[why not] a Robin R2180?

I haven’t flown the 1180 but based on other Robins I have flown, I guess it handles much nicer than any Cessna or Piper. Flight performance shoud be in the region of every other 180 horse four-seater.

The installation of autopilots or other IFR equipment depends on the STCs available, if you don’t want to pay for a minor/major change or finance a new STC. But If I remember correctly, there is one pilot flying a R1180 IFR in the Balkan.

don’t believe there is anyone knowledgeable about wooden plane maintenance anywhere near me, making the wooden ones too scary to own as a first plane.

I think there should be plenty people around Krakow. There are some gliding clubs who operate a lot old wooden polish gliders and who would be quite knowledgeable about maintaining wooden aircraft structures. There aren’t many secrets with those structures, though.

tmo wrote:

Yes, I am mentioning the metal Robin on purpose

I thought the Chris Heinz designed metal Robin was the 2160, a O-320 powered two seater that was also produced in New Zealand for a while? I understood that they are a reasonable certified aerobatic trainer but don’t have the performance associated with the wood Robins. Regardless I think I’d like to try one

Or is the R2180 something different?

PS after a bit of study including mh’s post I figured out you must mean the R1180 Aiglon. That’s interesting!

@tmo, I love Bellanca Vikings but unless you find a perfect one and keep it that way, they are in a different world compared with a simple fixed gear all metal aircraft when it comes to needing time and care. They aren’t all that complicated in comparison with a Bonanza or similar, but the materials and methods of construction are 1930’s technology. As an A&P IA friend of mine says about maintaining them “all the disadvantages of an antique plane and a modern plane combined” I wouldn’t mind having a Viking some day, that combination and that much of their design was by Giuseppe B himself also makes them very cool planes…

PS The turbo Viking with Lycoming engine link you posted is very intriguing

The turbo Viking with Lycoming engine link you posted is very intriguing

I happen to know the Viking in question and her former owner, who was only flying VFR. It’s a wonderful touring airframe (and in good condition, too), but most avionics will have to be swapped to fly modern IFR (essentially, a major mod is required). Currently, she has no 8.33, a VFR-only GPS, and an antique RNAV (Narco NS 800).

This turbo Viking was owned by a British Airways captain some years ago. She was on sale for years in GB before moving to NL. I see that the new owner installed a mode S and did a top overhaul but is reselling it after 1-2 years. 38KEUR seems high for such wooden plane that was in humid countries for years and has a run-out engine. On top of that, it has a pre-1973 complex fuel system.

In terms of simplicity, durability and predictable maintenance the Warrior or 172 are passenger friendly although may not have the ramp appeal of a Vike

In the 1970’s they used to have aerobatic displays to dispel any concerns on the strength of the spruce wing.

@tmo,

I know the HR100 which you have linked from Aircraft24, it is also on planecheck. HB-EUI

I have seen it a few years ago, it was then in a very good condition in terms of paint, it has been hangared always but has not flown in years. I personally would love to see this one finally get into good hands and get flying again. The price reflects this, I think it could be still lowered quite a bit.

Pro of this plane is, it has a one axis AP which is there and installed and which will track NAV signals from the two VOR’s, which of course means it also will track a GNS430 or the likes. I have heard at the time that there is a grandfather STC (i.e. another HR100 on EASA reg has one) for the S-Tec 30-Alt, which would make this a 2 axis system, possibly even for the -60PSS. This plane also has the large tanks, which gives it a range over well over 1000 NM.

Cons are that you’d have to take a VERY close look at the engine, even though it has been in professional care (afaik stored) it has not run beyond runups for quite some time. That plane would need a very thorough and proper annual, the prop may well need an overhaul and the engine needs to be looked at carefully, nonwithstanding the hours it’s got left. The Avionic is almost totally unusable and needs replacing.

The airframe itself looks very well cared for. This HR100 could be a lovely tourer. But it needs quite a comitment to make it fly again.

The R1180TD looks almost too good to be true. I would like to know what the “damage history” is, otherwise for this price, you get flying airplane which is newer than the HR100 for half the money. However, it also will need a massive upgrade to make it fit for the future, basically all the avionic other than the ADF and the Transponder will need upgrading eventually. I can not see if it has the extended tanks, which give it the same endurance as the HR100. You would also need to know

The British HR100 costs significantly more, justifyably so as it has a low time engine, a low time prop and significantly more recent avionics. However, it also has no 8.33 khz, which will be an investment, and it has no autopilot.

The HR100 or the Aiglon both are quite capable airplanes, good range (if the Aiglon has the 4 tanks) and they are comparatively good load carriers. They are not very fast however (they will run about 125 kts @ 10 GPH) and they are “exotic” in the sense that you may run into problems with parts if something other then engine and avionic goes bad.

All 3 are in a similar price range once you have updated them. The Aiglon will be the “cheapest” at 15k Euros plus maybe 5000 to upgrade the avionics to 8.33 by maybe adding a used GNS430 and about 10k to add an altitude hold (if possible) , the Swiss HR100 will imho easily end up in the region of the British one once everything is done, The British one will end up at 60k once it has 8.33 capability and that still means no autopilot. For a plane with 10 hours endurance, I’d consider an AP rather useful. The Robins will do the job, they might be a bit more expensive in maintenance as the PA28/C172 due to the variable prop and a bit more challenging in maintenance due to them being fairly exotic.

The question is, what is your mission. What do you want to do with that airplane once you have it. You write you want a plane in the cost class of a Piper 28 or a C172 which is basic IFR capable (most you will buy need upgrades to be IFR at that price range) and should be good as a first airplane. I’d definitly look around some more and out of the box of the 172/PA28 range. There are quite some interesting airframes around which might do the job as good as the HR100 would, but faster and “ready to fly”.

For starters, the Grummann AA5 would be a good airplane if you want to stay fixed gear, fixed prop. (The HR’s have variable props). There are two or three which have next to no information posted to them at around 30k Euros. The AA5B will do 140 kts roughly with a 700 NM range. Currently there are some on planecheck which have not much information about them in your price range. They are definitly worth looking at, particularly the AA5A Cheetah or AA5B Tiger.

Another airplane which will run at the expense of a PA28/172 with a small increase in price of maintenance due to the variable prop (which the Robin has as well) are the vintage Mooneys with manual gear and flaps. They are not exotic like some of the Robins or the Viking, they are widely around and do not present a challenge in maintenance.

“This M20F in Germany would fit that requirement perfectly. ":http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=27466
It has an asking price in the area of the Robins but is IFR equipped with a GNS430 (8.33), Mode S Transponder and DME, as well as what looks like a single axis Autopilot which could easily be upgraded by an S-Tec System 30-Alt or 60-PSS to a full 2 axis system if it is not one anyway, the pic is not clear enough to show. It is relatively low hour, has an engine with at least 500 hrs potential but more under ELA and has new cylinders 200 hrs ago. This is a plane you can buy and fly without any large upgrades and which would also fulfill the Basic IFR requirement in terms of performance and basic avionic. It might profit of an Aspen PFD (cheaper than adding a mechanical HSI all counted) but can fly like this quite happily. It will fly 150 kts flat out or 140 kts @ 10 GPH in cruise and has a range of 700-800 NM. Maintenance of these planes is also no problem at all, parts are widely available and the manual gear gives almost no additional cost to a fixed one. There are no actuators, no hydraulic lines, nothing.

One mistake I keep seeing is that people who buy their first airplane narrow down their search to what they know. Clearly, that is not the case with you as you propose planes like the Robins. I like your approach, as it will end you up with much more bang for the buck if you take your time and look carefully. It is a buyer’s market and you might end up buying something which will fulfill your requirements not only as a “first” airplane but beyond that. Keep in mind that it is not that easy to sell planes these days, so upgrading is not a trivial thing. My councel in this regard has always been to buy a bit more advanced than you’d normally do.