Regent wrote:
Question for you Robin_253, for what reason would you avoid the 80s and early 90s airframes?
Various quality related issues, it’s a long story. It really depends on what you are looking for? A “nice” aircraft? Then either get something built in 21st century or an early built airplane like this one, [ advert snapshot ] spend some time on a little project: recover the airframe, refresh upholstery, overhaul the engine, refresh the panel and as result get an aircraft which would outlive you and your children and IMHO be at lest as good as a brand new one. There is nothing complex or difficult and all those tasks can be signed off by your friendly part 66 mechanic.
Regent wrote:
From wich year on would you buy again,
Look here what to avoid
As the autopilot is concerned, well I would say you just can’t have it all 
If an S-tec would meet your expectations than there is no issue, schedule a trip to the factory I’m sure they will be happy to help you out. In general, Robins are easy to fly and relatively stable, can be hand flown for hours, but of course it’s a question of personal preference. If your mission profile includes long flights you might want to get an airplane equipped with an electric rudder trim, it’s a useful option.
I have taken this one into consideration:
https://www.aeromarkt.net/de/aeromarkt/offer_detail/lfz/9617-robin-dr400-regent.html
Spar modification was done, but after reading the EASA AD i am still uncertain if it
would require further recurrent inspections?
Second one i found is this:
https://www.ataviation.uk/listings/robin-dr400180-regent/
Which would be my favourite because it has the more modern style panel toe Brakes
and canopy. Only the S-Tec would need to be a retrofit. But plane is already under
offer from someone else…
What still worries me is the statement to avoid these years production airframes. Are
they still worse afer the latest spar mod was done? Did the factory change the glue at
some points?
Regent wrote:
Did the factory change the glue at
some points?
Casein glue was used till about early 1960s – those airplanes should be avoided, everything build after that time was made with resorcinol glue.
I think my way is to go for a plane younger than mid 90s, if possible even later than 2000.
As complete as possible, no anoying for extensive rebuild or overhaul at this point.
Does anyone have one for sale ?
Another question for Robin_253. Why is th3 401 a definite no no?
First the AD’s
The spar AD was only applicable to a serial number batch of aircraft and is a one time action, so as long as it has been done there is no further action.
The repetitive action on the landing gear is an ongoing issue but if you have the latest gear fitted it has a 10,000 hour life. I have yet to see a landing gear produced in the last twenty years fail in normal service unless it was fitted to a glider tug. With tugs doing five landings an hour in normal service it’s not surprising they have some problems that Aircraft engaged in normal club flying don’t have.
Autoflight……… I do wonder if it is worth the payload reduction as the aircraft is easy to fly IFR and when properly trimmed be flown with the stick held between the knees. That having been said the S-Tec autopilot works very well in the DR400/500 so I see no need for anything else.
There is an STC for the Aspen the G500 and GTN650/750 and I don’t thing anyone would need anything more complex than that and I suspect fitment of new Garmin HSI & ADI won’t be long coming.
The biggest issue for most of the older Robin Aircraft is the Micky mouse French car indicators, a few weeks back I put a post up to see if anyone was interested in splitting the cost of an STC to fit a JPI engine monitor as a primary indicator to rid the aircraft of all this ancient equipment……………. there was very little interest.
Joe_90 wrote:
Why is th3 401 a definite no no
Maybe I shouldn’t have said that 
I very much hope the factory in Dijon will continue to manufacture those airplanes for decades to come, therefore if anyone is willing to buy a new Robin then just do it One can always ask the factory if they would be willing to build a “normal” DR400. I would certainly do that. The problem is that I honestly lack the time to write a proper writeup on why IMHO DR401 is a step in the wrong direction. I would be more than happy to return to this subject one day though.
A_and_C wrote:
he spar AD was only applicable to a serial number batch
A spar is a spar is a spar If the factory was unable to put together a wooden box
in a proper way than, well everyone is free to draw it’s own conclusions. Technological aspects of gluing wooden planes were perfected in the times of de Havilland Mosquito and that’s quite a long time ago
A_and_C wrote:
There is an STC for the Aspen
I’m afraid there isn’t… I was made to believe that Aspens STC is “imminent”, paid for the equipment and my aircraft has been stuck since August the 11th 2017. Will not get into details just yet.
As I understand it the spar issue was due to the assembly method employed, the original method was to glue the spar on it one side of the wing and then do the other. To increase the producton rate a new jig was made to do the whole spar at one time, the problem was that the time taken to assemble the whole wing was in some cases allowing the glue to semi-set before assembly producing a less than optimum strength joint, the AD required blocks to be installed to increase the glued area in case the original glued area was less than optimal. This issue has now been addressed with a change in assembly methods.
As to the Aspen STC I will ask those in the avionic business what has happened to this.
As an aside, Garmin have just been awarded an EASA STC for the G5 attitude and HSI systems in the DR300/400.
May be it’s time to put two G5 units in front of the right seat in my DR400, having err indoors able to hold an accurate height & heading for a few minutes is likely to be cheaper than an autopilot STC.
