Interesting it narrows down to Arrer III or 182 or 201 … it was ever thus? Just missing the Dakota.
HR100… now that is an interesting suggestion.
I was looking at one a while back, beautiful exemplar but hasn’t flown in years, engine is conserved though.
This one is a “Royal” which means it has a 200 hp Lycoming IO360 A1D engine. The data are impressive, but one has to be careful with the load.
The Royal has a MTOW of 1200kg opposed to a Basic Weight of 736 kg, leaving 464 kg for payload. That in itself is quite impressive. It can however carry 388 l of fuel, which weighs 310 kgs, so with full tanks it can then only take 153 kgs for passengers and baggage, not a lot really. However, with full fuel it has an endurance of almost 9 hours and can, according to the POH fly 1300 NM with around 135 knots TAS. If you don’t need the range, it can fly 900 NM with 220 kg traffic load or 500 NM with 4 people and bags (320 kg).
Performance wise, the handbook is not very elaborate but only gives 140 kts at 75% using 10 GPH and 135 kts @ 65%. Not bad for a fixed gear plane.
However, there are several variants of the HR100. The Safari sports a 210 hp Continental IO360HB engine and is said to be a bit faster, but also carries even more fuel with 448 liters which will probably give it some 1500 NM endurance (10 hrs +). There is a lovely one for sale in Belgium on UK register actually. Link
That one features dual GNS430 and an autopilot, which may well be useful on the distances this plane can fly.
Top of the HR100 line up is the President, featuring a Continental 285 Tiara engine and a retracable gear. There are other Presidents with other engines and apparently that is good because the Tiara engine seems to be a bit of an enigma, not really well supported and expensive to maintain. With 285 hp however, the President will cruise at 1160 kts and with it’s 100 USG/378 l tank can fly up to 1400 NM yet again on the same fuel the Royal does but a bit faster.
There are Presidents with more standard engines, which are preferrable.
There is a write up on the President here: Link
An interesting plane but not necessarily for everyone.
But with the Robin HR100 I see not that big problems, since Robin tended to use many automotive parts and there is a good network of Robin operators.
But “wooden Robins” and “metal Robins” are two different worlds, with the latter being much rarer. Are the metal fourseaters still supported by the new owners of the manufacturer?
Production of the twoseaters (HR 200 aka Alpha 120/160) was restarted in New Zealand a few years ago, but AFAIK they went bankrupt after a short time. Therefore no factory support either, I suppose.
With 285 hp however, the President will cruise at 1160 kts
This changes everything. I want one! Now! 
The TCDS changed hands with the Wood robins to CEAPR in autumn last year – so I think they would. But in my experience, there won’t be much sheet metal work anyway and those parts could be manufactured comparatively easy. There are companies specializing in this kind of work. On aircraft, I might say, so it’s legal, too. And the use of many automotive parts takes care of the more difficult to manufacture parts in most cases. Not in all though.
In my experience, the long downtimes were never due to issues with the airframe or their parts. Only the Franklin 6A-350 in our Minerva grounded her for more than a year.
That HR100 looks great…
Re the Navion Rangemaster that RobertL18C mentioned, I’ve not flown a Rangemaster but I have flown a Navion. They fly very nicely, very versatile into short fields and built like a tank. In USAF service they had the reputation as being a plane that a colonel who flew once a month could fly without problems They are also gigantic (majestic!) and slow as a result. The earlier ones get modified a lot, and with enough power they perform but then (obviously) you pay for the fuel.
What you need is this:
http://www.cozyaircraft.com/specs.html
Having fed and watered complex aircraft, which were pretty reliable, but the maintenance schedules were onerous, my vote would be for this 182C. The 182 is quite efficient once you have climbed, although obviously not in the Mooney league. It also is a near STOL aircraft that if flown correctly can get into farm strips.
I am not sure how much they want for it, but it is basically a Cessna 185 fuselage with variable incidence elevator trim (hence reduced trim drag and improved elevator feel across the CG range). In my view the best 182 design until the accountants demanded a cheapo elevator trim. I believe the bush pilot type trim system of the 180/185 was only available in the C. They are supposed to be the fastest stock 182 model, so delivering 140 knots+.
A Garmin 430 with .833, Mode S and DME should make it EU airways compliant. Plenty of money left over from your budget for AvGas.
http://www.caa.co.uk/applicationmodules/ginfo/ginfo_photo.aspx?regmark=G-ARAW&imgname=G-ARAW001&imgtype=jpg
This one just in on planecheck. Pretty expensive for such an old Comanche, but might still be worth some consideration.
If I understand correctly, the carburetted 250s can officially run on Mogas, whereas the injected 260s can’t. Not too much of a factor for European touring aircraft though…
boscomantico: I understood the engine isn’t the problem, but the (rubber) fuel tanks. Could be wrong, though. Petersen, however, does not offer an autofuel STC for the PA24.
LeSving: Not on 750 meter Grass, I suppose.
