What was the fuel flow at 80%?
For the record our DR401 155cdi consumed an average of 24.65l/hour jetA1 over its first 110 hours – which includes quite a lot of circuit training and 20min flights: we get around 120kts for 75-80% so I’d say the POH figures can be relied upon.
I’m glad you enjoyed your test flight, and especially the quiet operation which is a favourite feature of mine- in our plane the G500 is mounted just fine BUT the top of the GTN750 is obscured in the same way… If you’re specifying one this is something to look out carefully for as it’s annoying to have to duck your head to check the active frequency – actually my only gripe about the aircraft so far… Oh plus a too-quiet stall warner… They are now routing this through the speaker and headsets – Robin have offered to modify mine in this way which I will have done as the passive noise cancelling on my headset is too good!
Not seeing the top of the instrument panel is a long running Robin Issue, the glareshield hides the most important warning lights on the early DR400’s and some I have seen had these lights moved to the bottom of the panel.
As there is no factory G500 modification for the early aircraft I get to design the panel on my aircraft and it is always good to be reminded of the problems. With the early aircraft there is enough room to move the G500 down a little and stay within the Garmin STC recommended AI area, this should avoid blanking the top of the screen with the glareshield and give just enough room to drop the warning lights so they are visible.
One of the biggest issues is trying to get as much of the Avionic equipment as far forward in the aircraft as possible the DR400-180 has aft C of G issues when the aft fuel tank is filled so it is fortunate that the G500 when removed leaves a big hole to gain access to what is going to be a very busy space behind the panel.
Current calculations suggest that the G500 will save about 50lb over the King equipped legacy panel in Avionic equipment alone, I have yet to check the wiring bundles but with the removal of a loom as thick as a baby’s arm going all the way back to the King gyro & ADF adaptor & inverter their should be some more weight savings to be had but the eventual position if the empty C of G is still a bit if a mystery.
I would be interested in the view of Neal CS about using the G500 / GTN750 combination, do you find yourself with a lot of the same data displayed on both the G500 ND and the GTN750 ? I am at a place where I can change my GPS/NAV/COM box options if I wish and an input from someone who is presently flying the kit would I am sure be illuminating.
A_and_C wrote:
With the early aircraft there is enough room to move the G500 down a little and stay within the Garmin STC recommended AI area,
Just to be sure, be advised that Robin DR series are not included on the Garmin G500 AML STC, neither on the GTN AML STC nor Aspen AML STC. So you can not use the G500 AML STC as an installation approval. This is the same as with the DA40-D version. On these aircraft you should get alternative means approval, for example trough the manufacturer, or getting an major change, which can make it more difficult to perform modifications.
Aspen is currently busy with an additional EASA STC for the modification of an DR400 to Aspen, and was searching for an aircraft, to perform this modification.
Jessie, the aircraft is not relient on the Garmin STC but it is always easier if you stay within what is previously approved data.
I understand that GAMA have an aspen STC for the DR400.
another vote for Robins, fantastic aeroplanes. I had not flown one for nearly a decade and had the chance to fly a newish DR400 again a couple of weeks ago and I instantly missed my old Robin. I flew my 1969 DR360 for 8 years over 100hrs a year, quite often in IMC, across Europe. Fantastic handling, super stable, best climb rate/load carrying of any light SEP, and easy to land anywhere. I have landed at mountain airfields, international airports with 737s on the ILS behind me, or just flown circles over the countryside. I mostly had it in a hangar but also for a couple years kept it outside with a full set of covers, flown frequently. That aircraft is still flying regularly at an aeroclub near me on the same paint/airframe 10 years on (so at least 25 years on it as I or the previous owner never recovered it) and with probably close to 10k hours on it now.
My only gripes when flying IFR were the lack of autopilot, the carb heat that needed to be on the whole time in imc robbing the cabin of heat, and no constant speed prop which made high altitude flight quite inefficient (it was extremely easy to climb up to over 10k feet even with a full load, try that with an old Arrow). All these are now addressed with the CDI engine and the new avionics. 120kt indicated is not too different from aircraft routinely used IFR such as Archers, Commanders, Arrows or 182s. There are obviously faster aircraft out there but with much bigger engines, retractable gear and more complex systems, so a different ballpark fuel flow and maintenance wise. The Robin airframe is a simple as it gets, land anywhere on a grass field in Europe and there will be a mechanic who can fix it.
I traded the Robin in for a Mooney which is another fantastic machine. Perfect for efficient point to point IFR. However if I was in the market for a new aircraft and wanted to tour Europe, land everywhere and have fun flying it, I am convinced the Robin would be on my shortlist, especially the diesel variant. I must say I like the DA40 too, especially when filling up with Jet A1!
Interestingly a few years ago AOPA US came to Europe and did a flight test of the DR400 and absolutely loved it. Product liability laws and OWT about wood airframes in the US make exporting there a non starter however.
btw I did pick up ice several times (inadvertantly…) with it for a few minutes, with the obvious proviso of being able to get out of it quickly. The great climb rate and fat profile of the wing made it quite a non event, but obviously something not to be done deliberately and always always with a safe plan B (and C).
A_and_C wrote:
Jessie, the aircraft is not relient on the Garmin STC but it is always easier if you stay within what is previously approved data.
Sure, though this is not know to many, so can be some kind of risk, one buying such aircraft. If you know, and are ok with it, then their is nothing wrong.
A_and_C wrote:
I understand that GAMA have an aspen STC for the DR400.
Correct, there are third party STC, one has to buy these. Currently Aspen is working on their own STC
podair wrote:
120kt indicated is not too different from aircraft routinely used IFR such as Archers, Commanders, Arrows or 182s. There are obviously faster aircraft out there but with much bigger engines, retractable gear and more complex systems, so a different ballpark fuel flow and maintenance wise.
Yes, it seems to me 120 kts IAS is the speed at which medium distance travel becomes practical, especially when supported by a high service ceiling. Simplicity is a benefit for somebody like me, who wants to maintain his aircraft with mainly grass roots support.
podair wrote:
Interestingly a few years ago AOPA US came to Europe and did a flight test of the DR400 and absolutely loved it. Product liability laws and OWT about wood airframes in the US make exporting there a non starter however.
I’d guess it has more to do with a French cottage industry manufacturer not having the resources to market and support the product in the world’s most demanding consumer market. Word of mouth doesn’t work on the other side of the world, in a country that doesn’t speak your native language. Robin did give it a try once, with the aluminum Robin R2160, and sold only a few regardless of material of construction. Same as MBB, PZL and any number of other companies that didn’t commit to the extent necessary. Socata did better but ultimately failed. Re wooden aircraft in the US, there are hundreds of 300 HP wood-winged Bellancas still flying in the US and some people (me, for instance) like them a lot.
Silvaire, great minds think alike, I love the Bellanca. Nearly bought a Turbo Viking at one point. We must swap notes at some point!
The advantage of relatively simple fixed gear etc planes for me (doing much of the work myself) is the reduced time to maintain them. So, oddly in comparison to most, if I ever get a fire breathing fuel guzzling Bellanca Viking it might be after I retire. Whether I could or would want to afford the fuel etc at that point is an open question… We’ll see! I suspect the planes themselves will be (even more) dirt cheap in ten years.
A turbo’d engine might be nice theoretically, if I could afford to maintain it. I decided not to land with my little normally aspirated O-320 at 9000 ft density altitude yesterday, gusty winds and down drafts got me concerned about climb out later on, as I got close. So I decided to come home instead, cruising in quite bumpy air at 10,500.
