Hill Helicopters HX50
[/QUOTE]
Hard to sell any deposits based on an engine and gearbox design alone.
Last edited by hargreaves99; 12th Dec 2023 at 15:13.
The following 2 users liked this post by hargreaves99:
Does anyone know the answers to these questions?
CRAN?
CRAN?
Maybe some meat on the bone around the hard bits would shut up those who have not placed a deposit - as examples:-
(1) How many engines will be built and tested prior to production and what time scale would be required?
(2) How many total engine hours run makes for a trusted engine design fit for purpose.
(3) What structural testing will take place for various parts - such as load points for the engine and main gearbox.
(4) How will the gear boxes be tested.
I am sure it will fly and customers will get their aircraft.
richard
(1) How many engines will be built and tested prior to production and what time scale would be required?
(2) How many total engine hours run makes for a trusted engine design fit for purpose.
(3) What structural testing will take place for various parts - such as load points for the engine and main gearbox.
(4) How will the gear boxes be tested.
I am sure it will fly and customers will get their aircraft.
richard
That switch panel is lacking common sense.
The Fuel switch should show "FUEL" as its main caption, with the up position marked "ON" and the 90 right position "SHUTOFF"
The Gen switch has the lower position marked RESET and OFF, normally it would be OFF and then a spring-loaded spot below that marked "RESET"
The engine seems to lack ducting to take the gases from the N1 turbine (has proper inlet duct from combustor) and guide them onto the N2 wheel. Just looks like the hot gas expands into a big box and the only way out is the N2 wheel.
It must be for space considerations, but using 2 x 45 degree gearboxes to get the driveshaft from the engine to the transmission is introducing complexity and more ways to develop problems.
But let's wait and see. And wait. And wait.
The Fuel switch should show "FUEL" as its main caption, with the up position marked "ON" and the 90 right position "SHUTOFF"
The Gen switch has the lower position marked RESET and OFF, normally it would be OFF and then a spring-loaded spot below that marked "RESET"
The engine seems to lack ducting to take the gases from the N1 turbine (has proper inlet duct from combustor) and guide them onto the N2 wheel. Just looks like the hot gas expands into a big box and the only way out is the N2 wheel.
It must be for space considerations, but using 2 x 45 degree gearboxes to get the driveshaft from the engine to the transmission is introducing complexity and more ways to develop problems.
But let's wait and see. And wait. And wait.
I nearly switched it off on several occasions because of those two; irrespective of your view on this project, I think Richard Hill comes across well during the streams/presentation. Those two clowns chiming in added absolutely nothing and, in my view, actually take from the whole project rather than adding to it. Perhaps they are making a big contribution behind the scenes, but they should be kept off the camera in future.
And, btw, who is ‘Richard’ Hill? You’ve just been watching a long presentation from Dr Jason Hill (AKA CRAN, FWIW).
The following users liked this post:
Hill states at 1:04:22 that “we have an inter duct that’s missing from this because it’s a stand”.
Is this the first Hill video that you’ve watched? Those ‘two clowns’ have been part of the marketing effort for the past few years. One is a an experienced flight instructor (with his own YouTube channel) and the other has obviously flown around the world. They aren’t going anywhere.
And, btw, who is ‘Richard’ Hill? You’ve just been watching a long presentation from Dr Jason Hill (AKA CRAN, FWIW).
And, btw, who is ‘Richard’ Hill? You’ve just been watching a long presentation from Dr Jason Hill (AKA CRAN, FWIW).
My apologies, it was of course Jason, not Richard! And yes, I have caught most of the web presentations so far, so I am aware of the identity and background of Mischa and Ruben. I know they are an established part of the program and have been for some time - and I am sure they are contributing plenty off stage - but I personally thought their stage antics (and volume) detracted from the presentation.
Richa- no, Jason, seems to absolutely know his product inside out. The "hype men" felt unnecessary and somewhat at odds with the otherwise professional presentation of the whole thing. But hey, maybe I'm just out of touch and the crowd like to have the main speaker get interrupted and spoken over.
I chatted with two people today (one engineer and one pilot) who were both at the presentation yesterday and that was their only real critique of the event. Otherwise they were impressed with what they saw and what they learned from other Hill staff afterwards.
The following 2 users liked this post by tbtstt:
That switch panel is lacking common sense.
The Fuel switch should show "FUEL" as its main caption, with the up position marked "ON" and the 90 right position "SHUTOFF"
The Gen switch has the lower position marked RESET and OFF, normally it would be OFF and then a spring-loaded spot below that marked "RESET"
But let's wait and see. And wait. And wait.
The Fuel switch should show "FUEL" as its main caption, with the up position marked "ON" and the 90 right position "SHUTOFF"
The Gen switch has the lower position marked RESET and OFF, normally it would be OFF and then a spring-loaded spot below that marked "RESET"
But let's wait and see. And wait. And wait.
Aside from that, I find the display HMI fairly honking. Speed as a strip across the top of the display is pretty counter-intuitive for one. That said, for an "experimental" changing software is easy if you gaff off all the niceties of assurance levels. However, if you're adhering to DO standards, the PFD would be far from easy to change overnight, unless they've come up with some pretty innovative software process to go with the rest of it.
Is the fuel switch an electrical switch or a mechanical switch? Makes no sense it looks like a mechanical switch but positioned where you would an electrical switch. I suspect its a marketing switch!
Sans, you studied the photo more carefully than I initially did, but I agree these look like mockups for the display helicopters. Might be the same for the fenestron components? Still, it looks like good progress being made on various elements, even if some is shown in mock-up form.
The following users liked this post:
Reminds me of the sad story about the words "flammable" and "inflammable" which actually mean the same thing. But some people believed "inflammable" meant "not flammable" when it came to children's clothing.
In one of the photos shared by chopper2004 in post #1291, the skidded version shows the skids project slightly forward of the front 'cross tube'. But I don't think this is meant to serve as a boarding step as it seems too close to the front of the cabin door? In that case, why not adopt the style of skids as on the EC120? While I am still not used to that look, they seem to have less prospect of snagging a wire than traditional helicopter skids. Surely Eurocopter (Airbus Helicopters) wouldn't hold a patent on such a design feature?? Avoids the need for a WSPS to be mounted under the fuselage.
On the subject of skids, they sure look low and splayed apart on the HX50. Skids on JetRanger (and UH1) were originally quite low and sleek, but you rarely see such low skids on JetRangers now, at least not in Australia. So what has caused that shift? Fairings on the cross tubes are also relatively rare notwithstanding the drag reduction they provided. On the other hand, low faired skids still seem the norm on LongRangers.
On the subject of skids, they sure look low and splayed apart on the HX50. Skids on JetRanger (and UH1) were originally quite low and sleek, but you rarely see such low skids on JetRangers now, at least not in Australia. So what has caused that shift? Fairings on the cross tubes are also relatively rare notwithstanding the drag reduction they provided. On the other hand, low faired skids still seem the norm on LongRangers.
In one of the photos shared by chopper2004 in post #1291, the skidded version shows the skids project slightly forward of the front 'cross tube'. But I don't think this is meant to serve as a boarding step as it seems too close to the front of the cabin door? In that case, why not adopt the style of skids as on the EC120? While I am still not used to that look, they seem to have less prospect of snagging a wire than traditional helicopter skids. Surely Eurocopter (Airbus Helicopters) wouldn't hold a patent on such a design feature?? Avoids the need for a WSPS to be mounted under the fuselage.
On the subject of skids, they sure look low and splayed apart on the HX50. Skids on JetRanger (and UH1) were originally quite low and sleek, but you rarely see such low skids on JetRangers now, at least not in Australia. So what has caused that shift? Fairings on the cross tubes are also relatively rare notwithstanding the drag reduction they provided. On the other hand, low faired skids still seem the norm on LongRangers.
On the subject of skids, they sure look low and splayed apart on the HX50. Skids on JetRanger (and UH1) were originally quite low and sleek, but you rarely see such low skids on JetRangers now, at least not in Australia. So what has caused that shift? Fairings on the cross tubes are also relatively rare notwithstanding the drag reduction they provided. On the other hand, low faired skids still seem the norm on LongRangers.
The following users liked this post:
Skids
[QUOTE=helispotter;11553455]In one of the photos shared by chopper2004 in post #1291, the skidded version shows the skids project slightly forward of the front 'cross tube'. But I don't think this is meant to serve as a boarding step as it seems too close to the front of the cabin doo
I was told by Dave the head of composite that the forward projection is purely to reduce drag
I was told by Dave the head of composite that the forward projection is purely to reduce drag