Robin aircraft.

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:09 am

Why would anybody buy the plastic Banbi 4 seater when they could have a new Pioneer 400 for half the price, and it's made out of proper aeroplane making material - wood. A bit of plastic on the fuselage to keep Rod happy too. Seems the perfect solution!

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:48 am

Hi Brian,

http://www.alpiaviation.com

That's very a pretty aircraft. Scant information though. Do you have inside info that this certified would be £100K? Very had to believe but lets see the data if you have it.

If you are talking kit price let's not forget the MCR4S never quite made it to the UK in kit form or that would be half price too. I did the numbers when it looked like it might make it here and it priced up similar to a RV10.

The Alpi also looks like a Rotax cowl again and while Dyn'Aero have pulled of a miracle lifting 4 people (yep 4 medium adults) with that engine in a featherweight airframe, I can't see how that could be reproduced using wood.

Happy to be proved wrong though.

Steve

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

The Pionear 300 and the MCR01 are similar in price and both exist. The MCR4s also exists and Dyn Aero are already fully aware of the costs. The P400 is a new design, but if it is ½ the price it will obviously win hands down. I would suspect that the prices “at launch” for both aircraft will be much closer.

I have had a ride in the 4S, but it was in the back of a French aircraft. 4 up with 40c heat and a short strip the performance was very impressive. It made my 4 seat AA5B look very out of date. Having had the opportunity to compare my MCR01 with a P300, it will be interesting to see how the two 4 seaters compare. Will the LAA be completely out of the loop on factory aircraft in this class, or are we going to act as “EASA representatives” in some way?

Rod1

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:44 pm

The P400 will be offered here as an advanced kit, much like the P300 is at the moment. The factory are quoting "about 20%' dearer than the 300. The main thing though is that is made from wood, so it will have a soul.

Captain Pulsar · Post by **Captain Pulsar** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:16 pm

The main thing though is that is made from wood, so it will have a soul.

Seems a tiny bit narrow minded Brian, you nawty chap!

I think I may have to start calling you "Woody"!

I guess the only answer to this perrenial dilemma is something snappy with a plastic fuselage and wooden wings. Hmm, I wonder what???

Rob Freestone

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:10 pm

I am beginning to understand. So the P400 will be an LAA approved design, but the MCR4s will not. If the factory built EASA certified MCR4s is followed by an identical kit, presumably the LAA would grant automatic approval, or will national barriers still prevent this?

The MCR4s will carry four 85kg people plus 5 hours of fuel. That is a lot more than my old 180hp AA5B. This is based on real aircraft, not a theoretical design / marketing number.

Rod1

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:29 pm

Hi Rod. The P400 is not a theoretical design, it is real and is flying. It will be brought in by Pioneer UK for UK kit approval asap. It is a shame that Gerry Davies did not bring in the MCR4S kit and see it through approval, maybe he didn't see a market for it.
Rob, I don't think its narrow minded to prefer wooden aeroplanes, I like them all really, honest, just that wood is my particular thing.

Nick Allen · Post by **Nick Allen** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:14 am

Wasn't one of the problems with then-PFA approval of the MCR4s to do with some spin-testing not being done? (I seem to recall this from a discussion on the old BB.) But if Dyn-Aero are now selling an EASA-approved version, then presumably (i) this testing has now been done; or (ii) it wasn't needed. Either way, surely that removes (at least in theory!) one obstacle to LAA approval: it would, after all, be fairly perverse for the LAA not to approve an EASA-approved design...

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:15 am

Hi Paul,

To be fair we may be talking about two slightly different aircraft, as the existing kit aircraft may not be exactly the same as the factory one. A light MCR4s will give 425kg useful load, with a max take off weight of 750kg this is one very efficient aircraft, which is why I like it. There are very few aircraft which will lift more than their own weight, my MCR is 253kg with a MTOW of 490kg, which is quite good but the MCR4s is in the impossible category until you actually get a ride in one. If it cannot be built at a sensible price then all this is wasted, but 115kn on 13lph, or 125kn on 18lph 4 up is worth something.

My comment on the name was based on the MC100 or Ban-bi, Ban comes from Colomban and bi from the French word biplace meaning two seats. As the MCR4s was not designed by Colomban and does not have 2 seats the “Ban-bi 4 seater” is a strange name to choose, but each to his own.

Will we see you at the fly in on Sunday?

Rod1

PS

Nick

The Kit is accepted all over the world, except in the UK and the kit production line has been at capacity since the aircraft was introduced (2001?). By going for the new European regulation of European Light Aircraft (ELA 1) Dyn Aero have sidestepped both the UK CAA and the LAA. I am however not sure how a kit built version to the same design would fit into the system, so one more spin test may always be required.

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:05 pm

All over the world eh Rod. There are around 190 countries in the world, and only the Brits are dumb enough not to have cleared the Dyn-Aero four seater. A little hyperbole to bolster your case there I do believe Rod.

MikeGodsell · Post by **MikeGodsell** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:49 pm

Robin fleet still in limbo then.

Thanks for the info Peter.