German Cabri at Belgian Open Helicopter Championships 2013
 

Two more Cabris
 

Two more Cabri accidents in Germany, on February 1 and February 4 – D HAVC and D HAIG. Both look to have identical causes, spinning out of control in the hover. I suspect both will be put down to pilot error, but perhaps we're not teaching people enough about the differences between a tail rotor and a fenestron. The last 10 percent of pedal travel has a lot of punch with the fenestron, and the cure is to put in full opposite pedal, then sit and wait – and don't raise the collective if you can possibly avoid it because that will increase torque. Easy to say, not so easy to do in extremis... the Gazelle and the EC120 had the same problem.

.

Hello chalmondleigh,

How did the G2 (and his crew;)) managed ?

.

a carburetor - or you shhheeting me???
 

why the hell did they not add fuel injection to the donk :{ :{ :{

that's just plain stupid, not to add that important piece of kit :=

but, would Love to fly her :ok:

The G2 has got automatic carburator heat. The system works very well and reliable.

Marcus

?????????????????????????????
 

Hey Marcus

It may be working fine, but applying injection would have eliminated the need for a carb-heat & improved performance, dumb decision not too :ooh:

Very keen to fly her :p

Happy Landings :ok:

It can be argued that in a training helicopter the need to remember Carb Heat and apply it is a good habit to ingrain.
One reason why I liked the 22beta, rather than the beta2 with it's automatic Carb heat system.
I also liked being trained in non use of governor, and full down autos in nil wind, but I guess I am too old fashioned.
Predict VF will feel the need now for a somewhat predictable crapinsonflimsicopter rant!

G2 the new generation trainer
 

Morning rjtjrt

The Guimbal team have created such an awesome MODERN (reliable) machine, yet forgot to fuel inject her......that's all I'm saying :8 Otherwise WoW ;)

As for the flimsy - Crapinson.......that's another story :yuk:

the G2 is built ROBUST :} the Robi - (sadly) NOT :eek:

Happy Landings - always :ok:

Cabri G2 operators' feedback
 

.

From Rotor & Wing February 2014 :

"Cabri Operators Give Guimbal High Grades  :
Rotor & Wing spoke to a number of Cabri users to gather their feedback and compile an Operator’s Report about the French-built training helicopter."

Link : Rotor & Wing Magazine :: Cabri Operators Give Guimbal High Grades??


Most parts of the article :


Positive :

" Since the first Guimbal Cabri G2 was delivered in 2008, the new piston single has progressively gathered acceptance among pilot training organizations. It seems the two-seater has achieved its main goal – providing a modern platform for ab initio helicopter training.

The three-blade main rotor garnered great praises from all interviewed instructors. “It is a big benefit when you fly in mountainous areas, as you no longer have to fear mast bumping,” said Christian Jacquot, head of training with Heli-Challenge.

Therefore, it improves maneuverability, he added, and there is no more risk of inadvertent mast bumping in turbulence. Michael Gille, head of training with Swiss Helicopter, concurred, reminding that two-blade rotors are “a bit infamous in Switzerland.”

Jan Krcil, an instructor with Lion Helicopters, sees autorotation training as much safer due to the high inertia of the rotor. Jacquot agrees – “you can start an autorotation with a speed as low as 35 knots, which is much lower than the Robinson R22’s 60 knots minimum speed for autorotation,” he stressed.

Tim Broder, manager of international flight training with Heli Aviation, added that the autorotation can be performed in a wide range of rpm – wider than the allowed range of rpm on the R22.

“And you can safely do it to the ground,” added Northern Helicopters CEO Mikael Randhem. Gille was impressed to see a Guimbal test pilot coming to one of Swiss Helicopter’s bases and showing how to make the most of the Cabri’s capability in autorotation.

Compared to the R22, it is more robust and forgiving in case of hard landing, according to Sarah Bowen, Helicentre Aviation’s chief flying instructor. Jacquot also expressed satisfaction with the energy-absorbing seats. “If something happens, you’ll walk away"

What about costs? A Cabri G2, in its baseline version, sells for €293,000 ($395,000). By contrast, a Robinson R22 sells for $276,000. But an R22 overhaul costs twice that of a Cabri, according to Guimbal.

Those operators having both a R22 and a Cabri in their fleet mentioned no significant difference in operating costs before the 2,200-hour overhaul. “After that, the Cabri gets cheaper,”


Overall, the Cabri spends little time in maintenance, Krcil said. As an example, he referred to the 50-hour check, which just takes three hours.

All interviewed operators said parts availability is now good or very good.

One feature of Helicopteres Guimbal seems to be the personal relationship customers get. “We are in touch with a person in particular rather than with a department,” Gille said. Another operator said it is relatively easy to talk to Bruno Guimbal about a specific issue.


Negative :


Northern Helicopters is rather concerned by rising parts prices.

Maybe the most serious criticism against the Cabri, as expressed by Jacquot, was on vibration at high speed. Fortunately, the situation has recently improved, he admitted, thanks to a counter-vibration system based on bobweights that are tuned to vibrate in antiphase.

Guimbal acknowledged the problem and pointed out that users were complaining about the variability of the vibration they were feeling at a given speed. “It involves very low levels of energy so a small payload change can translate into a large change in vibration,” he explained.

As he emphasized, the passive counter-vibration system is very common in the helicopter industry – he mentioned the Eurocopter Super Puma and the Bell 407, among others.

On the Cabri, it adds 2.2 lbs of weight but divides the vibration level by 10 at 100 knots, he said. “It delivers impeccable performance up to 120 knots,” Guimbal added. Almost all in-service Cabris have been fitted with the system and it is now production standard."

.

I'll go out on a limb here and guess that Bruno Guimbal and his design team carefully weighed the mission requirements against the pros and cons of carburetion and fuel injection.

I somehow doubt that the decision was either "dumb" or ill-considered. Just because a pilot disagrees with a design consideration doesn't make the configuration "stupid."

Likewise, I wonder if the gushing over the reliability and robustness of a design is valid without understanding the total flight hours vs. other designs, and without having seen one up close.

I concur with the others, saying that a carburated engine in an post year 2000 design simply is an inexcusable mistake. :=

I trained on an S-300C w/o governor (there exists a fine governor option but it's very expensive, and thanks to the thottle's pitch coupling not really necessary).
Its pneumatic/hydraulic FI system is virutally fool prove, icing immune, ambient pressure compensated and does not depend on electricity either.

I simply refuse to fiddle with mixture and/or carb heating for the same reasons I do not want to adjust the ignition advance :8 on my motorcycle, or pull some timing advance lever on my diesel van for cold starting anymore. That is engineering stone age (my dad could set ignition adv. on his MC, back in 1948), especially as

• the very engine is available as a fuel injected version, a proven design for half a century now:D AND

• there had been accidents, including fatal ones, in carb heated Robbies due to mishandling of the heating.:yuk:

IIRC even someone trying to demostrate the G2's resiliance to low G flying (it has no tethering rotor head, duh) managed to kill the engine mid filght, allegedly because the carb's float bowl doesn't like low G either. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

With fuel injection it would have a much better track record, at least two incidents less: http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/459...ml#post6619617


Until they upgrade it to FI, it is a beautiful, sturdy, modern, but stupid package. YMMV

Peter

PS: as piston engine for a modern design I'd have chosen the turbo charged, fuel injected HIO-360-E1BD (225HP!) of the 280FX, proven and well known.

.

Hello Peter,

Thanks for all the technical advises.

You've chosen the piston engine for a modern design, which was the most difficult part of the job, now you've just have to put some stuff around and certifying the whole thing and that's it, you're now the manufacturer of the best training helicopter !

I'm not at all a specialist but may I just point out that you're referring to an aircraft (280FX) that is a very good helicopter but … that is not in the same category than the G2 for several reasons.

For example, the G2 maximum gross weight is 700 kgs and the 280FX around 1200 kgs that is about 70 % more (I'm sure you understand the importance of weight in an aircraft).

The G2 is a two seater and the 280FX a three seater.

And about the engine as you seem to be a specialist in this field, the engine of the G2 delivers 145 HP and the engine of the 280FX delivers 225 HP. By the way, the right model of the 280FX engine is the HIO 360-F1AD.


So please, when you're insulting people (I don't count myself amoung them), do it with intelligence and real arguments, ( I know that it's not as simple as producing an helicopter) but it's so much rewarding.

.

Is that "had" the same problem, or "have"?

If the former, how was it resolved?

Would it not be possible to introduce some mechanical linkage to amplify the initial pedal input and reduce the later pedal input so that the pedal input was more linear and closer to that of a standard tail rotor? (I'm genuinely interested - not trying to criticise Guimbol or Eurocopter).

Matthew

Quote:

---

You've chosen the piston engine for a modern design, which was the most difficult part of the job, now you've just have to put some stuff around and certifying the whole thing and that's it, you're now the manufacturer of the best training helicopter !

---

Please point out where I insinuated that. :hmm:

Personally I'd assume the engine - when reserving a not to limiting amount of space in one's design - is the "easiest" part to change, see AS350 SD1/2 "upgrades". Which makes it as incomprehensible as I tried to point out, why on earth they did not use a FI engine in the first place.

I just meant to point out the strongest available Lycomming "360" fuel injected piston engine, insinuating that there is plenty power availabe. I could have pointed to the "mere" 190hp Lycomming of thousands of S-300C/Hu-269 training helis, or the even weaker one in the 300CBi, if one wants to trade hot and high capability for efficiency.

My point was that they very easily could have chosen a fuel injected engine instead of that carbed turd.

It was never my intention to insult someone := (Dad taught me that people who start insulting others or begin to raise their voice typically lack real arguments, but are unable to admit to that)

I merely pointed out how alien their choice of powerplant was in my view, for such an otherwise modern and cool heli.
btw. your cynism was well noted, as was the lack of explanation from your side why their choice of engine were not as bad as I had stipulated.

Maybe you'd want to try to counter my statement w/o cynism? ;)

No joking here, I'm eager to learn, why they did that. Is the carb version with all the heating stuff maybe still cheaper than the FI one? :confused:

I mean, seriously, - given the ficticious chance - how many people would WANT to swap their FI piston engine with a carburated one?
Honestly, would you do that, if you'd own a piston heli?

Peter, as usual genuinly interested

Reely

One of the reasons I didn't buy 2 of them to replace my 3 x 300C's was the carb. Even Schweizer got rid of carbs in the 1970's went back to them with the CB for a couple of years before binning them for FI with the cbi !!!!!!!

.
Hello H500,

Happy to see you again on this topic !

do you remember this post from you, one year ago, talking to me and starting by " I would love to buy 2 of the machines" : http://www.pprune.org/7522796-post316.html (page 16 of the topic), the reasons you gave at that time for not buying them was the not nice distributor and the waranty not good enough, nothing in all your posts (quite a lot in this topic) about the engine.

I must say that you're really not someone easy to understand.

Edit : just before the post I'm talking about, there is this one http://www.pprune.org/7521310-post314.html where you start by : "Well only problem I can see with the G2 ( i was about to replace a S300C with one) is the warranty or rather lack of warranty"

.

.

Peter,

So I'm verry sorry about my comment, I thought that "stupid" (lacking intelligence) was an insult ...

Well, is the very good feedback given by the operators and the order book fill still next year, a good explanation to say that their choice of engine was not as bad as you had stipulated ?

The "stupid" (as you say) Bruno Guimbal gives two reasons for that choice, weight and cost.


You mean, if I have to choose between a brand new G2 and a brand new H300 ?
Well, both of them are good aircraft but even without a FI engine I go for the G2, in fact I haven't the choice, hard to find a new H300.

.

Before the argument descends into something requiring post culling, if somebody wants a Cabri with fuel injection, feel free to put together an STC and get your money back selling it to H500 and others.



Oh and as for the insinuation that the gazelle and the g2 have common aerodynamic flaws, Bunkum!:=

HH

Warranty was the major problem and if you recall so was insurance, which at the time it was more expensive to insure than one of my 500's on loadlfting ! The Feneston wasn't a problem as I have about a 1000 hours on a 341/342.
However would still buy one if warranty was sorted, insurance is now more reasonable although recent crashes may not be helping !