Robin - urgh
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 748
Likes: 9
From: LFMD
Robin - urgh
Just got checked out in a Robin DR400 in France. Can't say I would really choose to fly this type given a choice (which there isn't, here). Seems very bouncy in flight, quite heavy to control esp in roll yet not very stable either. My instructor's advice was largely to leave it alone and let it sort itself out, and I'm certainly willing to believe he's right. The controls are idiosyncratic, to say the least, and in fact the whole thing rather reminds me of one of the weirder Citroens. Oh, and the airspeed is in km/h. Surprisingly, the altimeter (actually both of them, for some reason this particular plane at least has two of them) is in feet, not metres. Must have been an oversight.
Anyone else have experience in the type and in something rather more mainstream?
n5296s
Anyone else have experience in the type and in something rather more mainstream?
n5296s
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
From: Amsterdam
I regularly fly the DR400-120, DR400-160 and DR400-135CDI. Compared to the PA28 or C172 they feel a lot lighter, even though the DR400-160 has approximately the same payload capacity as a PA-28 or C172.
Personally I prefer the DR400 over a PA28 or a C172 because of the stick. But I'm 1.83m and have to put the seats all the way back. Seats which don't slide but recline, and this gets uncomfortable after 2 hours or so.
On the plus side, the view is far, far better than your average spamcan. Only the DA40 or the R2160 can match the visibility all around. And maybe it's just our fleet, but the PA28s and C172s we have all have a different panel layout so you're always looking for the right switches and things. This is far more consistent across our Robin range.
The inner dial on the ASI is in knots by the way, on our aircraft.
Oh, and if it reminds you of a Citroen you may be right. At least on some models the knob that opens the canopy is actually taken straight from the 2CV.
Personally I prefer the DR400 over a PA28 or a C172 because of the stick. But I'm 1.83m and have to put the seats all the way back. Seats which don't slide but recline, and this gets uncomfortable after 2 hours or so.
On the plus side, the view is far, far better than your average spamcan. Only the DA40 or the R2160 can match the visibility all around. And maybe it's just our fleet, but the PA28s and C172s we have all have a different panel layout so you're always looking for the right switches and things. This is far more consistent across our Robin range.
The inner dial on the ASI is in knots by the way, on our aircraft.
Oh, and if it reminds you of a Citroen you may be right. At least on some models the knob that opens the canopy is actually taken straight from the 2CV.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
From: Dublin
What's the problem with Km/h?
When I learnt to fly the aircraft had a scale in Kts. The aircraft I fly now has it in mph. All became very simply when I decided to forget about flying kts or mph, and simply fly the numbers. My approach speed for example is 80, flowing to 75 over the hedge. I needn't concern myself during the approach whether the scale is in kts mph or km/h so long as the needle is pointed at 80.
dp
When I learnt to fly the aircraft had a scale in Kts. The aircraft I fly now has it in mph. All became very simply when I decided to forget about flying kts or mph, and simply fly the numbers. My approach speed for example is 80, flowing to 75 over the hedge. I needn't concern myself during the approach whether the scale is in kts mph or km/h so long as the needle is pointed at 80.
dp
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: In sight of HMS Nightjar
DR400
Been flying a DR400 and C172 (syndicate) aicraft for the last 500 hours. (After starting in a PA28). Both are just great for what I want to do (tour) and both have many plusses and a few minuses.
The DR400 is a lovely aircraft with great views and super handling (not as ponderous as the 172), but equally, this very same attribute makes it a little harder in IMC (well that's what I find anyway).
Perhaps when you have a few more hours in the DR400, you will grow to love it?
In the meantime, enjoy what it is, not what it isn't - life's too short....:
The DR400 is a lovely aircraft with great views and super handling (not as ponderous as the 172), but equally, this very same attribute makes it a little harder in IMC (well that's what I find anyway).
Perhaps when you have a few more hours in the DR400, you will grow to love it?
In the meantime, enjoy what it is, not what it isn't - life's too short....:
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
From: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
I concur with Chuffer.
DR400 is a very nice aeroplane. OK they told the guy making the panel how many holes they wanted and of what size and left him to get on with it. Then the guy fitting the instruments got them out of the box in no particular order and arranged them artistically in whatever holes fitted.
It's delightful to fly. The only gripe I have concerns getting in and out where the tendency is to support oneself using the seatbck. This overstresses the frame which then breaks. Fortunately I had just shut down and was reaching for the canopy catch when dumped unceremoniously into a prostrate position. Could have been a tad tricky on final.
DR400 is a very nice aeroplane. OK they told the guy making the panel how many holes they wanted and of what size and left him to get on with it. Then the guy fitting the instruments got them out of the box in no particular order and arranged them artistically in whatever holes fitted.
It's delightful to fly. The only gripe I have concerns getting in and out where the tendency is to support oneself using the seatbck. This overstresses the frame which then breaks. Fortunately I had just shut down and was reaching for the canopy catch when dumped unceremoniously into a prostrate position. Could have been a tad tricky on final.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
From: midlands
DR400
I bought a new DR400 Regent in 2000 and loved it. There cannot be many pilots out there who are less than positive about them.
Was yours a high time, tired old dog with a questionable maintenance history? I have heard horror stories.
JB
Was yours a high time, tired old dog with a questionable maintenance history? I have heard horror stories.
JB
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 748
Likes: 9
From: LFMD
Interesting. I normally fly a TR182 and a Pitts S2C (and a Robinson R44 but I don't think that counts). The Robin feels a lot "bouncier" than the 182 and yet the control movements needed to keep things going reasonably smoothly seem heavy. Of course the Pitts is quite bouncy too but the control movements are very light.
It was a 1976 DR400-180. I don't know the maintenance history but I've no reason to suppose it has been bad. So "yes" to the first bit and "no" to the second. However the design of the panel and controls is decidedly idiosyncratic. For example the brake is a pull-lever in the middle of the panel. The master switch is a push-in control like an old-fashioned choke. There are no switches, only two-button circuit breakers. And so on.
Of course you can get used to all this. I'm flying it solo this afternoon so perhaps I'll come back a convert.
n5296s
Was yours a high time, tired old dog with a questionable maintenance history?
Of course you can get used to all this. I'm flying it solo this afternoon so perhaps I'll come back a convert.
n5296s
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
From: Amsterdam
For example the brake is a pull-lever in the middle of the panel.
Occasionally you do see aircraft like this with the "parking brake" applied before they put pressure on the toe pedals. Useless.
Oh, and if you ever get to fly the DR400-135CDI: the arrangement and location of the knob is exactly the same, but due to the huge power lever you can't see the knob from the usual seating position. Always hilarious to watch people search for it the first time.
The master switch is a push-in control like an old-fashioned choke.
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 2
From: north of barlu
Around the time that this aircraft was built things changed quite a bit, form the description it would seem that this is an "early" aircraft.
This would put the brake in the centre panel and a cable working the electrical master switch that is located on the engine frame near the battery.
Assuming this to be the case I can see how the aircraft is a little strange after the offerings from the USA but persist with it and take the time to understand the aerodynamics of the very simple but sophisticated wing.
In short the DR400 will lift more payload further, faster and off a shorter runway than any of the American aircraft with the same power.
This would put the brake in the centre panel and a cable working the electrical master switch that is located on the engine frame near the battery.
Assuming this to be the case I can see how the aircraft is a little strange after the offerings from the USA but persist with it and take the time to understand the aerodynamics of the very simple but sophisticated wing.
In short the DR400 will lift more payload further, faster and off a shorter runway than any of the American aircraft with the same power.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
n5296s will be right about the brake and the Master. There are probably no toe brakes. The hand brake and ruder is used. The more rudder you apply the more brake you get on that side. It is different, but it is not a problem. Apply some handbrake and some rudder and you have quite a lot of braking on one side. It will take you a few flights to get used to its layout, but it is actually a good solution.
Rod1
Ex owner 1973 DR400-160
Rod1
Ex owner 1973 DR400-160
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 2
From: north of barlu
Super Robin?
At the moment I am looking at building a "Super Robin" to address the (few) shortcomings of the aircraft as a long range touring aircraft.
The basic spec would be CS prop, IO-360 engine with LASOR ignition and EFIS.
Other option would be to scrap he vacuum system in favour an alternator on the vac pump pad for a standby electrical system to drive the standby attitude indicator and radio.
This would require an EASA major mod and a lot of work, If I could spread the certification cost across three or four aircraft it would make whole thing more attractive from a cost point of view............. any one interested?
The basic spec would be CS prop, IO-360 engine with LASOR ignition and EFIS.
Other option would be to scrap he vacuum system in favour an alternator on the vac pump pad for a standby electrical system to drive the standby attitude indicator and radio.
This would require an EASA major mod and a lot of work, If I could spread the certification cost across three or four aircraft it would make whole thing more attractive from a cost point of view............. any one interested?
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Other option would be to scrap he vacuum system in favour an alternator on the vac pump pad for a standby electrical system to drive the standby attitude indicator and radio.
This would require an EASA major mod and a lot of work, If I could spread the certification cost across three or four aircraft it would make whole thing more attractive from a cost point of view............. any one interested?
This would require an EASA major mod and a lot of work, If I could spread the certification cost across three or four aircraft it would make whole thing more attractive from a cost point of view............. any one interested?
The GAMI alternator is not yet certified. There are some from an outfit called B&C or something like that.
I keep half an eye out for this, to replace the KI-256 vac horizon, but would need an electric horizon which has the KI-256 features i.e. flight director and pitch/roll outputs for the autopilot. Not sure if anybody makes such a thing.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
“but would need an electric horizon which has the KI-256 features i.e. flight director and pitch/roll outputs for the autopilot. Not sure if anybody makes such a thing.”
Could you not use one of the certified retrofit EFIS systems?
Rod1
Could you not use one of the certified retrofit EFIS systems?
Rod1