Hill Helicopters HX50
Joined: Jun 2012
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 369
Likes: 77
From: SE of there
Interesting. Can you name one fixed-wing, experimental/amateur-built aircraft design company that offers no kit version, mandates the owner completes the 51% portion only on the factory floor under supervision, requires only about 2-3 weeks of the owner's time, and the completed E/AB airplane meets the standards of Part 23/CS 23?
Anyway, reason for doing so is that there is no way in hell that you would be able to complete it in 3 weeks without full support of factory technicians. And I would like to see what exactly that 51% is going to entail and how much of that 51% is going to be "helped and /or advised" by factory trained technician.
That request is not some revolutionary feature, it's a bug fix.
I would like to see this helicopter fly with all promises fulfilled, but let's drop the masks. Posts like "Dr. Hill worked hard and is sooooooo educated blah, blah, blah" means zilch until product is delivered.
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 240
Likes: 50
From: San Diego, CA
Guys, at least as far as the FAA (US) is concerned, the 51% rule only applies to truly kit-built aircraft and *not* factory-assisted builds. I owned a new gyroplane, built in Florida, classified as experimental. I flew to the factory and assisted in the build for two weeks. That was all it took. At the time, they did not even offer a kit. Later a dealer in Texas wanted to purchase kits of it to assemble locally, and that required more work from the factory because they then had to make an actual kit, and instructions, and ensure the builder would meet the 51% rule, which they did not have to do previously.
Magni, an Italian gyro manufacturer, also offers a two-week build assist program at their factory in Italy for American customers. Or at least they did.
Hill isn't spending all this time and money on a non-starter. Whether they succeed or not, it's clearly not a scam. It's a real attempt at a helicopter.
Magni, an Italian gyro manufacturer, also offers a two-week build assist program at their factory in Italy for American customers. Or at least they did.
Hill isn't spending all this time and money on a non-starter. Whether they succeed or not, it's clearly not a scam. It's a real attempt at a helicopter.
Joined: Jun 2012
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 369
Likes: 77
From: SE of there
Guys, at least as far as the FAA (US) is concerned, the 51% rule only applies to truly kit-built aircraft and *not* factory-assisted builds. I owned a new gyroplane, built in Florida, classified as experimental. I flew to the factory and assisted in the build for two weeks. That was all it took. At the time, they did not even offer a kit. Later a dealer in Texas wanted to purchase kits of it to assemble locally, and that required more work from the factory because they then had to make an actual kit, and instructions, and ensure the builder would meet the 51% rule, which they did not have to do previously.
Magni, an Italian gyro manufacturer, also offers a two-week build assist program at their factory in Italy for American customers. Or at least they did.
Hill isn't spending all this time and money on a non-starter. Whether they succeed or not, it's clearly not a scam. It's a real attempt at a helicopter.
Magni, an Italian gyro manufacturer, also offers a two-week build assist program at their factory in Italy for American customers. Or at least they did.
Hill isn't spending all this time and money on a non-starter. Whether they succeed or not, it's clearly not a scam. It's a real attempt at a helicopter.
It's an attempt, all right. How successful remains to be seen. Hope it will achieve more than Skycar.
Joined: Jul 2024
Posts: 35
Likes: 22
From: South Africa
The problem is not the "attempt at a helicopter"
The problem is the false promises to lure in clueless investors:
- 3 Flying prototypes at the end of '24. This is now just an outright lie and everyone knows it, but Hill does not correct the website
- Delivery of production units in '25. Another outright lie.
- The helicopter specs shown on the website are impossible to achieve for that engine and airframe it is an outright lie
- Production figures (with a 51% self build no less) are impossible to achieve, its an outright lie
- First time built turboprop engine that will run 5k hours and only need inspections, if you believe this then I have some lovely seaside property in the south of Johannesburg that I want to sell to you.
What do you expect to pay for this helicopter?
- $3 million?
- $5 million?
- ...... wait for it.......it does not exist yet but you will get it for the low low price of $750k if you order today.
So ye its not a scam its an investment with a yield of -100%.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: Spain
Hello guys, nice to found this threat
This is a project promising rapid development without acknowledging the extensive time and expertise needed for certification. It’s possible that investors may not be fully aware of these challenges, and it would be prudent for them to carefully evaluate the feasibility before committing to non-refundable deposits.
People need to sit and think on :
Is impossible to achieve what they are promising on time or have success on what they are planning
Personal opinion
This is a project promising rapid development without acknowledging the extensive time and expertise needed for certification. It’s possible that investors may not be fully aware of these challenges, and it would be prudent for them to carefully evaluate the feasibility before committing to non-refundable deposits.
People need to sit and think on :
- Certification Timeline for Helicopter Development: Certifying a new helicopter can take years, often longer than expected. The process involves rigorous testing, compliance with aviation standards, and meeting airworthiness requirements, which large manufacturers have the resources to handle, but even they face long lead times.
- Civil Helicopter Certification: Many people may underestimate the complexity and time required for civil certification, especially when a company is venturing into building an entirely new platform. Regulatory authorities like the FAA or EASA have stringent rules for every aspect of the design and production.
- Cost of Manufacturing and Certification: Trying to reduce costs by manufacturing every part of the helicopter in-house may actually backfire. Engines and other components are expensive not just because of manufacturing, but because of the immense investment in certification and safety standards. Developing a new engine from scratch could take longer than the entire helicopter.
- CNC Machined Aluminum Parts they show at the HAI Mockup: Using CNC-machined aluminum for components like the M/R (Main Rotor) drive could present significant challenges. These parts must undergo extreme stress and durability testing, and it’s unclear if that material is ideal for long-term certification in such applications.
- Rotor Blades (M/R and T/R): Developing and certifying rotor blades is a massive engineering challenge. It requires specialized materials, aerodynamics testing, and durability studies. Without substantial expertise, this could delay the project significantly.
- Proprietary Avionics: Avionics is an area where even seasoned manufacturers face long timelines. Garmin, for example, has spent decades perfecting their systems, and even their simplest radios require extensive testing to meet standards. Developing proprietary avionics adds a layer of complexity that will likely extend timelines and costs.
- Fuselage Weight
- Engineering Oversights: Basic engineering issues, such as needing to remove the power shaft to access the starter generator, suggest that the design may not have been fully thought through. This could introduce maintenance headaches and operational inefficiencies down the line.
Is impossible to achieve what they are promising on time or have success on what they are planning
Personal opinion
Joined: Oct 2006
Aviation Qualifications: A&P
Posts: 1,348
Likes: 271
From: USA
What I don’t know is if the UKCAA publishes any completed checklists for specific aircraft models like the FAA does. If they do then you will be able to see those specific tasks and any factory assistance. For comparison, when the FAA performs an E/AB evaluation they usually release a completed Amateur-Built Fabrication and Assembly Checklist and/or an Evaluation Letter for that specific aircraft or kit. The linked examples are for a Hummingbird 300.
Regardless, given there is no international aviation agreement that covers E/AB aircraft like TC'd aircraft, any country that imports an HX50 will have to make their own evaluation and determination whether the HX50 meets their requirements for an amateur-built aircraft. However, the fact Hill completed the initial E/AB evaluation acceptance with the UKCAA, FAA , CASA, and I believe 1 other NAA, points more to he is very aware of the Major Portion or 51% requirement for the HX50 to receive its Permit or AWC to fly as an amateur-built aircraft. Anything less and the whole project becomes a non-starter on the E/AB side.
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 240
Likes: 50
From: San Diego, CA
I do agree the HC50 is a very long way off. Since they're trying to be almost completely vertically integrated, that's a massive certification issue that will take many years and tons of money. And the early HX50s may be dangerous due to limited testing, but we'll see.
Joined: Jul 2024
Posts: 35
Likes: 22
From: South Africa
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Remember how many people died in R22s and that was a fully certified machine...............
Number built : 4,800 (2019) <-- Wikipedia
So if you own a R22 then you have a 20% chance to crash
Surely this cant be?
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 446
Likes: 100
From: South East Asia
Guest
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 840
Likes: 236
20%? That's a very crude incorrect statistical calculation
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...ces-report.pdf
Extract
"For the R22, the rate of reported occurrences (per 100,000 hours flown) averaged 18.2 over the five- year period 2017 to 2021. This rate is above the Bell 47G (11.5) and below each of R44 (45.7), Bell 206 (40.4) rotary aircraft." (2023)
So, using these figures... if you fly an R22 your chance of an "occurence" for every hour flown is 0.0182 % ie. (18.2 divided by 100,000) x 100
The data is also skewed by "high risk" flying, eg mustering, teaching
This has been convered many times before. Aircraft used for training PPL/Ab Initio students have a worse accident/incident rate because of the nature of flying they do.
In the right hands, and observing the aircraft/pilot/weather limits...the R22 is very safe.
Anyway, I am sure the HX50 will be err very safe, with all those private owners 'hopping' from one garden to another, with 5 pob, max fuel, and golf clubs in the back (esp if Crab is flying)
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...ces-report.pdf
Extract
"For the R22, the rate of reported occurrences (per 100,000 hours flown) averaged 18.2 over the five- year period 2017 to 2021. This rate is above the Bell 47G (11.5) and below each of R44 (45.7), Bell 206 (40.4) rotary aircraft." (2023)
So, using these figures... if you fly an R22 your chance of an "occurence" for every hour flown is 0.0182 % ie. (18.2 divided by 100,000) x 100
The data is also skewed by "high risk" flying, eg mustering, teaching
This has been convered many times before. Aircraft used for training PPL/Ab Initio students have a worse accident/incident rate because of the nature of flying they do.
In the right hands, and observing the aircraft/pilot/weather limits...the R22 is very safe.
Anyway, I am sure the HX50 will be err very safe, with all those private owners 'hopping' from one garden to another, with 5 pob, max fuel, and golf clubs in the back (esp if Crab is flying)
Last edited by PPRuNeUser469990; 26th September 2024 at 07:53.
Joined: Oct 2006
Aviation Qualifications: A&P
Posts: 1,348
Likes: 271
From: USA
Officially, yes, but in practice, no. I'm not guessing here, I'm speaking from experience. Hill has also obviously figured all this out before beginning this project, and he explicitly talked about this in one of his videos.
I do agree the HC50 is a very long way off. Since they're trying to be almost completely vertically integrated, that's a massive certification issue that will take many years and tons of money. And the early HX50s may be dangerous due to limited testing, but we'll see.
I do agree the HC50 is a very long way off. Since they're trying to be almost completely vertically integrated, that's a massive certification issue that will take many years and tons of money. And the early HX50s may be dangerous due to limited testing, but we'll see.
As to the HC50, I believe its more a parallel integration. I think the “co-development” of the HC with the HX is what is slowing the process and if they were to relax the Part 27/CS 27 foundation for the HX, they would have made more benchmarks in the development process. But added significant issues to the HC development.
Personally, I think they’re on the right path for both models and hope they can maintain that course. I know a number of the slot owners are on board with this approach regardless what the masses may conjecture on the topic.
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 240
Likes: 50
From: San Diego, CA
The summary of the non-Q&A part of the latest video is that moving to the real production center wasn't planned until after the first flight of the prototype was completed, but due to various reasons they realized they needed to move to it now, and that of course significantly delayed development, seemingly by 9 months or so. Perfectly understandable. They hope to begin testing the starter-generator in the next month or two, with a lot more engine and airframe work next year. If they successfully get the full engine running by end of June as they hope, then that will be a major accomplishment / sigh of relief and they'll celebrate with another in-person event in September.
Joined: Jul 2024
Posts: 35
Likes: 22
From: South Africa
Move over Elon
Ok so they give themselves 6 months to install a casting machine, cast the blades, complete the FADAC and then run the engine.
6 months after that they will fly the hx50 and a year later in production.
Right off the bat they will then produce more than one HX50 per day ramping up to more than 2 a day.
Seems optimistic to me.
6 months after that they will fly the hx50 and a year later in production.
Right off the bat they will then produce more than one HX50 per day ramping up to more than 2 a day.
Seems optimistic to me.
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 603
Likes: 65
From: South of UK
The summary of the non-Q&A part of the latest video is that moving to the real production center wasn't planned until after the first flight of the prototype was completed, but due to various reasons they realized they needed to move to it now, and that of course significantly delayed development, seemingly by 9 months or so. Perfectly understandable. They hope to begin testing the starter-generator in the next month or two, with a lot more engine and airframe work next year. If they successfully get the full engine running by end of June as they hope, then that will be a major accomplishment / sigh of relief and they'll celebrate with another in-person event in September.
He has realized that building a helicopter is a lot more complicated than He had hoped.
Quelle surprise - the flow of deposits will dry up, despite the onslaught of social media marketing. On the upside, looks like Crab won't have to eat his humble pie.
Guest
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 840
Likes: 236
Just five months to test (and modify if required) an engine ?
Just a year to fly 2000 hours on a prototype, and modify it as necessary?
(that's 5.5 hours of flying every day of the week).
These dates are fantasy thinking.
Just a year to fly 2000 hours on a prototype, and modify it as necessary?
(that's 5.5 hours of flying every day of the week).
These dates are fantasy thinking.
