look at the datasheet? They're on bunches of others, mostly older, too.
Not in my world. Feasibility is almost always controlled by how much of each I can have at the same time, so the geometric mean would be much less useful than knowing where the cliffs are.
Nobody has actually admitted to using h-parameters for actual design that I've heard of. I haven't, have you?
And the h_FE argument of John S.'s is ridiculous, because it's a large signal parameter, i.e. I_C/I_B, whereas h parameters are small signal, i.e. h_fe = dI_C/dI_B (or i_C/i_B, as it's usually written, but that's exactly the same thing).
And h parameters don't actually simplify anything, anyway. They were originally touted as a way to get round the measurement problems of y and z parameters, namely oscillation on the one hand and RC rolloff on the other.
But all they are is a way of organizing a whole two (2) linearized, frequency independent approximate equations for a transistor circuit that is far better described by hybrid-pi. The labour saving is trivial, far less than the effort required to calculate the stupid things in the first place.
Honestly, folks, is h_re really more useful than VAF? VAF and C_CB are actually a decent first cut at predicting low frequency reverse-transfer behaviour over a wide range of conditions, which h_re isn't.
H-parameters are textbook curiosities.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs