Hill Helicopters HX50
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
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.
I do sympathize with you over parts for the SA341, but that is simply an example of an OEM having you over a barrel, and involves certification for existing parts outside the EASA system, and has nothing to do with the cost of manufacturing, simply control over the marketplace. This is an example of the EASA system and that particular OEM, which limits the number of service providers and access to IP and overhaul-level parts to control the market. They are also keen to see many of these older types disappear, and price is one way to achieve it.
Lastly;
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.
The following 3 users liked this post by Cyclic Hotline:
They are also keen to see many of these older types disappear, and price is one way to achieve it.
Additionally, for the OEM's that keep things close to home, is the feedback and control of how the product is performing in service. Difficult if you sell your product and never see it again or have no idea where it went.
With a lot of OEM's though when dealing with them you do sometimes get the impression that the customer is an "inconvenience". Personally I think they need to employ more folk with actual experience operating their equipment.
Some of the Tech Reps these days..............................?
Wow this thread justifying $30k parts that cost $400 to make is like Turkeys arguing the merits of Christmas. Pilots on forums are like the Peoples Front of Judea versus the Judean Peoples Front.
You guys are arguing different things - one is amortizing the $1m R&D cost into the part. The other is talking about a lump of metal being machined for under $1000. You are both right.
Jason Hill is saying he's swallowing the difficult R&D upfront, then he can stamp out machines for realistic prices. The entire merit of this project is modern industrialisation of 20-50 year old concepts, with modern materials, processes, alloys, aerodynamics and so on. Just what a modern helicopter should look like; nothing more or less. There's no fancy hybrid drives, parachutes, etc.
You are all forgetting this is EXPERIMENTAL, with the concurrent certification effort, paid for by profits & builds of the experimental over many years. It's not the same business model as upfront certification and sale of 3rd party parts to compete with OEM's.
Example: One of his videos he says one particular rotor part has about €300 of actual metal/rubber/glue used to make it (yes yes, plus labour etc.). The certified Big Aviation™ part is €30,000. Each. Times three. So once he solves that R&D and develops a manufacturing process, he can bypass all that ridiculousness and multiplied over dozens/hundreds of parts, make a ￡500k chopper, (presumably with heathy profit margin).
I think we've heard enough of the "this won't work" posts that it's not value adding any more. Time will prove these right or wrong, otherwise everybody is just going around in circles. I propose this thread focus more on technical aspects of the program, eg points brought up in the latest video update (
) such as the shift to a single stage compressor turbine due to bearing loads & secondary air system efficiency/complexity and how do other engines solve this issue.
You guys are arguing different things - one is amortizing the $1m R&D cost into the part. The other is talking about a lump of metal being machined for under $1000. You are both right.
Jason Hill is saying he's swallowing the difficult R&D upfront, then he can stamp out machines for realistic prices. The entire merit of this project is modern industrialisation of 20-50 year old concepts, with modern materials, processes, alloys, aerodynamics and so on. Just what a modern helicopter should look like; nothing more or less. There's no fancy hybrid drives, parachutes, etc.
You are all forgetting this is EXPERIMENTAL, with the concurrent certification effort, paid for by profits & builds of the experimental over many years. It's not the same business model as upfront certification and sale of 3rd party parts to compete with OEM's.
Example: One of his videos he says one particular rotor part has about €300 of actual metal/rubber/glue used to make it (yes yes, plus labour etc.). The certified Big Aviation™ part is €30,000. Each. Times three. So once he solves that R&D and develops a manufacturing process, he can bypass all that ridiculousness and multiplied over dozens/hundreds of parts, make a ￡500k chopper, (presumably with heathy profit margin).
I think we've heard enough of the "this won't work" posts that it's not value adding any more. Time will prove these right or wrong, otherwise everybody is just going around in circles. I propose this thread focus more on technical aspects of the program, eg points brought up in the latest video update (
The following 2 users liked this post by Shagpile:
Guessing you've got an order in shagpile.......
it's not "Experimental".
https://www.caa.co.uk/general-aviati...ntal-aircraft/
It's a Permit to Fly Aircraft
https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-ind...ermits-to-fly/
https://www.caa.co.uk/general-aviati...ntal-aircraft/
It's a Permit to Fly Aircraft
https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-ind...ermits-to-fly/
"One of his videos he says one particular rotor part has about €300 of actual metal/rubber/glue.."
Oh why didn't you say that before? If the helicopter Messiah says so (we seem to be using Monte python references, so seems appropriate), it must be true.
Obviously no one in that situation, with sales mode turned up to 11, has ever exaggerated or been creative with facts and numbers.
Another glass of the cool aid for you sir..
Oh why didn't you say that before? If the helicopter Messiah says so (we seem to be using Monte python references, so seems appropriate), it must be true.
Obviously no one in that situation, with sales mode turned up to 11, has ever exaggerated or been creative with facts and numbers.
Another glass of the cool aid for you sir..
The following users liked this post:
I confess I couldn't sit through the whole monthly update above: there's only so many times I can listen to someone saying 'everything is exactly on track' and watch repeated video extracts, some of it presumably lifted from video libraries. However a few of the answers to questions were interesting. On insurance, their (sorry, his) plan is to create their own Insurance Mutual to cover the aircraft. On purchasing, Dr. Hill will be buying so much of the Superalloys they require - and there aren't many other buyers of these - that they will get them really cheaply.
Now I'm not an insurance expert, nor am I a procurement specialist so perhaps these are well-trodden routes to success in these disparate business areas. What I am surprised about though is that Dr.Hill seems to own these areas as well as being seemingly involved in every aspect of the design and engineering of the aircraft.
Now I'm not an insurance expert, nor am I a procurement specialist so perhaps these are well-trodden routes to success in these disparate business areas. What I am surprised about though is that Dr.Hill seems to own these areas as well as being seemingly involved in every aspect of the design and engineering of the aircraft.
it's not "Experimental".
https://www.caa.co.uk/general-aviati...ntal-aircraft/
It's a Permit to Fly Aircraft
https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-ind...ermits-to-fly/
https://www.caa.co.uk/general-aviati...ntal-aircraft/
It's a Permit to Fly Aircraft
https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-ind...ermits-to-fly/
The P to F rules will probably need revision then? Don't really see how this fits in unless owners are prepared to do a bunch of work for it to qualify as amateur built.
Pretty sure if it's not amateur built it will need a full TC and C of A. Amateur built normally means more than 51% by the owner/builder.
P to F is to cover aircraft that cannot have a full Airworthiness Certificate for various reasons and I am thinking the aircraft in question may not fit the bill.
Things may change of course!
https://www.hillhelicopters.com/faq?...es-on-doing-it
How does the 51% build works and what are the advantages on doing it?
You’ll come and work alongside our engineers and manufacturing operatives for two weeks to assemble your aircraft, and by doing that you’ll learn all about the engine and the intimate details of how the helicopter works, taking part in what is an educational course to make you into a knowledgeable and responsible owner/operator. Anyone who has the skills to safely pilot and operate a helicopter will be able to successfully come to the build school and build their helicopter.
How many people will it require to build the 51% of the HX50 and how long will it take?
From a customer’s perspective, only the owner will have to be there for the 2-week build. From our point of view, that question can’t be answered yet because it depends on how the production facility is set up. We are working on a rule of thumb of one full-time person per aircraft per year. So at 250, we would have 250 full-time employees and it would scale from that.
How does the 51% build works and what are the advantages on doing it?
You’ll come and work alongside our engineers and manufacturing operatives for two weeks to assemble your aircraft, and by doing that you’ll learn all about the engine and the intimate details of how the helicopter works, taking part in what is an educational course to make you into a knowledgeable and responsible owner/operator. Anyone who has the skills to safely pilot and operate a helicopter will be able to successfully come to the build school and build their helicopter.
How many people will it require to build the 51% of the HX50 and how long will it take?
From a customer’s perspective, only the owner will have to be there for the 2-week build. From our point of view, that question can’t be answered yet because it depends on how the production facility is set up. We are working on a rule of thumb of one full-time person per aircraft per year. So at 250, we would have 250 full-time employees and it would scale from that.
51% - yes I've heard of this workaround with some other aircraft - the owners can sit around drinking coffee and having lunch but their presence at the 'build' is used to justify the exemptions to proper certification.
The more I hear about this project the more cynical I get about it.
The more I hear about this project the more cynical I get about it.
I confess I couldn't sit through the whole monthly update above: there's only so many times I can listen to someone saying 'everything is exactly on track' and watch repeated video extracts, some of it presumably lifted from video libraries. However a few of the answers to questions were interesting. On insurance, their (sorry, his) plan is to create their own Insurance Mutual to cover the aircraft. On purchasing, Dr. Hill will be buying so much of the Superalloys they require - and there aren't many other buyers of these - that they will get them really cheaply.
Now I'm not an insurance expert, nor am I a procurement specialist so perhaps these are well-trodden routes to success in these disparate business areas. What I am surprised about though is that Dr.Hill seems to own these areas as well as being seemingly involved in every aspect of the design and engineering of the aircraft.
Now I'm not an insurance expert, nor am I a procurement specialist so perhaps these are well-trodden routes to success in these disparate business areas. What I am surprised about though is that Dr.Hill seems to own these areas as well as being seemingly involved in every aspect of the design and engineering of the aircraft.
If you controlled the production of all of the parts and had a direct line to all the customers why wouldn't you do the insurance yourself?
These are not complex business ideas chaps.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
51% - yes I've heard of this workaround with some other aircraft - the owners can sit around drinking coffee and having lunch but their presence at the 'build' is used to justify the exemptions to proper certification.
The more I hear about this project the more cynical I get about it.
The more I hear about this project the more cynical I get about it.
Being as well read as you are...I'm sure you realise that this approach was developed by Hill and the CAA in partnership back in 2016.
From a customer’s perspective, only the owner will have to be there for the 2-week build. From our point of view, that question can’t be answered yet because it depends on how the production facility is set up. We are working on a rule of thumb of one full-time person per aircraft per year. So at 250, we would have 250 full-time employees and it would scale from that.
What am I missing?
The following users liked this post:
If it takes one person 12 months to build one aircraft, how can one customer build 51% of it in two weeks?
the CAA really don't want people building their own helicopters
Last edited by hargreaves99; 31st Dec 2022 at 10:33.
Ta h99I *really* don't like being a Casandra but this has all the hallmarks of a Ponzi albeit perhaps an unintentional one
There is a thread in the ME forum about an investment scheme where posters kept popping up defending the Ponzi making outrageous claims of how much money they made from it just to keep the grift going
Obviously, anybody who's already parted with their money isn't going to be very happy at any talking-down of the project as the whole business model relies on continued money coming in
It depends on how they classify "build". If all the components are already made and they just need bolting together, then maybe this can be done in two weeks, with the help of en engineer?
Glassair Two Weeks to Taxi
Scroll down to Two Weeks to Taxi programme. It's been running for over a decade.
