Hill Helicopters HX50
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,111
Likes: 118
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Except for the very luxury end of the automotive industry, cars are built down to a price rather than up to a standard.
If you prefer form over function that's up to you and if people are seduced by sexy styling then that's fine - just don't ask questions about where corners are cut to keep prices down.
If you prefer form over function that's up to you and if people are seduced by sexy styling then that's fine - just don't ask questions about where corners are cut to keep prices down.
Joined: Oct 2006
Aviation Qualifications: A&P
Posts: 1,348
Likes: 271
From: USA
What I find interesting is most here seem to believe that an experimental amateur built aircraft is some how a “sub-par” aircraft that only attracts sub-par individuals. I don’t know if that’s due to limited experience or exposure with this class or simply some sort of bias. Or perhaps its just a geographical issue where E/AB aircraft are the exception vs the norm like in the US. In reality, the same types of people that buy certified aircraft also buy E/AB aircraft to include people of means. And one of the main reasons is to enjoy the greater flexibility and benefits of an E/AB aircraft like a number of the HX slot owners want.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
From: United Kingdom
I struggle to see who where the buyers for 1,000 helicopters per year will come from. Perhaps I am a cynic, but these inflated numbers were also quoted as market predictions for Air Taxi / VLJs. That bubble burst: Eclipse went bust and Cessna terminated the Mustang.
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
Hughes 500 - I'm well aware that aviation spares and after sales support are very expensive and often quite dire but that is not the same as building an aircraft down to a price.
All the car manufacturers sting you for genuine replacement parts since it's one way of recouping the costs of production without adding to the ticket price of the vehicle.
All the car manufacturers sting you for genuine replacement parts since it's one way of recouping the costs of production without adding to the ticket price of the vehicle.
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
What I find interesting is most here seem to believe that an experimental amateur built aircraft is some how a “sub-par” aircraft that only attracts sub-par individuals. I don’t know if that’s due to limited experience or exposure with this class or simply some sort of bias. Or perhaps its just a geographical issue where E/AB aircraft are the exception vs the norm like in the US. In reality, the same types of people that buy certified aircraft also buy E/AB aircraft to include people of means. And one of the main reasons is to enjoy the greater flexibility and benefits of an E/AB aircraft like a number of the HX slot owners want.
And how many are first time designs from a company with no previous track record?
Yes, the E/AB market is very healthy but the majority are FW and the majority of those that are home built are from plans from established manufacturers that have been built and flown for many years.
Hill is exploiting the E/AB certification to keep costs down but he will still have to demonstrate airworthiness in a many hours of test flying - I think the normal is 25-40 hours but I can't imagine a complex, brand new helicopter design will take that few hours.
If it achieves its certification with 25 hours, would you want to be the first customer to build and fly it?
Never fly the A model of anything is the old adage in aviation......
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,111
Likes: 118
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Hughes 500 - I'm well aware that aviation spares and after sales support are very expensive and often quite dire but that is not the same as building an aircraft down to a price.
All the car manufacturers sting you for genuine replacement parts since it's one way of recouping the costs of production without adding to the ticket price of the vehicle.
All the car manufacturers sting you for genuine replacement parts since it's one way of recouping the costs of production without adding to the ticket price of the vehicle.
Joined: Jun 2016
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 1,318
Likes: 387
From: Brantisvogan
Fewer helicopters spontaneously combust than vehicles. The requirements for admitting a flaw are way higher for vehicles, though, that was before Elon fired anyone who could hurt his bottom line.
It is statistically safer to travel in a Bobinson than a Tesla, the bar isn't exactly set high.
Joined: Oct 2006
Aviation Qualifications: A&P
Posts: 1,348
Likes: 271
From: USA
Originally Posted by [email protected]
How many of those many thousands of E/AB aircraft are rotary?
And how many are first time designs from a company with no previous track record?
Hill is exploiting the E/AB certification to keep costs down
but he will still have to demonstrate airworthiness in a many hours of test flying - I think the normal is 25-40 hours but I can't imagine a complex, brand new helicopter design will take that few hours.
If it achieves its certification with 25 hours, would you want to be the first customer to build and fly it?
Is he on the fringe. Sure. Will he hit other hurdles. Sure. Do I think there’s some issues with the current design. Sure. But in my experience the concept is solid and well within his means to complete.
But I get it where you and the others are coming from. E/AB is not for everyone. And unless you’re the type of person who fully comprehends how that side of the industry ticks, you’ll never be a believer. Doesn’t make Hill wrong and you right, its just how things roll for different people. But keep in mind, aviation itself started as a bunch of amateur builders too.
Never fly the A model of anything is the old adage in aviation......
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,111
Likes: 118
Seriously?
Fewer helicopters spontaneously combust than vehicles. The requirements for admitting a flaw are way higher for vehicles, though, that was before Elon fired anyone who could hurt his bottom line.
It is statistically safer to travel in a Bobinson than a Tesla, the bar isn't exactly set high.
Fewer helicopters spontaneously combust than vehicles. The requirements for admitting a flaw are way higher for vehicles, though, that was before Elon fired anyone who could hurt his bottom line.
It is statistically safer to travel in a Bobinson than a Tesla, the bar isn't exactly set high.
Here is an example he uses to my CAA inspector . HTC blades for 500's. In the past 15 years we have had to have the blades checked every 200 Tq events. Now this is a containment action , the root cause has been identified ( bad manufacturer in the bonding of the blades ) BUT nothing has been done to solve the root cause in 15 years really ??????
I am afraid the quality of parts, the cost of parts and the lack of the regulator having the balls to regulate anything is making our industry unsafe
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
Last I checked about 1100 but its next to impossible to differentiate between helicopter and gyroplanes since they’re both considered “rotorcraft.” My estimate would be about 300-400 are helicopters. No clue how many outside the US.
Only a couple of turbine helos and those are based on previous proven designs.
How can you exploit something by following the existing rules? Keep in mind the HX is following a path no one has tried before especially on the helicopter side. So it really has no peer or comparison in the E/AB world.
I believe you are confusing the production flight testing an E/AB producer will perform before a “design” is released to the public and the flight testing a builder must perform once they build that aircraft. The latter is where the 25-40 hours comes from. From what I’ve seen the HX50 will for all intents receive the same amount of production flight testing any new design certified helicopter would get.
And I may just have that opportunity to do so. But I’ve been signing off E/AB Condition Inspections and flying in them for many years. Add in my years of working on civil turbine helicopters
Only in the certified world. Every HX50 that rolls off the line will be its own separate A model as each aircraft will have a different builder.
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 240
Likes: 50
From: San Diego, CA
Hill has already announced that he will do the obviously safe thing and have the first dozen or so production units be prototypes / demonstrators. After creating a few preproduction prototypes and testing thoroughly, he would then need to create quite a few production prototypes, and test them all thoroughly, to make sure there is nothing wrong or inconsistent with the production process and they all perform to specifications and reliably. But that's getting ahead of ourselves - first he has to create a single flying prototype, which means first creating a working engine, and I would be happy if he can get a working engine, that meets performance goals, by the end of the year.
Joined: Oct 2006
Aviation Qualifications: A&P
Posts: 1,348
Likes: 271
From: USA
Originally Posted by [email protected]
This list is available - https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/...lt_kit_listing
If you are pushing and testing the existing rules for something they weren't designed for (short cut to production certification) then that is surely exploiting them?
yes, I was going by what was on the FAA website but isn't the point of Hill's strategy that he has to do less for the HX50 than the HC50?
So if the HC version becomes viable it should be more a paperwork exercise than a performance exercise to get a formal TC/PC. I’m not aware of any aircraft developer that has taken this path at this level of commitment.
I don't think signing off inspections is the same as certifying a new design as fit for public consumption.
Are you saying you have worked on and inspected E/AB turbine helicopters?
That wouldn't say much for production control if that were the case
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 138
Likes: 80
From: Montréal
The elephant in the room is the HT50. Developing a new rotary airframe from scratch is very hard, but doable. However noone ever fielded a new turbine engine from scratch outside of the major engine makers. It's very hard even for piston engines.
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
In that video he boasts about the Fenestron giving hover performance at 10,000, ISA plus 15 and at AUM with 35 kts form all directions - that needs a lot of power and he hasn't got the engine running yet!
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
I can understand the E/AB route for something like the Mosquito XET, it's a light, single seat helicopter with just enough power to pull the skin off a rice pudding at its AUM of 372kg.
But the HX50, with specs very similar to a Gazelle (only with sexier styling) is a 5-seat 'luxury' beast with a projected 1650Kg MAUM, a 500shp engine (not working yet) and all sorts of great (but unproven) performance claims - is allowed to be brought to market under the same conditions.
Full of composites and hiding behind an alleged 51% owner built concept, it just seems like an exercise in testing the rules to breaking point and I find it difficult to believe that responsible regulators will allow it to be built under the E/AB banner.
But the HX50, with specs very similar to a Gazelle (only with sexier styling) is a 5-seat 'luxury' beast with a projected 1650Kg MAUM, a 500shp engine (not working yet) and all sorts of great (but unproven) performance claims - is allowed to be brought to market under the same conditions.
Full of composites and hiding behind an alleged 51% owner built concept, it just seems like an exercise in testing the rules to breaking point and I find it difficult to believe that responsible regulators will allow it to be built under the E/AB banner.
Joined: Apr 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,580
Likes: 671
From: DM33
Originally Posted by [email protected]
This list is available - https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/...lt_kit_listing
Only kits, not factory assist plans built aircraft, are in the FAA kit list.
Joined: Oct 2006
Aviation Qualifications: A&P
Posts: 1,348
Likes: 271
From: USA
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Full of composites and hiding behind an alleged 51% owner built concept, it just seems like an exercise in testing the rules to breaking point and I find it difficult to believe that responsible regulators will allow it to be built under the E/AB banner.
I think you’ll find Hill is very respective of that single rule considering its importance to this venture. So he has put in place various requirements and restrictions that will ensure the complete compliance of that rule. All of which have been accepted by several civil aviation authorities to include the FAA.
Sure it seems like a competitor to a Gazelle or similar certified aircraft. But in reality, the only legit competition to the HX50 is the Mosquito XET which is partly the reason for the HX’s unusual popularity across a diverse group of buyers. And when the FAA’s MOSAIC rule is finally released, which will move various helicopters under the Light Sport Category, I think you’ll find Hill’s vision was spot on.
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 138
Likes: 80
From: Montréal
As I understand, the major components to include the HT50 engine have legacy architecture for a design foundation. So I don’t think any were built “from scratch.” Its also my understanding some of the original legacy engineers were brought in to work with the initial component upgrades. And with the ongoing developments in the micro-turbine and turbine-generator fields, my read is the HT50 is more a “best practices” design than pulling rabbits out of a hat effort.