing to do with who the owner of the company is, how many slick videos are put out on its behalf, how many hopeful owners line up for it, or any other statistic you care to conjure up.

The one time I broke that rule, which led to me making it in the first place, the aircraft crashed with the loss of all on board, thankfully with me not on it, shortly after I stopped flying it.

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by Agile

I would not fly a small aircraft unless a professional organization worked on it! Making sure that the holes in the swiss cheese do not align, its experience, procedure, documentation, tracability, trusted overhaul partners.... its somebody's full time job to stay on top of it..

As I stated, E/AB is not for everyone. However, it’s not the certificate or license in one’s pocket that makes the mechanic or pilot, it’s the person who does. And while it may not be common in your location, there are many pilots and owners here that perform maintenance on their own aircraft, E/AB or certified, with the same dedication and competence as any A&P would, and in some cases even more. So, to put all pilots and owners in the same group as you have is hardly accurate on a number of levels.

[[email protected]]

Okay. So why are you whining about the pudding if it’s not cooked yet?

passive/agressive response - nice.

No-one is 'whining' about anything - Hill has made some grand claims and promises about his aircraft that some of us don't believe he can deliver on, he has singularly failed to meet any of his production targets and the idea that a very complex, high performance, multi-seat helicopter can be built under the E/AB rules just seems farcical.

It's an opinion that you clearly don't like despite its validity.

[Bell_ringer]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

... and the idea that a very complex, high performance, multi-seat helicopter can be built under the E/AB rules just seems farcical.

This is one of the core issues. Stuck-wing amateur builders are fiercely protective of their rights and "successes" to date.
Because an old guy in a shed can successfully cobble together a piper cub clone, then this can clearly be extrapolated without concerns to a highly complex type for which there is no successful track record to date.
By questioning the efficacy of the regs that encompass every man in his shed, you are challenging the very fibre of their being and all those who came before, back to the Wright brothers.

When it comes to regulation of all varieties, the US is not the poster child for success, so hopefully the UK regulator will be more thorough, and if loopholes or a lack of clear regulation exist, they close those doors. History tends to show they figure this all out long after the horse has bolted.

[[email protected]]

And, as sasless and others have opined, - never fly the A model of anything

[johndeblanco]

Rotorway is on a CAA Permit, so annual oversight / sign off by a CAA inspector

[johndeblanco]

Rotorway

Originally Posted by wrench1

What's a "disruptor?" However, I hate to break it to you, but Hill is far from the only person who has intermixed certified ambitions with E/AB over the past 50+ years. So, what specifically do you think Hill is doing that is so different and hasn't already been done in the past?


Its 51% of the aircraft that must be fabricated and assembled. There are no limits on the number of builders who participate or how many manhours are spent on the build as shown in the links above. But at the end of each build, there will be a regulatory review to ensure the aircraft meets the 51% rule.


While I wouldn't consider a Rotorway to be a good example of the current slew of E/AB helicopters, it probably would be the one that would fall through your roof. Better examples would be the turbine Helicycle, Mosquito, Safari, or especially the Hummingbird given its design history, which have a much better combined record than the Rotorway.

Rotorway is on a CAA Permit, so annual oversight / sign off by a CAA inspector

[206 jock]

Is there any chance the Hill self-build nonsense could be hived off into it's own thread? Honestly, it's hardly the most important thing, is it?

The Hill reckons he can do it, he also reckons he can do lots of things like build 1000 a year, make an engine and every component last 5000 hours, fund the entire development from deposits..the list goes on. The self build part is probably easy compared to the rest of it!