Crab

Actually you probably have never owned or had to pay personally for owning a machine. Only when you do that, do you actually truly realise that the manufacturers view is, they are doing us a favour in letting them buy one of their machines.
The average manufacturer takes the Michael in what they charge for not only their product but also the parts that go with it
Here are a few examples
Tie bar for a Hu269, basically a steel tube 14 inches ling with 2 welded flat plates 2 inches across. I can have one fabricated out of the best steel for around £ 60, manufacturers price $1350 ...really
Auguta Westland pressure relief switch for AC system 14000 Euros.... for a switch ( no I have got the zero's correct)
A few years ago now SA341 clutch, from factory in Bosnia with no JAA paperwork £ 8k, from Airbus with JAA Form 1 £30k ( by the way Airbus got it from factory in Bosnia, so made £20k on a piece of paper )
MD last year put up the price for a main rotor gearbox from $ 85k to around $125, what other business would get away with it, unless of course it is selling to the military !
Remove the ridiculousness of what goes on in the industry and see what happens ! Too much resistance to change, which unfortunately stifles too many industries
So hopefully we will see a machine that is cheap to run goes like sh1t off a shovel and is made to a higher crash worthiness than any other current machine.
Crab you might even be able to afford one on your mil pension !

Hughes - I am quite aware of the costs of spares and how much the manufacturers profiteer on them but I'm not sure how that makes this innovative design (for which we can't see any pictures or have a description) the new sliced bread of the helicopter world.

Designing your own gas turbine would be expensive enough and the latest composite materials don't come cheap either - an old schoolmate has his own company that specialises in them.

I presume all the secrecy is because they don't have the patents approved yet.

However, if it is as good as you say and the price is right, I may well buy one:)

How much under 500Kw are they aiming for? The R66 with the RR300 puts out 167Kw continuous or 200Kw for 5 min take off and comes in at 91Kg so it will have to be a significant increase on that to meet the claims.

Are you sure RR would be so easily beaten?

Unless they're going hybrid I don't see what can be cutting edge. A couple of certified electric motors with a small battery and a cheap motor to charge it all. Once the battery technology catches up you can swap the motor out for a battery pack and go all electric. Obviously there are tradeoffs to be made weight Vs payload but a modern electric motor can generate 2-300hp for a 20kg weight so it's entirely plausible.

Crab, engine bits are way way cheaper to make than you think. My next door neighbour used to make compressor wheels for RR 250, they cost about the same as a good tyre for my Landrover discovery !!!! RR used to put them out at over 10 times that amount

Another helicopter start up was in Devon till it moved a couple of times

Pegasus Helicopter Group PLC ::(

This helicopter has actually been registered with the CAA....

G-DRJH Hill Helicopters HX50 to Dynamiq Engineering Ltd on 1.10.19
Only information given is it will have 1 engine with a MTOW of 1650kg

I have had an email from the owner and he has the right not to disclose any information at this time and maybe we should all respect that. Wait and see what is produced and then I am sure a huge debate will follow on here......

Hughes500 - I expect your neighbour didn't have to recoup the R and D costs for those compressor wheels, unlike RR. If Hill helicopters are actually designing and building an sub 500Kw gas turbine, that is where the costs will be, not just milling the components.

Crab
ER what R and D costs ? The US mil paid for all that in the 1960's The RR 300 and 500 engines are basically a c20B. Guess what a C20 B is a derivative of a C18 the original engine for the 206 and 500. Which came from the T63 the engine designed to go in the OH 6 and OH 58. Actually I am wrong not paid for by the US mil but the US taxpayer

Well there's not much point in disputing it either way since there's scant verifiable information either way. If it does indeed incorporate a bunch of novel and unseen technology, I am curious how the developer has integrated the research, testing, and certification costs into their projected MSRP... that is not purely a jab at them as there may be carryover applications to different industries which can mitigate that fraction.

Have it your way Hughes - I hope you are not disappointed if the mock-up fails to become a viable reality - when it first flys then maybe there will be something to get excited about.

Will they have it ready in time for Santa to use for his Christmas deliveries?

Crab you are the most negative person on this forum !
What traffic ,remember I said for private use. Shortly flying schools will be allowed to train people on Permit to fly machines
I really do hope it comes to fruition, it is probably the first time some one has actually tried to make a helicopter that is more like a car in the sense of technology, space, performance, cost and reliability. I sense there is an ever increasing gap in the market which is not being filled by anyone in the private market. The only current machines out there harp back to the 1960's with their technology.
R66 an aluminium helicopter with its design going back to the 70's for the airframe and 60's for the engine
505 mostly 1960's tech
500 as above
480 as above
Cabri, as above in terms of an outdated engine but getting there with the airframe
EC120 well an overweight expensive machine

I do not have the capacity to do the numbers but I have been thinking for a while that a helicopter with an electric transmission may well be a viable option real soon now. The next question is, does it look like a helicopter or a say four (or more) fan drone?

If the latter, no more Jesus nut, no more single points of failure (close anyway).

Option to consider a smaller than otherwise cruise engine with battery boost for take off, landing and emergency use.

Or maybe it's too soon?

Why, just because I don't act as an echo chamber for your enthusiastic optimism? Seems a bit harsh when nothing you have said has been backed up by evidence. Cynical maybe but negative?

When I worked at Redhill, over 20 years ago now, there was a small hanger next door, belonging to Cierva. They were working on a twin piston Helicopter called the Grasshopper, it had contra rotating main rotors, and large tail booms with no tail rotor.
I saw it flying once, and it looked very smooth. I assume they ran out of money, like a lot of projects, but I believe it did actually fly at Farnborough.

Cierva Grasshopper last flew sometime in the early 70s I think. I recall seeing three separate airframes in a hangar/shed just west of Bristow's main hangar when I visited in early 1978, pretty sure the project was moribund by then.

Crab

I am just not allowed to say anything sorry, what I do know is really exciting. I really hope it is a goer, it would seem so. Whats more it is British which would be really nice

On the failure mode front, an electric quadcopter type design eliminates some but creates new ones. The potential for asymmetric lift conditions and very low inertia (or even inherently self-slowing if the motors are not clutched) are a few that come to mind immediately. That isn't to say they cannot be overcome and the extreme reliability and simplicity of a well-designed electric motor are huge benefits in that regard.

I would just like to say that while I have some doubts about this HX50 thing I do sincerely hope it lives up to the hype and is very successful.

They're already aiming higher than quad.

He looks like he is holding onto his balls with his left hand in case of a mishap, not a collective or similar. Male helicopter pilots don't get do do that.