Robin aircraft- wood v metal

[ZoomZoom]

Dear all

Has anyone got a view as to the better airframe on a robin. wood or metal. Please could you back up your opinion for me. Thanks in advance Pete...

[Genghis the Engineer]

If it's wood, you want it to have been, and continue to be, hangared.

Other than that, both materials have been doing fine for 80odd years and I'd not worry unduly.

G

[Croqueteer]

For performance, wood wins hands down.

[IO540]

No, carbon fibre wins hands down. Just costs a lot more :O

[camlobe]

ZoomZoom,

My opinions only, not necessarily shared by the rest of the aviation community, but from the pilot and engineer perspective.

Wooden Robin's:

Superb value for money. Cost, on average, 1/3 more than the equivelently powered spamcan but perform more than 1/3 better in climb, load lugging, cruise faster, T/O and land in shorter distances, easy to control in crosswinds etc. Fantastic visability. Need hangaring in a non-heated building. Fabric lasts a long time as does the wood if cared for properly.

Metal Robin's:

Lovely aircraft to fly. Perform better than equivelent engined spamcans. Fantastic visability.

but

They do suffer badly from corrosion, especially structrially.

In a nutshell, they are both wonderful aircraft to fly. Advise you ask around some maintenance facilities and get their opinions as well.

Hope this helps.

camlobe

[A and C]

I have to agree with camlobe on all points about Robin aircraft, but for those of you who who are put off wood aircraft because you think hangarage is expensive I can tell you that if your aircraft lives in a shed the paint will last more than twice as long and your maintenance bills will be about 20% lower in the airframe & engine and the avionic bill will be about 40% lower, I cant understand why people park aircraft outside it is cost neutral compaired to hangarage.

As for the DR400 it is the best four seat fixed pitch & gear touring aircraft on the market, what other aircraft in it's class could do LFMP to EGTB non-stop with a 15 kt headwind ?

[Flap40]

No, carbon fibre wins hands down. Just costs a lot more :O
But Carbon Fibre does not grow on trees :ok: :ok: :ok:

[ZoomZoom]

Many thanks for your advice.....

[Alvin Steele]

DR400's are lovely aircraft, had a quick dalliance with a PA28 for the first time a couple of months back.......couldnt wait to get back to the Robin.
Tim

[Croqueteer]

:confused: IO540, what Robin is made of carbon fibre?

[Genghis the Engineer]

The Dyn Aero MCR-01 is designed by M.Robin's grandson I believe.

G

[ZoomZoom]

Has anyone flown or have experience in a Robin Regent DR253. How does it handle etc and compare to similar types. Heard a new group is forming and would be very thankful of any advice.

[S-Works]

Regent is a very nice aircraft, flew one from Sywellfor a bit. Strange fuel tank arrangements but great to fly, good lifting capacity and range and fast.

[Mark 1]

I've not flown a 253, but as it's just a DR250 with the wrong undercarriage, it should be a good and capable aeroplane.

The fuel tank possibilities seem quite varied. I've seen DR200 series with variously 1,2,3 or 4 fuel tanks. The two 40 litre wing tanks allow easy inspection. The rear tanks are less easy to double check.

Not as light on the controls as the 2-seaters (esp. D150), but better than most of the US offerings.

Quite reasonable on instruments too, though an hour or more of solid IMC would be very tiring without at least a wing leveller.

The hinged canopy doors are lighter and cheaper than the sliders, and perfectly ok - unless taxying on a hot day.

[robin]

Nicely put Mark - it is effectively an early DR400 and therefore almost perfect :ok:

Shame about the nosewheel, though

[ZoomZoom]

Thanks all for your time it was a big help. Pete

[IO540]

Are the wooden Robins objectively better performers than metal aircraft (MTOW versus fuel flow rate at a given speed) or is it just a cult following? They don't look particularly aerodynamic.

[Mark 1]

As an example:
The one that I occasionally fly has an O235 engine similar to the Cessna 152.

The CEA aeroplane carries 350kg payload at 110knots at 2400RPM typically (i.e. 3 adults, baggage and 135l of fuel at 24l/h)

The similarly engined Cessna carries 250kg at 95 knots (i.e. 2 people and 90 litres, similar fuel burn)

[IO540]

That's impressive; however a C152 is a dog if there ever was one - it's a washing machine with wings strapped to the top.

[Piltdown Man]

And from memory, the best all-round glider tug I've ever seen was a DR400 with a C/S prop on a 200 (ish) HP engine with silencer. Went up and down damn quick and was capable of an "economic" cruise at 145 kts. Only one problem, it caught fire whilst starting (MOGAS) and was totally destroyed in two or three minutes. However, the standard DR400 with a 140HP engine (180 even better) is a superb aircraft.

[Woodenwonder]

Any Robin with that wonderful cranked wing will carry more, faster, than any metal aeroplane.
But they also have sticks, a great field of view, and twin throttles.
The best ones have a small wheel at the rear.

[BlueRobin]

The metal wing from HR100 and HR200 derivatives is not a great design and something of a plank. Like its fellow countryman the TB-range, you need more power as a result to push the thing through the air.

The bent wooden wing design is more stable and efficient. Try flying a similarly powered DR221 and HR200 (115/8hp). The 221 has two more seats (+one adult payload) and cruises faster. The HR200 though is delightfully more flicky in roll and modern.

Notionally DR400s are still made and the running fleet over the Manche should keep parts flowing. The HR200 design has gone to NZ where the new factory is making a small number. Other metal Robins are very much out of production.

Get a 2160 for fun and a DR400+hangar for touring. I think Hairyplane is still trying to sell his share or the whole aircraft for £100k.

Shame the R3000 never caught on as that was a step perhaps in the right direction.