Hill Helicopters HX50
So he has got all the money and no-one has any helicopters?............
The following users liked this post:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
So he has got all the money and no-one has any helicopters?............
I thought non-refundable means if you back out of your slot? If it turns out that Hill can not deliver on his promises, money will be refunded (still fuzzy on details who/how will decide that Hill can not deliver)?
In that case, you can rest assured that the sale of the business (or its assets) will be insufficient to even compensate the administrator's high priority creditors (and certainly not those who paid a deposit)
I would love to see the maths going into Hughes mantra of a 180 squid turbine wheel.
I am sure if you ignore a lot of associated cost that could well be a number but one disconnected from reality.
Considering the money Hill is currently burning, that is a lot of indirect cost that his cheap engine will inherit.
I have no doubt he will eventually get his motor running, whether it will live up to the promises and how safe it will be, remains to be seen.
I would also suggest that the order book exists for the same reason fanboys queue outside an apple store for a new device - fomo, and the hope of making a buck from being early.
I am sure if you ignore a lot of associated cost that could well be a number but one disconnected from reality.
Considering the money Hill is currently burning, that is a lot of indirect cost that his cheap engine will inherit.
I have no doubt he will eventually get his motor running, whether it will live up to the promises and how safe it will be, remains to be seen.
I would also suggest that the order book exists for the same reason fanboys queue outside an apple store for a new device - fomo, and the hope of making a buck from being early.
-500x500-crop.jpg)
Maybe he means a first stage Compressor wheel, and that would be a similar challenge.
Overall, I'm very impressed with the Hill HX50 concept and some very interesting ideas that can be brought into a clean sheet design, but it is entirely that - a concept, so don't confuse it with the real world. If there are similar manufacturing pricing assumptions throughout the entire programme (and there are a lot of parts in a new helicopter), then I'm concerned that it will never reach production (or maybe even the prototype stage), and certainly, never be available for the currently suggested selling price.
The following users liked this post:
Cylic hotline, shows what you dont know. One of my closest friends and neighbour MADE ( he owned the company , his father set it up, having been one of Frank Whittle's engineers making the first jet engine )them for RR so he should know. So you may eat humble pie when ever you feel like it.
Cylic hotline, shows what you dont know. One of my closest friends and neighbour MADE ( he owned the company , his father set it up, having been one of Frank Whittle's engineers making the first jet engine )them for RR so he should know. So you may eat humble pie when ever you feel like it.
For sure they are a little cheaper than OEM or maybe have a longer life for the same cost, but they aren't 10% of the cost of OEM.
Cylic hotline, shows what you dont know. One of my closest friends and neighbour MADE ( he owned the company , his father set it up, having been one of Frank Whittle's engineers making the first jet engine )them for RR so he should know. So you may eat humble pie when ever you feel like it.
FAA summary of PMA parts.
"The design approval phase of PMA certifies that a replacement or modification article complies with the airworthiness standards of eligible products (aircraft, engine, or propeller). The applicant shows this compliance through tests and computations unless the article is identical to the article design on a type-certificated product. Identicality means that an article is the same in all respects to an article design in a type-certificated product. Evidence of license agreement shows this identicality."
206 jock, the development of PMA parts originated for many reasons, but not least to ensure that obsolescent, or expensive, parts could be replicated under a certified design, engineering, production and quality program. The debates and fights over PMA manufacture have bruised many OEM's when the PMA manufacturers demonstrated that they maintained a production process that met all the requirements for certification. The process allowed for continued production of parts when the manufacturer had disappeared, or didn't have an interest in manufacturing, or licensing someone else, to manufacture it. Of course, the real big attraction was the high dollar, high consumption parts, that would have a ready market. These high-dollar parts could be manufactured for significantly reduced costs relative to OEM pricing (which included design, test, certification, etc), and the growth of this business was driven by the high margins that a PMA manufacturer could still generate, even pricing at 50% of the OEM's price. After exploring all the legal means, the OEM's realised that THEY couldn't control this market, and in many cases matched or bettered the deals from the PMA suppliers. There are huge margins in these parts, but the OEM utilizes these parts to fund all the other parts of the program, a burden that is not borne by the PMA manufacturer, and is the source of all the legal language that separates the OEM's product from the parts you may legally install.
How lucrative is the PMA market? When Pratt and Whitney entered the GE/Safran CFM56 PMA market, the evolution was complete. The fighting that went on in the 1990's and 2000's was quite amazing, and spilled over into all kinds of legal and regulatory battles. Much of this defined the current PMA market, and how it functions today. There is nothing wrong with a properly designed and manufactured PMA part, but there have certainly been instances of failures caused by materials, design or manufacturing process on PMA parts - and of course, there have also been multiple instances of this with OEM parts as well. This is a good article about the approval, manufacture, use and comparison of PMA and OEM parts if you are interested. https://extexengineered.com/marking-...cfm-agreement/
206 jock, the development of PMA parts originated for many reasons, but not least to ensure that obsolescent, or expensive, parts could be replicated under a certified design, engineering, production and quality program. The debates and fights over PMA manufacture have bruised many OEM's when the PMA manufacturers demonstrated that they maintained a production process that met all the requirements for certification. The process allowed for continued production of parts when the manufacturer had disappeared, or didn't have an interest in manufacturing, or licensing someone else, to manufacture it. Of course, the real big attraction was the high dollar, high consumption parts, that would have a ready market. These high-dollar parts could be manufactured for significantly reduced costs relative to OEM pricing (which included design, test, certification, etc), and the growth of this business was driven by the high margins that a PMA manufacturer could still generate, even pricing at 50% of the OEM's price. After exploring all the legal means, the OEM's realised that THEY couldn't control this market, and in many cases matched or bettered the deals from the PMA suppliers. There are huge margins in these parts, but the OEM utilizes these parts to fund all the other parts of the program, a burden that is not borne by the PMA manufacturer, and is the source of all the legal language that separates the OEM's product from the parts you may legally install.
How lucrative is the PMA market? When Pratt and Whitney entered the GE/Safran CFM56 PMA market, the evolution was complete. The fighting that went on in the 1990's and 2000's was quite amazing, and spilled over into all kinds of legal and regulatory battles. Much of this defined the current PMA market, and how it functions today. There is nothing wrong with a properly designed and manufactured PMA part, but there have certainly been instances of failures caused by materials, design or manufacturing process on PMA parts - and of course, there have also been multiple instances of this with OEM parts as well. This is a good article about the approval, manufacture, use and comparison of PMA and OEM parts if you are interested. https://extexengineered.com/marking-...cfm-agreement/
I recently listened to a BBC podcast about the Onecoin ponzi scheme ('The Missing Cryptoqueen'). What struck me was the clear determination of people to justify their investment decisions even in the face of insurmountable evidence that they had been scammed. I hope that there are no parallels here and it's me rueing the day I didn't invest in an HX50.
Why not just go and visit them? They do factory tours every other Friday.
Meet the team, speak to Jason and see the hardware.
Seems to be a lot of very poorly informed people on here drawing conclusions without having seen the facts and clearly not understanding what Hill are actually doing.
Meet the team, speak to Jason and see the hardware.
Seems to be a lot of very poorly informed people on here drawing conclusions without having seen the facts and clearly not understanding what Hill are actually doing.
The following users liked this post:
PMA Parts in a large percentage of helicopter items are/were based on "identicality" and sometimes may be licensed by the OEM and there is a plethora of info out in the wild about it.
In the beginning a lot of the tech data required for "identicality" was based on where the equivalent item was used in a military version and all the data was available under FOI.
i.e. The US military owns the designs of it's aircraft and puts out for tender the manufacture of replacement parts and supplies the info required to make the item.
PMA Parts and EASA is a bit of a minefield as they only allow parts that are "not a critical component", licensed by the OEM or EASA approved STC or design change.
Makes for a lot of fun when you import an aircraft into EASA land.
Back to the thread - a clean sheet small certified turboshaft will be interesting to watch. Never say never?
In the beginning a lot of the tech data required for "identicality" was based on where the equivalent item was used in a military version and all the data was available under FOI.
i.e. The US military owns the designs of it's aircraft and puts out for tender the manufacture of replacement parts and supplies the info required to make the item.
PMA Parts and EASA is a bit of a minefield as they only allow parts that are "not a critical component", licensed by the OEM or EASA approved STC or design change.
Makes for a lot of fun when you import an aircraft into EASA land.
Back to the thread - a clean sheet small certified turboshaft will be interesting to watch. Never say never?
Cylic Hotline
Really so a manufacturer of parts who knows more about gas turbines than you will ever know, whose father virtually invented the dam things is lying? I think not. Just except facts we are being ripped off.
Here is another example for you. 2 customers needed a clutch for their SA341's. One was an EASA reg ac the other on the YU reg ( Bosnia ). Clutch for the Bosnia one £ 8500, it could not be fitted to the EASA based one as no EASA Form 1 from the factory in Bosnia. The clutch for the EASA reg 341 came from Eurocopter at £ 37000. Now guess what when the box was opened there was the report of the overhaul from the Bosnian factory. So all Eurocopter had done was send clutch to same factory but the piece of paper cost £ 29000, nice work if you can get it.
Really so a manufacturer of parts who knows more about gas turbines than you will ever know, whose father virtually invented the dam things is lying? I think not. Just except facts we are being ripped off.
Here is another example for you. 2 customers needed a clutch for their SA341's. One was an EASA reg ac the other on the YU reg ( Bosnia ). Clutch for the Bosnia one £ 8500, it could not be fitted to the EASA based one as no EASA Form 1 from the factory in Bosnia. The clutch for the EASA reg 341 came from Eurocopter at £ 37000. Now guess what when the box was opened there was the report of the overhaul from the Bosnian factory. So all Eurocopter had done was send clutch to same factory but the piece of paper cost £ 29000, nice work if you can get it.
Mee3, havent a clue what you are talking about, perhaps you could put in English so that I can understand what you are saying, but I really do understand business and manufacturing, go along with the OEM's if you wish .I have given you examples of how we are having the piss taken. As an owner / operator ie the person signing the cheques for these things, the industry is killing itself. Lets take MD helicopters, they took back the overhaul of transmissions , so they are now the sole agency allowed to do it, guess what price for an overhaul up from around $ 85k to close to $130k overnight, easy when you are a monopoly. Most of the so called R and D was paid for by various militaries normally the US mil eg, 206, 500, Allison 250, years ago. The RR 350 and 500 engines, lots of Rand D went into those, basically a 60 year old design tinkered with ! We really need to wake up and smell teh coffee before the industry totally emplodes.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: South East Asia
Age: 53
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
I'm in complete concurrence with you, Bell_ringer. Having significant visibility to OEM and PMA manufacturing and contemporary manufacturing vendor pricing and capacity, it is totally ridiculous to claim that you could manufacture a RR M250 turbine wheel for £180 ($200 USD). Anyone making that claim has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Take a look at what they are talking about, and tell me if you disagree?
bare bone without any overhead, without any non recoverable manufacturing engineering fee, $800 would be a super deal.
$200? !!! it is statements like that really sabotage Hill's credibility,
do we still leave in a trump era of complete absence of fact checking so we can indulge in the satisfaction to discredit the institution,
[QUOTE=Agile;11312020
$200? !!! it is statements like that really sabotage Hill's credibility,
do we still leave in a trump era of complete absence of fact checking so we can indulge in the satisfaction to discredit the institution,[/QUOTE]
The biden era doesn't seem to be overflowing with facts either. My bullplop detector overloaded a long time ago. End of thread creep.
$200? !!! it is statements like that really sabotage Hill's credibility,
do we still leave in a trump era of complete absence of fact checking so we can indulge in the satisfaction to discredit the institution,[/QUOTE]
The biden era doesn't seem to be overflowing with facts either. My bullplop detector overloaded a long time ago. End of thread creep.
@agile, we live in an era where a fact is something someone believes is true, it’s actual provenance is irrelevant.
The cult of Hill seem to have their zealots drinking the coolaid in vast quantities and no amount of common sense will be considered. They have the inside track, the secret handshake and we don’t.
The cult of Hill seem to have their zealots drinking the coolaid in vast quantities and no amount of common sense will be considered. They have the inside track, the secret handshake and we don’t.
There is no doubt that Hill's enthusiasm, knowledge and technical ability are impressive
We all know how eye-wateringly expensive/overpriced the big manufacturers' aircraft and parts are, and I am sure we have all wondered "why so expensive?"
Even if the HX50 meets 75% of the quoted speed/range/payload etc, it will be impressive, for £500,000.
And there is surely a huge gap in the market for such an aircraft? given the closest rival is an R66 (almost £1 million, and with the "clock ticking" rebuild issue)
I really hope Hill succeeds, but personally I think he has major obstacles (engine, premises, staff etc) in delivering the sheer amount of orders in the timeframe quoted.
I guess we will know more when the prototype actually gets flying and tested, which I estimate will be Late 2023 (at the very earliest)
I've no vested interest, but I watch with interest
We all know how eye-wateringly expensive/overpriced the big manufacturers' aircraft and parts are, and I am sure we have all wondered "why so expensive?"
Even if the HX50 meets 75% of the quoted speed/range/payload etc, it will be impressive, for £500,000.
And there is surely a huge gap in the market for such an aircraft? given the closest rival is an R66 (almost £1 million, and with the "clock ticking" rebuild issue)
I really hope Hill succeeds, but personally I think he has major obstacles (engine, premises, staff etc) in delivering the sheer amount of orders in the timeframe quoted.
I guess we will know more when the prototype actually gets flying and tested, which I estimate will be Late 2023 (at the very earliest)
I've no vested interest, but I watch with interest
Last edited by hargreaves99; 12th Oct 2022 at 08:38.
The following 2 users liked this post by hargreaves99:
