Errr, no... as initially he said the prototypes would be flying in 2023

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....8142c99bb9.png

We've got a good degree of confidence that the humble pie can remain securely in the freezer, awaiting preparation permissions :E

he has £50 million, so he will get something in the air at some point, that will ensure another £25 million

Well, that never was contested anyway. Mostly timeline, then pricing and we are not sure performance wise.

If he had said at the start that there would be problems along the way and progress would be determined by a number of external factors - would anyone have given him their money?

Probably yes. Whether that would be sufficient to continue with this project is unknown.

943 orders in 67 countries.



"The development facility is now on the critical path which means we have to consider our production continuity plan, that's what we're doing now, so our next step is essentially to take on a large rented space that will give us all of the room that we need to complete the development and then move seamlessly into production. There's plenty of these facilities available in our area, we're in negotiations with a number of facilities at the moment. We haven't yet decided on the exact site or size but this will be done before the event in December. We're getting on with this right now and we're just making sure that we can stick as closely as possible to our declared timeline, so really pleased with how this is coming along. The other thing that this does of course do is it means we can take as long as we need to to develop the HQ and it also means we can consider sites at airports which make the whole planning issue a lot easier as well."

From 2:50 into the latest update video there is discussion and some footage about the development of skids for the helicopter. In all CAD images I had seen before, it was a tricycle undercarriage. Is this a change? Is it an alternative option? I haven't followed the project closely so it may have been covered previously.

I notice there were lots of "errs" and "umms" when talking about CAA approval

This chap is developing a new helicopter in the UK, and he's making a pretty good fist of it. He's got lots of orders, really lots and lots, across the world.

This is excellent news for UK plc and for UK aviation.

There are going to be challenges, obvs..., all programmes have them. And yet we have the constant sniping from the usual suspects. Not many of you, but you're always 'having a go'. Why don't you offer applause, encouragement rather than 'he'll never do it, he's going to fail, did you hear him mumble a bit last time, etc...

I've worked with people like this, in Harry Potter they're called Dementors, suck all of the positivity out of the place.

Is it a Ham fist? :E

I would love to see the HX50 fly and get into proper production, with the specs promised, for the price stated, in the timelines stated, and be safe and reliable and easy to maintain.

I would also not like to see 900 disappointed buyers.

Thanks for the replies chaps, I knew you wouldn't disappoint...

Kemble,

You're correct in what you say about the HX50 - it’s superb that someone has got off their arse, found a finance model that works for the company and for prospective customers who know that there is an element of risk.
On the positive side the use of contractors for a lot of experience probably gives the project a faster route to market as far as product development is concerned although it’s bound to get bogged down during the paperwork stage which has 2 roles - ensuring safety and covering the arse of the people giving the permission for the new product to fly. (That’s how it works in the industry I’m in - I assume it’s little different in avation)

The Marenco / Kopter AW09 first flew in October 2014 - correct me if I’m wrong but none have been delivered - how many years before had the project started? - time scales for the HX50 are somewhat shorter so it’s bound to be fertile ground for those that understand the scale of work to be completed.

I don’t believe that people want Dr Hill to fail - these people are just longer in the tooth and have seen recalls / problems etc throughout their careers and expect there to be numerous hurdles along the way and are pointing it out.

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

I think what gets people suspicious is there is way too much talk about the trim on the seats and the door handles and the landing lights etc, and not enough talk/updates about when the engine will be running and when the thing will fly.

The seemingly unorthodox sequence of development, at least as portrayed in videos, also has my attention. There are several fuselage shells already built, each with refinements to fit-up etc but there is no 'rough' flying example with a rudimentary fitout to test the concept as a whole. Perhaps I am just old fashioned in how I expect design development to occur? Development these days must be much more reliant on computed based 3D models where many components are under simultaneous development whether door trims, landing lights or gas turbines and rotor systems!

In the video linked at post #1207 Jason Hill comments on how he is happy with the fenestron performance but what is this based on? CFD computations? Wind tunnel testing? A large scale flying RC model which I haven't seen in any of the videos so far?

Haven't seen any reply from those of you following HX50 more closely about whether it has changed from tricycle to skid undercarriage but I notice in the video there is a large poster in the background at around 5:55 showing the look with skids. So once again, is there a CFD or physical model that is being used to assess the change in aerodynamic characteristics as a result of the different undercarriage configuration?

I don't have the spare cash to invest in HX50, or even a gyrocopter. But I am sure those who are investing have gained their wealth by taking some financial risks so a deposit with Hill wouldn't have them too worried.

I met a person who has placed a deposit one. They are quite successful in business and has had a number of companies/ventures over the years, and they are absolutely convinced that Hill will spell the end of Robinson helicopters. Make of that what you will

Skid option for HX50
 

Search on internet indicates the skids are an option sought by some customers:

https://verticalmag.com/press-releas...new-hx50-hc50/

Desk top display models already available for both versions.

I second that, I just cannot understand how much people are taking for granted,."that you just put it together".

blind faith, that must be nice to have.

The H130 (EC130) used to have a bad case of dutch roll (phugoid oscilation) because of the skids, that is when they added the fin like structure on the rear cross beam. CFD cannot predict averything.


I was just reviewing the Cabri manufacturing Video, so many subcontractor with expertise of their own

• Manoir Aerospace (forging)
• Lorey (CNC)
• Stelia composites (fuselage)
• Efitam (metal works)
• another company for the software... that I forgot the name
• probably another company for the harnesses

Makes so much better sense to me, "design and integrate"

But the Cabri does cost north of $400k for a 2-seater that needs cool coastal conditions to actually perform.
Hill has to do everything himself to make the price point, he boxed himself in with that philosophy.
The world needs disruptors, and fingers crossed Hill is one of them.
But disruption does not happen overnight, plenty fail and some are outright charlatans, because being a founding investor or early adopter is appealing.

Skepticism is a good thing. For every person who backs the right horse and comes out ahead, there are many more who come up short.