Guimbal Cabri G2
nahh, I think, flying should be fun.
The advantages of a helicopter is its instability, which makes it easy to turn, climb, decent.
in a Robbo you have to observe strong limitations and have a low inertia rotor system, so the funfactor is largely reduced, compared i.e. with a Cabri.
Even a JetBanger with two blades can be flown around with much more fun than a Robbie.
Before I would fly a Robbie, I ´d rather get a fixed wing rating.......
The advantages of a helicopter is its instability, which makes it easy to turn, climb, decent.
in a Robbo you have to observe strong limitations and have a low inertia rotor system, so the funfactor is largely reduced, compared i.e. with a Cabri.
Even a JetBanger with two blades can be flown around with much more fun than a Robbie.
Before I would fly a Robbie, I ´d rather get a fixed wing rating.......
what a ridiculous cyclic 
Butters you remind me of a certain gentlemen, a rally driver ( brother of one who killed himself in a 350 ) that turned round and said an MD 500 was crap having broken 21 tt straps in its head and he would buy an R44 as it was more aerobatic 
I thought so, Flying Bull.
I can’t see somebody who owns their private helicopter, in particular not somebody who is so privileged to be able to afford a top of the range turbine machine, hold, let alone utter such condescending remarks about the choices and compromises the lower classes have to make.
With regards to your “opinion”, in essence all you are saying is that a EUR 4m machine should do one or the other thing better than a EUR 400k machine. Who would argue with that? But not very original neither.
I can’t see somebody who owns their private helicopter, in particular not somebody who is so privileged to be able to afford a top of the range turbine machine, hold, let alone utter such condescending remarks about the choices and compromises the lower classes have to make.
With regards to your “opinion”, in essence all you are saying is that a EUR 4m machine should do one or the other thing better than a EUR 400k machine. Who would argue with that? But not very original neither.
Last edited by Hot and Hi; 5th Jul 2018 at 19:42. Reason: Euro sign didn’t print the first time round
I thought so, Flying Bull.
I can’t see somebody who owns their private helicopter, in particular not somebody who is so privileged to be able to afford a top of the range turbine machine, hold, let alone utter such condescending remarks about the choices and compromises the lower classes have to make.
With regards to your “opinion”, in essence all you are saying is that a €4m machine should do one or the other thing better than a €400k machine. Who would argue with that? But not very original neither.
I can’t see somebody who owns their private helicopter, in particular not somebody who is so privileged to be able to afford a top of the range turbine machine, hold, let alone utter such condescending remarks about the choices and compromises the lower classes have to make.
With regards to your “opinion”, in essence all you are saying is that a €4m machine should do one or the other thing better than a €400k machine. Who would argue with that? But not very original neither.
The question was Cabri or R22 for further training.
And I would go for the Cabri cause it gives you more fun, due to a greater movement envelope available, giving you more reserves in turbulent condotions or when you need to avoid a bird/ other aircraft seen late i.e.
Evenso I haven‘t flown a Cabri yet, I‘m following its development for quite a while, actually from before cerification - and I would jump into a Cabri without hesitation. But wouldn‘t do a ride in an R22, even when free.
Is the "fun factor" to be able to do "crazy things" relevant during ab initio?
I learnt to fly helicopter in an Enstrom 280. I took that decision because during a trial lesson the Enstrom instructor demonstrated an autorotation to the ground and rammed it onto the tarmac, no issue. The R22 trial lesson instructor categorically refused to demonstrate autos to the ground.
Today I know that what I observed were mainly differences between the instructors, but at the time I concluded that the Enstrom was the more robust ship, more forgiving to the mistakes I as a student was likely to make, and autorotates in a more docile way (which all of it is equally true anyway). With hindsight, I was also very happy with the instructor decision that unconsciously I made at the same time - only to say that when you learn, choosing your instructor is more important than choosing your ship.
I did about 200 HRS on the Enstrom, and then upgraded to an R44, because the R44 was faster (more fun), had more power (more fun), had more reach (more fun), could take more pax (more fun), alternatively more luggage or ferry cans (more fun) and had aircon (more fun). Although I never had any problems with the Enstrom I still believed that the R44 would be more reliable (and I have not been let down once by all the R44's I had).
What is relevant to the discussion here (the added safety or fun factor of a three-balled rotor head) didn't play any role during the initial few hundred rotor wing hours. Now, over 10 years later, I watch with awe the aerobatics a Dennis Kenyon can perform in the Enstrom 280. However, during the first few hundred hours I had no desire to go there. While you may say that the Enstrom would be safer in significant turbulence, I can tell you from own experience that the Enstrom scares the living hell out of a low timer under turbulent conditions and you will equally reduce speed and try to get into calmer air ASAP. Main reason because as a pilot you fight the unassisted controls, the collective - even if correctly rigged for normal flight - pulls down on you with such force in up/downdrafts that after 30 min I was completely exhausted.
The hydraulics assisted R44 on the other hand is a breeze to fly, effortless even under turbulent conditions, but might give the inexperienced pilot a false sense of security.
Today I know that what I observed were mainly differences between the instructors, but at the time I concluded that the Enstrom was the more robust ship, more forgiving to the mistakes I as a student was likely to make, and autorotates in a more docile way (which all of it is equally true anyway). With hindsight, I was also very happy with the instructor decision that unconsciously I made at the same time - only to say that when you learn, choosing your instructor is more important than choosing your ship.
I did about 200 HRS on the Enstrom, and then upgraded to an R44, because the R44 was faster (more fun), had more power (more fun), had more reach (more fun), could take more pax (more fun), alternatively more luggage or ferry cans (more fun) and had aircon (more fun). Although I never had any problems with the Enstrom I still believed that the R44 would be more reliable (and I have not been let down once by all the R44's I had).
What is relevant to the discussion here (the added safety or fun factor of a three-balled rotor head) didn't play any role during the initial few hundred rotor wing hours. Now, over 10 years later, I watch with awe the aerobatics a Dennis Kenyon can perform in the Enstrom 280. However, during the first few hundred hours I had no desire to go there. While you may say that the Enstrom would be safer in significant turbulence, I can tell you from own experience that the Enstrom scares the living hell out of a low timer under turbulent conditions and you will equally reduce speed and try to get into calmer air ASAP. Main reason because as a pilot you fight the unassisted controls, the collective - even if correctly rigged for normal flight - pulls down on you with such force in up/downdrafts that after 30 min I was completely exhausted.
The hydraulics assisted R44 on the other hand is a breeze to fly, effortless even under turbulent conditions, but might give the inexperienced pilot a false sense of security.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Here.
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That’s a very interesting point about the instructor.
I did read a post from someone saying that your instructor should have at least 1000 hours on type before really being considered a competent instructor. What are other’s thoughts on this?
I did read a post from someone saying that your instructor should have at least 1000 hours on type before really being considered a competent instructor. What are other’s thoughts on this?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I would go for the Cabri cause it gives you more fun, due to a greater movement envelope available, giving you more reserves in turbulent condotions or when you need to avoid a bird/ other aircraft seen late i.e.
Evenso I haven‘t flown a Cabri yet, I‘m following its development for quite a while, actually from before cerification - and I would jump into a Cabri without hesitation. But wouldn‘t do a ride in an R22, even when free.
Then you'll never know which one is more "fun" from personal experience, will you? Having flown the 22, 44 and G2, my (very limited) experience is that the 22 is the most "fun", with the 44 a very, very close second because the hydraulics and extra power are a worthy trade-off to the sheer nimbleness of the 22. The only thing you can't do with either are low-G maneuvers, i.e. pushovers, which, while arguably fun in the G2, is the only thing the G2 does better in the "fun" department. Most notably, the Teflon tape used in the G2 control system vs. the bearings used in the Robinson control system gives the Robinsons a much more positive, lighter and precise control feel. To be fair, that makes the G2 easier to fly, but not as "fun".
Just recently I had the good fortune to fly with a very experienced Robinson instructor (>10,000 hours in Robinsons). I asked to do something "fun" in between things that were "hard" and we found a nice place for him to demo and me to learn about agricultural type turns for spraying operations, which he also has quite a bit of experience in. I even got to try some myself. Quite fun! Not ready to go out and spray fields or screw around with this sort of thing by myself, though
Most important: this speaks to the "who cares about fun in the first few hundred hours" point Hot and Hi made. This should not be a factor in choosing your training machine. But the fact is the Robinson helicopters are quite capable of having safe, enjoyable "fun" while remaining inside their allowable flight envelope.
Just recently I had the good fortune to fly with a very experienced Robinson instructor (>10,000 hours in Robinsons). I asked to do something "fun" in between things that were "hard" and we found a nice place for him to demo and me to learn about agricultural type turns for spraying operations, which he also has quite a bit of experience in. I even got to try some myself. Quite fun! Not ready to go out and spray fields or screw around with this sort of thing by myself, though
Most important: this speaks to the "who cares about fun in the first few hundred hours" point Hot and Hi made. This should not be a factor in choosing your training machine. But the fact is the Robinson helicopters are quite capable of having safe, enjoyable "fun" while remaining inside their allowable flight envelope.Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Here.
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking of fun........a lot of people say to me that it must be fun flying a Helicopter, well I don’t know if it’s just me but I wouldn’t say learning to fly and going through all of the excercises has been fun.
At £456 per hour I could think of more things to do that would be more fun but that’s probably because flying isn’t the easiest thing to master in the world.
At £456 per hour I could think of more things to do that would be more fun but that’s probably because flying isn’t the easiest thing to master in the world.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I learnt to fly helicopter in an Enstrom 280. I took that decision because during a trial lesson the Enstrom instructor demonstrated an autorotation to the ground and rammed it onto the tarmac, no issue. The R22 trial lesson instructor categorically refused to demonstrate autos to the ground.
Which brings me to my other experience in this regard. On my second auto ever in a G2, while entering the flare the instructor said "Land it". I was thrilled and horrified for a second but flew gamely on, only to wind up flabbergasted at what a non-event it was. Hover auto's in an R22 were more difficult. But the the critical take-away from this is not what you might immediately think. I suspect a lot of people might quickly say, "Damn, I should definitely choose the G2 to train in." But if your plan is to own, fly or work in Robinsons, of what value are those easy-peasy G2 full-downs? Damn near zero. I.e. train in what you plan to own, fly or work in. If that's Robinsons, use Robinsons. If that is Airbus/Eurocopter products with a fenestron, then use a G2. If it's a Bell or MD or whatever with a regular tail rotor, a Schweizer, probably.
Of course it's still nearly a moot point in the US, where almost every civilian realistically only has access to Robinsons for training.
Reluctantly following your guys' lead down the off-topic detour...
Why are you still doing it then? 
Can't think of a single good reason to keep on flying if you're not totally hooked by now.
Loads of time and money wasted already on "want to finish what I started" in case that is your motivation.
You do realize they are 100% original, unmodified BO105?
Talking of fun........a lot of people say to me that it must be fun flying a Helicopter, well I don’t know if it’s just me but I wouldn’t say learning to fly and going through all of the excercises has been fun.
At £456 per hour I could think of more things to do that would be more fun but that’s probably because flying isn’t the easiest thing to master in the world.
At £456 per hour I could think of more things to do that would be more fun but that’s probably because flying isn’t the easiest thing to master in the world.
Can't think of a single good reason to keep on flying if you're not totally hooked by now.Loads of time and money wasted already on "want to finish what I started" in case that is your motivation.
You do realize they are 100% original, unmodified BO105?
Well,I haven't caught up with this thread recently but reading recent comments reminds me....I did my ppl on an Enstrom at Booker with one Tony Clarke who demonstrated an auto over a corn field,except the engine actually stopped before he could initiate a recovery. I swear he put it down in the corn so perfectly thst the wheat ears stuck up through the cowling grills undamsged ans unaffected...I also witnessed Rainer Falke flying the Bo105 in the 1976 World freestyle event and can vouch thst it was a standard a/c. Even more recently,in fact two weeks ago I flew with RedBull Blacky Swartz in their Bo105 doing loops,barrel rolls and split S turns ...now I can die happy!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Here.
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts