Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Hill Helicopters HX50

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Hill Helicopters HX50

Old 9th May 2021, 11:02
  #321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Good Question
Posts: 87
As nobody has built (or even seen) the helicopter or engine, the build instruction manual is going to be an interesting detailed read, The manual will have to be extremely detailed as every single part small or large on the helicopter will have to be detailed in fitting instructions, in fact as soon as a manual is available I would like a copy please for bedtime reading.

PEASACAKE is offline  
Old 9th May 2021, 13:33
  #322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: NW
Posts: 90
CAA only qualifies rotorcraft kit with 2 seats or less. I tried the configuration, no option for other than 5 seats. This is another interesting point too.
Mee3 is offline  
Old 9th May 2021, 18:43
  #323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 1,998
Originally Posted by Mee3 View Post
CAA only qualifies rotorcraft kit with 2 seats or less. I tried the configuration, no option for other than 5 seats. This is another interesting point too.
That only means that a) the factory doesn’t want to do it yet or b) that the CAA haven’t done more than two seats to date. When the factory is ready, the CAA must expand with that need or lose that need to be developed abroad - and their 21G revenue with it - meaning that the CAA will be accused of driving any prospective builder abroad.

The CAA haven’t built a large Airship in living memory, but they are prepared to certify the next Airlander - a 40 tonne mass of aircraft....?

Your discussion on HOW to build it is the reason why I stated earlier “with appropriate supervision”. Kit building is normally about the airframe and undercarriage, not the bigger or more important assemblies.

Anyone building an aircraft will have to have ‘Build Inspections’ and approvals by nominated engineers from the first opening of the crate to count the parts through the whole assembly and especially key points of that build. Any gearbox is very unlikely to be built in a home environment and engines will be supplied as complete as possible to prevent tinkering with them. ‘Witnessed’ performance runs will be done before first flight.

Builders will not be left to their own interpretations and devices regarding building something that could endanger people on the ground.
Rigga is offline  
Old 12th May 2021, 08:31
  #324 (permalink)  
JDJ
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lampeter
Age: 58
Posts: 40
"HX50 however is not sold with a type certificate. Instead, it receives an initial type approval from the UK CAA to the latest certification standards of EASA CS-27, meets FAA Part 27 and is provided to customers with an amateur-built airworthiness approval. Each aircraft is factory constructed during a two-week fully supported build course in the UK."

https://www.hillhelicopters.com/general-aviation-20
JDJ is offline  
Old 12th May 2021, 11:12
  #325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Good Question
Posts: 87
I am quite impressed that it will only takes 2 weeks to build, must be modular.......the owner will probably just watch the process, which in the eyes of the CAA is "participation".

Most of the "type training engineering" courses I have been on have been longer than that, and that is just basic type maintenance training. Even a Robinson maintenance course is 2 weeks........

I found this statement from Hill Helicopters interesting on Helihub regarding Frank Robinson.

In the last sixty years, there have been only two people who have developed new helicopters for private pilots and seen commercial success with them – and let’s set that bar at 200 sales and helicopters up to 6 seats. Those two are Frank Robinson and Bruno Guimbal. Both brilliant engineers. Both with employment backgrounds focused on helicopter manufacture. But crucially, neither with any experience as a successful helicopter owner and user. Their focus was entirely on engineering what they believed to be the best solution for a market they had not participated in. Read more at https://helihub.com/2020/11/11/exclu...l-helicopters/




PEASACAKE is offline  
Old 12th May 2021, 14:30
  #326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: london
Posts: 737
I have been round a number of car manufacturers and been impressed with how little they do. The body comes in one entrance, engine another and the two are connected. I suspect Hill will do the same. Nobody is going to be asked to 'make an engine' but the purchaser may tighten the bolts before an engineer checks it properly. Whilst recognising this is Hill's novel way to reduce costs and get a commercial aircraft in several years' time, I see many benefits in pilots knowing their aircraft inside out.

But I need proof of concept before handing over any money. We need to see it fly.
homonculus is offline  
Old 12th May 2021, 16:13
  #327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 57
You guys are acting like the concept of experimental aircraft is new or unfamiliar. It is not. Nobody ever builds engines or gearboxes; they buy those fully assembled.
CGameProgrammerr is offline  
Old 12th May 2021, 16:53
  #328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Brantisvogan
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by CGameProgrammerr View Post
You guys are acting like the concept of experimental aircraft is new or unfamiliar. It is not. Nobody ever builds engines or gearboxes; they buy those fully assembled.
experimental or amateur built aircraft arenít new.
A production aircraft, disassembled, so the owner can ďassembleĒ it, is just a creative way of trying to avoid certification costs.
The complexity of building an RV and a turbine helicopter, and one of this proposed quality, are not the same thing.
Amateur-build helicopters have not gone well, partly because the sort that want to build their own are tight-arses or have no social life and have a profound love of sheds.

Bell_ringer is offline  
Old 12th May 2021, 19:06
  #329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Moray,Scotland,U.K.
Posts: 1,613
The FAA requires 51% of the build be done by the builder. An FAA inspector checks before first flight
in the UK the LAA checks fixed wing builds, and authorizes the flight.It would need investment in engineering expertise for the LAA to take on this Hill responsibility.

Maoraigh1 is offline  
Old 13th May 2021, 12:06
  #330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 1,601
After being shown this link (posted by NutLoose) I immediately thought of the HX50 with it's modular build approach.
https://newatlas.com/wigetworks-airf...m=article-body

With 3D printing and access to better materials, techniques and knowledge, I think we are entering another era where your average back yard entrepreneur/inventor is capable of creating incredible things more easily. Modularity in design helps this process a lot, and perhaps Mr Hill has been a visionary of this all along but choosing the middle ground between back-yarder and full fledged factory plant, time will tell.

Meanwhile I can only wish his company the best of success and do hope they deliver a very desirable product at the end of the day.
cattletruck is online now  
Old 13th May 2021, 18:27
  #331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by Maoraigh1 View Post
The FAA requires 51% of the build be done by the builder. An FAA inspector checks before first flight
That's only true for kit-built experimentals but it is not true for factory-assist experimentals. I bought/built an experimental a few years ago and we built it in the factory in two weeks. At the time, they didn't even offer a kit.
CGameProgrammerr is offline  
Old 13th May 2021, 21:10
  #332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,115
Originally Posted by cattletruck View Post
After being shown this link (posted by NutLoose) I immediately thought of the HX50 with it's modular build approach.
https://newatlas.com/wigetworks-airf...m=article-body

With 3D printing and access to better materials, techniques and knowledge, I think we are entering another era where your average back yard entrepreneur/inventor is capable of creating incredible things more easily. Modularity in design helps this process a lot, and perhaps Mr Hill has been a visionary of this all along but choosing the middle ground between back-yarder and full fledged factory plant, time will tell.

Meanwhile I can only wish his company the best of success and do hope they deliver a very desirable product at the end of the day.
Surely very much agree with your closing thoughts.

Still, aviation is very much a regulated industry, where new technologies have to prove their claims and provide measurable quality levels.
Outside the labs of places like GE's propulsion operations, has anyone done aviation grade 3D parts printing? Has anything so made been certified in civil use?

Imho, the product is incredible because the price is too low.
In another thread, someone had pointed out that the personal lift device guy from New Zealand was offering his gizmo for $230,000 before the business folded.
This was someone who had working hardware. Here there are only charts and virtual reality simulations. Feel free to invest, but YMMV.
etudiant is offline  
Old 14th May 2021, 06:45
  #333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Good Question
Posts: 87
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
Surely very much agree with your closing thoughts.

Still, aviation is very much a regulated industry, where new technologies have to prove their claims and provide measurable quality levels.
Outside the labs of places like GE's propulsion operations, has anyone done aviation grade 3D parts printing? Has anything so made been certified in civil use?

Imho, the product is incredible because the price is too low.
In another thread, someone had pointed out that the personal lift device guy from New Zealand was offering his gizmo for $230,000 before the business folded.
This was someone who had working hardware. Here there are only charts and virtual reality simulations. Feel free to invest, but YMMV.
That certain guy in New Zealand is an engineering genius, he worked tirelessly 18 hours a day for decades on successful products, his life is total aviation, his product did not make it to market using an existing engine so cannot se how any new small helicopter can. He even managed to get them to aviation shows and fly them. I agree though, this helicopter is priced VERY low for what should be delivered, I would settle for a scale model on my desk it is so pretty..
PEASACAKE is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2021, 18:19
  #334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 62
Posts: 264
I notice that on the 26th May 2021 four more Hill HX50 helicopters have been registered - all to Hill Helicopters Ltd.
They are:-
G-DIAS c/n PP02
G-GELB c/n PP03
G-ODDB c/n PP04
G-OISY c/n PP05

Does this mean that some form of production is near ? Or is this a paperwork exercise to make it look so, lets face it have we seen the prototype yet G-DRJH c/n PP01 ?

Last edited by helipixman; 1st Jun 2021 at 18:35.
helipixman is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2021, 02:54
  #335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
Outside the labs of places like GE's propulsion operations, has anyone done aviation grade 3D parts printing?
Rocket grade?

50 seconds in.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/...ng-out-rockets
jimjim1 is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2021, 13:20
  #336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,854
Well, you canít knock it: their CGI is pretty good.


Bravo73 is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2021, 13:26
  #337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Brantisvogan
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by Bravo73 View Post
Well, you canít knock it: their CGI is pretty good.

The marketing department is using imovie to the full.
An announcement about an announcement
Bell_ringer is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2021, 18:27
  #338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Europe
Age: 57
Posts: 710
.
Sorry to be positive (I know it's almost prohibited here) but as I love helicopters, I say : Best whishes to Hill Helicopters !
.

HeliHenri is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2021, 18:40
  #339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York City
Posts: 336
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
Surely very much agree with your closing thoughts.

Still, aviation is very much a regulated industry, where new technologies have to prove their claims and provide measurable quality levels.
Outside the labs of places like GE's propulsion operations, has anyone done aviation grade 3D parts printing? Has anything so made been certified in civil use?
Delta Air Lines is working on it: https://news.delta.com/new-state-art...future-repairs
TechOps is pursuing three broad streams of Additive Manufacturing technologies for parts. The first is polymeric and polymeric-composite parts for cabin interiors, part masking and prototype tooling. The second is weldable metallic alloys for engine, components and aircraft structural parts. The last is traditionally unweldable cast alloys and/or single crystal super alloys.
MikeNYC is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2021, 11:50
  #340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In the air with luck
Posts: 1,010
https://www.materialise.com/en/cases...al-3d-printing
500e is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.