many of those that operate on a Robbie have little experience on anything else as reference.
Neither do those low time instructors who teach on a Cabri or the 300.
Give the 22 it's due, but as long as some of the fanatics continue to believe it is the best thing since sliced bread they will never be prepared to accept any criticism.
I don't think that there are many R22 fanatics out there. Most of us are aware of the shortcomings of Franks ships. The reaction in this forum is due to the constant bashing with rather low level humour when another Robinson crashed. It isn't funny anymore, if it ever was. The 300 fraction is probably even more fanatic, having totally forgotten the loss of live during early army basic training, when several crashed seemingly without any reason. And in this case it was a problem with the aircraft, that had to be fixed. And if the Cabri fans aren't fanatics, I don't know who is. That the Cabri is better than a R22 isn't a miracle. If it wasn't possible to design a way better product 30 years later, the human race would deserve to go back to the caves. I would have trained in the Cabri, if I had had the choice, but how would the R22 look, if it was designed today? Probably quite different and way better.
Sitting in a R22 or a 44 for a whole working day isn't fun. It hurts. So do the seats in a JetRanger after an hour.
The Cabri was targeted at those that intend flying larger aircraft with a conventional control layout, particularly airbus, providing fenestron experience.
Frankly, I find the "the conventional controls" argument rather lame. I never had any problems going even from the awkward controls position as an instructor on the R22 to anything else, including control wheels in "airplanes" (Quote from NZ: "Real airplanes have control sticks") and I do not know anybody who had. I believe, if you fly helicopters, you get a certain very fine control-feedback-feeling (happy for a better word), that is independent of the controls you handle. In my experience, airplane pilots, especially those flying planes with control wheels, are rather ham fisted in the beginning, but do adapt to a control stick without any problem.
The same discussion came up with the side controllers in the Corvalis and the Cirrus. It wasn't a problem.
In my experience, the brain does not care where the hand is, as long as the movement is more or less the same.
On the other hand, if Frank did not see the training market when he designed the R22, he wasn't seeing very far. Yes, during that time there where tons of ex army pilots. Not all of them wanted to continue flying. Not all of them would be able to buy a R22. And on what would his potential customers get their training? H300? Bell 47? No, if possible on the R22. I have a constantly nagging feeling, that Frank isn't telling us the whole story about his market idea. On the other hand, when he proposed his idea to his employer, they did not see a market either. But hindsight is 20/20.
The Cabri is one good training and personal helicopter, but Bruno Guimbal, being much younger than Frank, is standing on the shoulders of the other geniuses. The Cabri would not be as good as it is, weren't it for Frank Robinsons products (and the others, too, but Bruno's target is the R22 market, because the rest is just not worth it).
But there is one chance that things might change in the not too far future. The FAA certification process is being rewritten. It might be possible, that the certification of helicopters of the size of the R22 and the Cabri becomes much easier. Who knows, Robinson might be working on something even better.
Now back to the Cabri, which, we all can agree, is the better helicopter in probably every aspect, as is the Golf 7 compared to the Golf 1 (or the R22 A to the R22 Beta II).