Spinner Less

[DOC.400]

Can a Robin DR400/180 be flown without a spinner? -getting conflicting advice.

DOC

[ferrydude]

Look at the equipment list and see whether it is optional or required equipment. Some aircraft require the spinner for cooling, others are only ornamental

[Monocock]

The main problem you will face is a serious drop in the cooling effect that the spinner provides.

I stand to be corrected however......:cool:

Edited to say.....Oops, beaten to it by ferrydude....

[smarthawke]

DOC

Fear not the spinner has far more to do with the look of speed than any real benefit to the ingestion of cooling air.

The air around the base of a prop rotating at 2500rpm or so is to say the least pretty disturbed and won't be much helped into the cooling intakes by the spinner.

Take a look at the older machines (Austers, Cessna 120 etc) - no spinner or a very small one at best.

Trust what the engineers tell you - they just might be telling you the truth......

[A and C]

Having watched the DR400 glider tugs at a number of UK sites flying year in year out at low speed and high power with no problems I hardly see this as a problem for a touring aircraft at 60- 75% power and much higher airspeed !.

Sorry guys it's time to trust the greasy working class guys in the hangar !!!!.

[146fixer]

DOC,
Have a look at the type cert.If it says you dont need a spinner then you can fly with out one.If it says it has to have one and you dont fly with it on then your C of A is invalid and you no what that mean.

[TonyR]

I think you will find the CAA will want it fitted, but it wont make much difference to the cooling.

Just wondering if your hanger is too small or why do you ask?

[Wide-Body]

Hi Doc.400

Was that your Robin in the Black Hanger, negative spinner

Wide

[DOC.400]

Affirm!

Bl**ding French -can't even get confirmation they HAVE a spinner in stock, let alone can send one over.... :(

DOC

[A and C]

The engineering company looking after this aircraft have told the owners that the aircraft CAN be flown without the spinner.

They only have to look out of the window to see a number of glider tugs flying all day without spinners to see that no harm will come to the aircraft !.

Why this debate has come this far I cant understand the owners have paid for professional advice and now they seem to want to check that out on an public forum inhabited by people of unknown qualification to comment.

As for the link to the maintenance company above if you think that these people are good and you have no financial conection to them all well and good but if you are connected then this link breaks the pprune rules on advertising and should be deleted.

[whatunion]

you asked

Can a Robin DR400/180 be flown without a spinner?

yes it can

can it be legally flown without a spinner is another question.

phone caa (airwothiness) and ask, if nes get a faxed one off approval to fly it somwhere where you can get one!

[A and C]

Oh Dear !.

There is nothing like aviation to rule out common sence and to prouduce tons of paperwork.

So I shall say it one more time slowly.

Most of the Robin glider tugs in the UK do not have spinners fitted.


Whatunion you seem to have a vice like grip on the regulations but do you have the same grip on common sence and the normal practices when flying this type of aircraft ?

[DOC.400]

"Most of the Robin glider tugs in the UK do not have spinners fitted."

Why??

DOC

[A and C]

Most of them have a hoffman four blade prop and dont seem to need the spinner , IAS is the critcal thing for cooling as you will find out if you go south for the summer and find the temp up at +43C.

[TonyR]

A & C, Your attitude sucks.

If the aircraft requires a spinner legally then it should not be flown without on unless it is an approved ferry flight to the engineer.

If the hoffman four blade prop is fitted without one then it must be approved without a spinner.

DOC 400, if you cant get an engineer to provide this information then DO ring the CAA, cause your insurance company soon will if you have any sort of incident.

Tony R

[smarthawke]

Have to agree in total with A&C on this debate - despite his appreciation of all things wood.

As for the rather aggressive rantings of ex-PFA BB renowned Mr TonyR: before one accuses someone of a sucking attitude, best you know whether or not they know what they are talking about.

As for MDareoservices - my how Glatton has changed since the last time I passed by! From a small, boggy farmstrip to a massive M3 housing '5 licensed engineers, 3 mechanics and a maintenance worker'? With that kind of staffing level it must be one of the largest and well-staffed M3s in the country. Must be very crowded there, unless they aren't actually all there at the same time? Ah, the joys of advertisements.

DOC400, if you are really that worried about flying sans spinner then wait for the engineers to get a reply from Robin as to the availability of a replacement spinner. It was unfortunate that the factory closed down for four days as they had done that weeks' hours but that is the way they Robin work.

In future, may I respectfully suggest, that if you have a problem with what you have been told by the engineers responsible for the maintenance of your aircraft then why not discusss it further with them rather than asking all and sundry on a public forum?

This thread seems to have gone down the route of being another anti-engineer one which I don't think was probably the object of the exercise originally.

[TonyR]

Sorry smarthawke, but I thought A and C was a bit hard on whatunion without a good reason.

If you thought my post was aggresive then it must be as you seem to know so much.

I think you will find that I am not knocking any engineer but if someone keeps on telling us that, "if its all right for glider tugs then its all right for me" then I think they are wrong, and in this business the regulations do not accommodate a "well the boys up the road do it this way" excuse.

By the way smarthawake I see your even a more recent addition to PPRuNe than me.

Also after 30 odd years as fixer and flyer I would not stick my neck out and give DOC400 the OK to fly.

Tony R

[DOC.400]

"Most of them have a hoffman four blade prop"

And I don't, as you know. Until I get a definitive answer from Robin, it stays on the ground....

DOC

"In future, may I respectfully suggest, that if you have a problem with what you have been told by the engineers responsible for the maintenance of your aircraft then why not discusss it further with them rather than asking all and sundry on a public forum?"

"This thread seems to have gone down the route of being another anti-engineer one which I don't think was probably the object of the exercise originally."

Absolutely, smarthawke -what started, I assumed, as a perfectly reasonable query, has been totally exploded out of complete proportion!!

You will note that I haven't mentioned any names and I HAVE discussed it with the engineers, at length, I assure you! I can also assure you that I have no axe to grind with them and If I did, they would be the first to know about it. My goodness, you seem to think I've accused them publicly of commiting a heinous crime!

As a naturally concerned pilot of some 13 years now, sharing a wonderful piece of machinery with seven others, I'm looking for a definitive answer -no ifs, no maybes, no buts.......particularly since we have a new engine with a mere twenty hours on it.

Lycoming have referred me to Robin, of whom I am still awaiting a definitive answer.

DOC

[PPRuNe Pop]

One VITAL point above all else is that the insurance company may have it in their files, for that particular type of aircraft, by interpolation, that it does require a spinner in all forms of flight. Then, of course, all others opinions are invalid. Best check.

[locksmith]

DOC 400, if you cant get an engineer to provide this information then DO ring the CAA, cause your insurance company soon will if you have any sort of incident.

er.. Mod, is that not what Tony R suggested only he gor F...ed off for saying that DOC.400 should check this out properly.

Ken

[A and C]

I am pleased that you think that my attitude sucks !. Perhaps if GA had a few more people like me about with this dreadfull attitude then a bit more common sence would be the order of the day and we would all not be chasing bits of expencive paper over what is a very small issue.

Right now we have an aircraft grounded over a bank holiday weekend waiting for a bit of paper when flying without this bit of kit has been "custom and practice" with glider tugs ( with or without hoffman ) for so long that no one seems to know where the DDA came from.

It is high time that this aviation "one rule fitts all" attitude was put in its box , the GA industry simply can't be administered in exactily the same way as if it is an airliner that you are dealing with before we all vannish under a mountain of paper that costs more than the aircraft !.

But if you all want to go down that road letts get it clear , the CAA CANT issue you authority to fly the aircraft without some bit of kit for that you have to go to the design authority and get a "design deviation authority" or DDA ( the JAA may have changed the terms ) but it is my guess that Robin are going to be astonished to recive this request !.

TonyR once more may I thank you for your kind words.

[TonyR]

Sorry A&C but my view is still the same,

In this business the regulations do not accommodate a "well the boys up the road do it this way" excuse.

After seing how insurance companies react to such things any other advice would be reckless IMOP.

Tony R

[A and C]

Accusing me of being "reckless" is something that I do take exception to.

I can assue you that flying a Robin without a spinner is not in the least bit of a problem and will not put the aircraft in danger.

The glider tugs in question are checked by licenced engineers and I can only suppose that you consider these guys "reckless" as well !.

Flying robins without a spinner has been going on for to long for the authoritys to have not put a stop to it if any danger was involved however finding the paperwork on a ( French) bank holiday weekend is another thing entirly.

I wont do "reckless" in any way shape or form and certantly would not endanger an aircraft and I dont think that the other engineers who cover the glider tugs do either so I sugest that you keep your comments about acting recklesly to yourself.

[TonyR]

A&C Did I accuse YOU of being reckless??

You and I both know that a Robin will fly perfectly well without a spinner.

I have flown a C150 in Peru without doors and various other aircraft with get me home repairs in strange parts of the world.

BUT we are not out in the bush here and I just dont know if Robin or the CAA will approve flight without a spinner.

I know some Pipers are approved for flight without one.

All I am saying is let the manufacture and the CAA decide.

I also know often the CAA will say "NO, now what is the question" and I hate the unnecessary paperwork but thats life in the UK. We just cant do what we like.

Tony

[skydriller]

Doc 400,

I dont know about the UK, but here in France last year I (and virtually everyone else in the club) flew our club DR400-140B sans spinner for a month while waiting for another, with no ill effects bar the proviso to check the temps more often and cruise at a slightly lower RPM than normal.

Cheers, SD..

[A and C]

So wile the French fly on Doc400 and his not so merry band are grounded untill the spinner or the paperwork shows up if the advice from Tony R is heeded !.

And by the way Tony if you want a DDA it is the design authority ( Robin in this case ) not the CAA that you go to.

[DOC.400]

"From Robin's perspective, you CAN fly without the spinner, PROVIDED that the part is on order with them, AND all such flying complies with strict engine temperature control (the spinner being key to engine cooling). If flying does not comply with this, engine damage may result. Guy spoke of constant monitoring of gauges, ensuring good airflow by maintaining revs., taking it very easy etc. etc. "

Thanx for your feedback, all of you -and for goodness sake, loosen up!!

DOC