Turboprop Robin

Robin cell are not done for 200hp engine, it is too draggy, it’ almost twice the power of least powerful engine.
And I’m not sure it would be more power efficient. Are turboprops reallly more efficient or just more powerful?

For us, Robins are the most boring planes around

Perhaps so, familiarity breeds contempt But they apparently fly nicely, have two control sticks in the right place, a Lycoming engine and are relatively inexpensive to buy new. That checks a lot of my boxes. Wood and fabric construction would be OK in my relatively dry and always hangared environment, for as long as I’m going to live.

very few can afford new stuff. 40-60 years ago people could afford new stuff.

My plane cost as much as two new Porsche 911s in 1971, as did a new Cessna 172. They were never cheap but I think ‘middle class professionals and business people’ (including plumbers ) are by necessity more financially sophisticated today and don’t lash out as much. They expect to live longer in retirement so they instead put more money away in order to fund a decent retirement lifestyle for decades. And they also have many more practical choices in used or kit built aircraft today, most of which make more financial sense than buying new. I see this as a substantial benefit, in 1971 I would have likely been flying a lesser plane than now, simply because there wasn’t as much available at the price I’d be willing to pay.

I think the buyer for a new plane is very often a guy who has accumulated enough money and is old enough (in combination) that he can’t see spending all of it in this lifetime. Before that it makes a lot more sense to save more, buy an existing plane that costs a fraction as much and does pretty much the same job. For an individual, it’s only when you get ‘rich’ (relative to your previous situation) and perhaps can allow yourself to be a little lazy that a new plane makes any sense. The relative ease of getting into that position contributes to GA prominence in the US.

it is the People’s Republic of China that owns nearly the entire industry. It encompasses pretty much all of certified GA.

More hyperbole. The communist Chinese government owns Cirrus and Continental engines, including Thielert. Another ‘private’ Chinese entity (to the extent China allows private companies) owns Diamond.

Chinese ownership of Continental has given me a significant fraction of my US job for the past few years, working to eliminate Chinese controlled content. More to the point none of Cessna, Beechcraft, Lycoming, Piper, BRP, the various GA jet and helicopter manufacturers, Vans or any of the other kit manufacturers, Tecnam etc. are owned by the Chinese.

… yet

Silvaire wrote:

Well, I happen to live at the world’s center of the GA market, and I’m talking about the world’s GA market.

The thing is that the situation in Norway is much more relevant to the rest of Europe than the situation in “the world’s center of the GA market”. You can harp on all you want about how the situation in Europe is screwed up e.g. with respect to fuel prices. Whether you are right or not does not matter in the least because we have to deal with what we have, not with what you have in the US.

The thing is that the situation in Norway is much more relevant to the rest of Europe than the situation in “the world’s center of the GA market”

I disagree: The GA market and products supplied to that market are not in general divided by country or region of the world. GA products cater to what will sell in the most volume worldwide, to the most buyers wherever that are. That market is mainly, by financial volume, in the US. I think one should bear that in mind when making sweeping, hyperbolic, coercive (“I think we can safely say”) statements about the GA market and its economics from a country which has atypical economics and that barely registers in GA sales – something which is also true to a lesser extent to Europe as a whole.

“For us, Robins are the most boring planes around.”
Who are “us”? I’ve had one flight ( not P1) in a nosewheel Robin (design and manufacture) and I liked it.
I’ve 1,700+ hours in a Robin design, DR1050, and it was much less boring than any C or Pa, and even my present Bolkow Junior.

I meant average french club pilots, fed with Robins since birth

Having owned a DR400 for longer than I care to remember I Have lost count of the number of times the company has gone bust and come back , My expectation is a return to business as usual shortly and the return to headline grabbing but fruitless tinkering with the DR400.
If Robin or whatever they are called this week want to move from cottage industry to serious aircraft builder they need to re-engineer the DR400 with all American hardware and get the thing certified in the USA with the Lycoming.

The aircraft is already a great performer and capable of out running and out ranging the DA40 ( with the same engine ) but of course selling in America would require the level of customer service that the French seem incapable of understanding, so off they go with another interesting technical innovation that is more than likely a dead end.

It’s all rather sad because the DR400 outperforms just about every other aircraft in its class and I am sure that it would do well enough in the USA to double the annual sales of the aircraft.

A_and_C wrote:

The aircraft is already a great performer and capable of out running and out ranging the DA40 ( with the same engine )

I love the Robin and a close friend owns the 180 HP version in very good condition: fully refurbished with a newly OH engine and prop.
I no longer own DA40s but have 1’000 hours in the type (DA40-180, not diesel), loved every second of that too.

Comparing notes, the Robin is slower by at least 10 knots. Hardly surprising considering the huge difference in wing airfoil and construction.

Both the DR400 and the DA40 are IMO wonderful planes. Both missed their chance at market dominance for peripheral reasons…