A tiger will only do 140kts either firewalled or in a dive, but so will a Robin.
I’d vote for the Robin all day long but it definitely needs a hangar if you slightly care (I do know of some that spend the larger part of their life outside).
The Robin with a working autopilot and Certified IFR fit is a very rare animal on the sales listings.
As Peter said, it was nearly impossible to do a sensible upgrade on one.
I have never been especially attracted to the grumman but they are well liked and capable in their class.
I wouldn’t rule out a Cheetah or Tiger if I was in that market again.
A guy I know has a pristine model of the 2 seat version and flys on fumes in comparison to most stuff, and still at around 100kts.
I think the best all rounder for a smaller budget would be Reims Rocket for me.
The Cheetah & Tiger Are Both very nice aircraft but getting parts and structural issues are now starting to catch up with the aircraft and regrettably are making it more difficult to operate.
The Robin on the other hand has no structural issues and a structural repair manual that is extremely well written allowing repair of the whole structure from readily available and relatively cheap materials.
With an aircraft as pleasant and easy to fly as the Robin I don’t see the lack of auto flight options as a major issue.The unfortunate thing for Potential Robin Purchaser is they tend to fall into two groups, the new and very well equipped and so expensive or the aircraft by those aviation equivalents to MG car owners who think the industry should support their aircraft for the love of it and who spend the absolute minimum on the aircraft.
The knock on effect of this is there are few STC’s for Avionic upgrades for the aircraft making things in this department difficult but not impossible.
There are places that will take a very tatty aircraft and return it to an almost new state ( a bit like the PA28 remanufacture ) as quite reasonable prices.
There is no doubt that the aircraft needs hangaring but so do all aircraft and those who think that they are saving money by leaving a metal aircraft outside are simply kidding themselves, over ten years the cost of extra maintenance of a non hangared metal aircraft will equal the cost of hangarage.
the new and very well equipped and so expensive
This detailed account from one former owner would suggest there are few of those. Robin reportedly struggle to build them and get them reliable (even basic electrics give trouble), no two are the same size so doors etc don’t fit and each has to be trimmed, and those who went down that route, paying €300k+, are probably wishing they had not 
The aircraft, in a basic-equipment form, has a good fuel burn for the speed and a good load carrying capacity, and does appear to be a good fit for a “VFR club day trips, 3- or 4-up” kind of mission profile, if you have a hangar. It works well in France where the clubs tend to have hangars; elsewhere people tend to struggle despite often having a lot more activity at the airfield.
over ten years the cost of extra maintenance of a non hangared metal aircraft will equal the cost of hangarage.
I am sure that is true numerically (is it true even if you respray every few years) but it conceals other issues e.g. extra hassle in the avionics and electrics department (=downtime) if parked outdoors. I’ve been told so many times by maintenance people that you can tell a non hangared plane the moment you unscrew the inspection covers. Probably ACF50 would help a lot but if you buy one of these, prob99 it would not have had that treatment from the start – because “GA owner education” is a relatively recent thing, brought to us by pilot forums, and anyway most owners don’t seem to care.
If you use a full cover outside is ok if you can’t find a hangar. Here, hangarage is way too expensive (cost of a 3-room flat at ZRH) and mostly not available so you have no choice. I had a cockpit cover from the start and wings and tail covers now. Most metal planes can deal with that. Some not (Beech with magnesium surfaces).
Personally I would simply stay away from Robin because they have tremendous problems with almost all new avionic for the lack of STC’s. I once looked at a HR100, there is no STC for any autopilot (and with 10 hours endurance that is a problem), no STC for an Aspen e.t.c.
Most Pipers, Cessnas (they usually have their cabin in the dry anyway due to the high wing) and Mooneys can stand outside provided they get a cover made. Bruce’s covers are relatively inexpensive and very easy to handle. I am very happy with them.
Having had a HR100, I fully concur. Great from flying/handling and fuel management, though.
The Robin R3000 with the O360 (not the O320, that is a bit weakish) would qualify and is full metal.
Good speeds, good economy, and not too tight inside. Not many for sale, often happy owners…
While not disputing Peters opinion of the electrical system on the DR401 the DR400 with the Lycoming engine has the same electrical system as the PA28 in terms of Alternator , voltage regulator and all major relays so its rather difficult to the whole Robin range when most of the electrical problems revolve around one particular engine fit.
45 posts since the Patrick posted just a few days ago….like a flood of opinions (and facts)!
What’s YOUR take so far Patrick?
I think we should has a rule on this kind of threads: people who have strong opinions on their own aircraft should offer a demo ride before posting
While not disputing Peters opinion of the electrical system
I don’t think it was my opinion A search on EuroGA is generally quite productive.
One of light aviation’s best kept secrets: a C177RG will fit the mission better than most, (950lbs useful, 750nm, 140KTAS @ 9 GPH, large cabin, easy on grass…) , with a large STC, OEM and owners organisations backing it 40 years after production ended. Mine was sold to a Hamburg owner for similar missions.
Re autopilot: I subscribe to the general opinion that one should not plan on single-pilot ifr without as a minimum a wing leveller. You need A/P for task decluttering in busy situations and hand-flying IFR is a lot more work (read tiring) than VFR, adding unnecessary risk. Furthermore, even most old autopilots, as long as they have heading select capability, will fly GPSS which is a huge improvement for IFR procedures.
