A Convivial Aviation Discussion Forum for Aviators, Aviatrices and for those who think Flying Machines are Magic.
https://ops-normal.org/
Mountain to climb to bring HX50 to production - Flight GlobalTheGreenGoblin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 1:45 amthe HX50 programme then there is a lot of work and development effort to be done yet
Their proposed development timeline sounds totally infeasible to me.However, the details of the Innovate UK project state that “key innovations” will include a “modern turbine engine capable of running on a variety of fuel types, including biofuels”.
No details of the engine supplier have been revealed, however, leading to speculation of an in-house development.
Indeed, Dynamiq Engineering has some experience in this field: its website refers to the launch of a project covering “an advanced sub-500kW industrial gas turbine unit”.
Based on the performance specifications revealed by Hill Helicopters, the HX50 will compete against Bell’s 505 Jet Ranger X short-light-single, which features a MTOW of 1,669kg and a 680kg useful load. Empty weight is given as 989kg, compared with 850kg for the HX50.
The 505 is powered by a single Safran Helicopter Engines Arrius 2R engine which has a dry weight of 120kg, according to European Union Aviation Safety Agency documents.
Hill Helicopters says the HX50 will have a composite airframe and three-bladed rotor system, while images of the helicopter show other features including a shrouded tail rotor and retractable landing gear.
The company intends to flight test three prototypes concurrently beginning in the summer of 2022 and aims to accumulate 1,000 flight hours on each aircraft in about 12 months; deliveries are scheduled to start the following year.
The words CAA support and pushing sounds like a flight of fancy to me.It is a hugely ambitious timeline for a clean-sheet helicopter: Kopter has taken around a decade so far on its all-new single-engined SH09 and even Airbus Helicopters needed five years to bring its H160 medium-twin to market – two years longer than planned.
While declining to reveal details, the company says the certification route will be key to the compressed timeline and highly competitive pricing. Initial approval will be sought from the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
The support offered by both the CAA and Innovate UK in the post-Brexit environment are “pushing the helicopter to market rather than hindering it”, says the company.
Avstop.com article - misleading headline thoughThe helicopter was originally equipped with laminated glass windshields that complied with European bird-strike resistance standards. PHI replaced the windshields with lighter weight, aftermarket cast acrylic windshields that did not have any bird-strike resistance standards.
My cynicism grows based upon the manufacturing promises...FD2 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:01 amRe-the Hill machine, I hate to be cynical but what's the point? They claim it cruises at 140 kts. The AW109 Vno is 154. Range 'looks' good but guess it's achieved by having one very economical engine so what does the CAA (or is that EASA?) think about public transport at night on one donk? That may restrict it to private flights and/or day public transport? BTW, is the CAA gearing up for Independence Day?
Like C16 I am a bit suspicious and think it will, if it ever takes to the sky, be the airborne equivalent of the 'supercars' that are capable of 200 mph or so on overcrowded 70 mph roads and have luggage space for two toothbrushes and a spare nightie in the 'boot'
The route to market it one of numerous strategies adopted by Hill that appear to cut against the grain. For example, Dr Hill boasts that the company is “vertically integrated” in so much that it will bring the vast majority of manufacturing in house – whether that is for the fuselage, rotors, engine or transmission, or even smaller components such as bearings.
Or as he puts it: “We will take raw materials in through the back door and send a premium product out through the front.”
He sees Hill Helicopters as very much a “manufacturing company” rather than the recent trend among rotorcraft businesses to consider themselves “technology companies”.
The airframe idea I might be able to swallow but the notion of developing a fully fledged turbine from scratch sounds like pie in the sky to me...
IN-HOUSE DESIGN
Another critical system is the HX50’s FADEC-equipped 500shp (372kW) GT50 turboshaft engine – another in-house development. Dr Hill describes it as “absolutely crucial” to the programme: not being beholden to a third-party gives an aircraft manufacturer the freedom “design the aircraft it wants” where the “performance of the aircraft governs the engine design”, rather than vice-versa.
The powerplant is close to design freeze and the manufacture of various components is now under way. “I’m very pleased with where we are on the engine,” says Dr Hill. “I am very pleased with the engine design full-stop: it is very elegant, very simple.
“We have managed to avoid building complexity into the engine which is often the case.”