BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Sep 2020, 00:33

Nice looking, for sure!

https://www.hillhelicopters.com/

Murray

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Sep 2020, 00:34

[youtube]https://youtu.be/T8PidxZqVg0[/youtube]

Murray

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Sep 2020, 01:03

I don't know nuthin' bout no choppers, but that just doesn't look ground breaking to me. Looks like a tweaked eurocopter. Steep hill for that to climb to break into that market, IMHO. But I bet the inventors can sell some deposits and make some coin.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Sep 2020, 07:17

For what they’ve shown, which is artist renderings of the exterior, it looks cool. I have trouble reconciling the words that he’s using to describe it against the idea of it being a GA helicopter. Unless GA includes people with millions to spare it’s just a very sleek looking single engine helicopter.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Sep 2020, 13:38

Why does one need a sleek helicopter for anyway? You physically cannot go any faster than any other single rotor aircraft. I guess sex appeal when you are trying to impress the ladies. :scratch:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Sep 2020, 16:15

They are advertising a 140 knot cruise airspeed:

[youtube]https://youtu.be/px9-k_IyxtU[/youtube]

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Sep 2020, 18:18

Username Protected wrote:

Why does one need a sleek helicopter for anyway? You physically cannot go any faster than any other single rotor aircraft. I guess sex appeal when you are trying to impress the ladies. :scratch:

Of course looks matter, are you kidding? All things being equal why wouldn't you want something that looked better?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Sep 2020, 22:09

Username Protected wrote:

Why does one need a sleek helicopter for anyway? You physically cannot go any faster than any other single rotor aircraft. I guess sex appeal when you are trying to impress the ladies. :scratch:

Questions like these are part of the reason GA stagnated for so long.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Sep 2020, 23:57

Username Protected wrote:

Why does one need a sleek helicopter for anyway? You physically cannot go any faster than any other single rotor aircraft. I guess sex appeal when you are trying to impress the ladies. :scratch:

Questions like these are part of the reason GA stagnated for so long.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Sep 2020, 03:59

Username Protected wrote:

So true. Why shouldn’t we always be striving for better?

It depends on your definition of "better". All too often people make things expensive to build and difficult to maintain in favor of aesthetics.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Sep 2020, 07:32

Username Protected wrote:

So true. Why shouldn’t we always be striving for better?

It depends on your definition of "better". All too often people make things expensive to build and difficult to maintain in favor of aesthetics.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Sep 2020, 08:29

The Jet Ranger came out in 1962. It looks almost as dated as a 1962 Caddy.

Attachment:

Cadillac.jpg

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Sep 2020, 10:01

Username Protected wrote:

GA helicopters are way to expensive to own and operate. I would rather have a more "capable", less expensive, practical helicopter that I could purchase and maintain for the same price as my M35 Bonanza than a new "sleek" design. That is why I own a Rotorway Exec 162F. I sacrifice the more capable requirement for more affordable.

Why can’t you have both? Does it cost more to make a good looking machine, or must we look ugly to prove that we’re being cost efficient?

Your exec is a great looking helicopter, did you pay too much?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Sep 2020, 10:12

Username Protected wrote:

GA helicopters are way to expensive to own and operate. I would rather have a more "capable", less expensive, practical helicopter that I could purchase and maintain for the same price as my M35 Bonanza than a new "sleek" design. That is why I own a Rotorway Exec 162F. I sacrifice the more capable requirement for more affordable.

Why can’t you have both? Does it cost more to make a good looking machine, or must we look ugly to prove that we’re being cost efficient?

Your exec is a great looking helicopter, did you pay too much?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Sep 2020, 11:26

I don't think there's much choice. When you're talking turbine helicopters, you're easily talking $1.5M. Rich people buys things for that price. Might as well make it look like something a rich person wants to own.

Even an R44 costs north of $350k. That's still a price range where only the affluent are shopping, but it looks like the first sketch was drawn by a toddler. I doubt they'd be very successful if there was any real competition in that market.

Hill Helicopters