As nobody has built (or even seen) the helicopter or engine, the build instruction manual is going to be an interesting detailed read, The manual will have to be extremely detailed as every single part small or large on the helicopter will have to be detailed in fitting instructions, in fact as soon as a manual is available I would like a copy please for bedtime reading.

CAA only qualifies rotorcraft kit with 2 seats or less. I tried the configuration, no option for other than 5 seats. This is another interesting point too.

That only means that a) the factory doesn’t want to do it yet or b) that the CAA haven’t done more than two seats to date. When the factory is ready, the CAA must expand with that need or lose that need to be developed abroad - and their 21G revenue with it - meaning that the CAA will be accused of driving any prospective builder abroad.

The CAA haven’t built a large Airship in living memory, but they are prepared to certify the next Airlander - a 40 tonne mass of aircraft....?

Your discussion on HOW to build it is the reason why I stated earlier “with appropriate supervision”. Kit building is normally about the airframe and undercarriage, not the bigger or more important assemblies.

Anyone building an aircraft will have to have ‘Build Inspections’ and approvals by nominated engineers from the first opening of the crate to count the parts through the whole assembly and especially key points of that build. Any gearbox is very unlikely to be built in a home environment and engines will be supplied as complete as possible to prevent tinkering with them. ‘Witnessed’ performance runs will be done before first flight.

Builders will not be left to their own interpretations and devices regarding building something that could endanger people on the ground.

"HX50 however is not sold with a type certificate. Instead, it receives an initial type approval from the UK CAA to the latest certification standards of EASA CS-27, meets FAA Part 27 and is provided to customers with an amateur-built airworthiness approval. Each aircraft is factory constructed during a two-week fully supported build course in the UK."

https://www.hillhelicopters.com/general-aviation-20

I am quite impressed that it will only takes 2 weeks to build, must be modular.......the owner will probably just watch the process, which in the eyes of the CAA is "participation".

Most of the "type training engineering" courses I have been on have been longer than that, and that is just basic type maintenance training. Even a Robinson maintenance course is 2 weeks........

I found this statement from Hill Helicopters interesting on Helihub regarding Frank Robinson.

In the last sixty years, there have been only two people who have developed new helicopters for private pilots and seen commercial success with them – and let’s set that bar at 200 sales and helicopters up to 6 seats. Those two are Frank Robinson and Bruno Guimbal. Both brilliant engineers. Both with employment backgrounds focused on helicopter manufacture. But crucially, neither with any experience as a successful helicopter owner and user. Their focus was entirely on engineering what they believed to be the best solution for a market they had not participated in. Read more at https://helihub.com/2020/11/11/exclu...l-helicopters/

I have been round a number of car manufacturers and been impressed with how little they do. The body comes in one entrance, engine another and the two are connected. I suspect Hill will do the same. Nobody is going to be asked to 'make an engine' but the purchaser may tighten the bolts before an engineer checks it properly. Whilst recognising this is Hill's novel way to reduce costs and get a commercial aircraft in several years' time, I see many benefits in pilots knowing their aircraft inside out.

But I need proof of concept before handing over any money. We need to see it fly.

You guys are acting like the concept of experimental aircraft is new or unfamiliar. It is not. Nobody ever builds engines or gearboxes; they buy those fully assembled.

experimental or amateur built aircraft aren’t new.
A production aircraft, disassembled, so the owner can “assemble” it, is just a creative way of trying to avoid certification costs.
The complexity of building an RV and a turbine helicopter, and one of this proposed quality, are not the same thing.
Amateur-build helicopters have not gone well, partly because the sort that want to build their own are tight-arses or have no social life and have a profound love of sheds.

The FAA requires 51% of the build be done by the builder. An FAA inspector checks before first flight
in the UK the LAA checks fixed wing builds, and authorizes the flight.It would need investment in engineering expertise for the LAA to take on this Hill responsibility.

After being shown this link (posted by NutLoose) I immediately thought of the HX50 with it's modular build approach.
https://newatlas.com/wigetworks-airf...m=article-body

With 3D printing and access to better materials, techniques and knowledge, I think we are entering another era where your average back yard entrepreneur/inventor is capable of creating incredible things more easily. Modularity in design helps this process a lot, and perhaps Mr Hill has been a visionary of this all along but choosing the middle ground between back-yarder and full fledged factory plant, time will tell.

Meanwhile I can only wish his company the best of success and do hope they deliver a very desirable product at the end of the day.

That's only true for kit-built experimentals but it is not true for factory-assist experimentals. I bought/built an experimental a few years ago and we built it in the factory in two weeks. At the time, they didn't even offer a kit.

Surely very much agree with your closing thoughts.

Still, aviation is very much a regulated industry, where new technologies have to prove their claims and provide measurable quality levels.
Outside the labs of places like GE's propulsion operations, has anyone done aviation grade 3D parts printing? Has anything so made been certified in civil use?

Imho, the product is incredible because the price is too low.
In another thread, someone had pointed out that the personal lift device guy from New Zealand was offering his gizmo for $230,000 before the business folded.
This was someone who had working hardware. Here there are only charts and virtual reality simulations. Feel free to invest, but YMMV.

That certain guy in New Zealand is an engineering genius, he worked tirelessly 18 hours a day for decades on successful products, his life is total aviation, his product did not make it to market using an existing engine so cannot se how any new small helicopter can. He even managed to get them to aviation shows and fly them. I agree though, this helicopter is priced VERY low for what should be delivered, I would settle for a scale model on my desk it is so pretty..

I notice that on the 26th May 2021 four more Hill HX50 helicopters have been registered - all to Hill Helicopters Ltd.
They are:-
G-DIAS c/n PP02
G-GELB c/n PP03
G-ODDB c/n PP04
G-OISY c/n PP05

Does this mean that some form of production is near ? Or is this a paperwork exercise to make it look so, lets face it have we seen the prototype yet G-DRJH c/n PP01 ?

Rocket grade?

50 seconds in.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/...ng-out-rockets

Well, you can’t knock it: their CGI is pretty good.



The marketing department is using imovie to the full.
An announcement about an announcement :}

.
Sorry to be positive (I know it's almost prohibited here) but as I love helicopters, I say : Best whishes to Hill Helicopters ! :ok: :ok::ok:
.

Delta Air Lines is working on it: https://news.delta.com/new-state-art...future-repairs

https://www.materialise.com/en/cases...al-3d-printing