Very much agree.
Incidentally I recall, from a CAA presentation several years ago, that they did not want any UK GPS approaches having any GPS waypoints between the FAF and the MAP – for exactly this reason.
I am not sure if there are any approaches nowadays which contravene this, anyway, but a real DME avoids this altogether.
It’s a pity that a DME is not a cheap box, but it isn’t heavy – in the context of the variation of human weights 
LeSving wrote:
In practice it will be difficult to get around without GPS and VOR/ILS, but for basic EIR there is no requirement for any avionics at all.
I would greatly appreciate some clarification on the avionics requirements for “basic EIR” on altitudes < 9,5k feet in countries other then Norway. Are there any more countries which would allow for a simpler equipment in case of EIR? How about Germany?
I don’t think there is any equipment carriage requirement specific to the EIR.
The equipment carriage regs are based on the airspace class and the flight rules.
In general, for Eurocontrol IFR, you must have a BRNAV approved IFR GPS installation (for enroute and for GPS approaches) and equipment for ILS VOR NDB DME if you are flying approaches which are based on these.
Peter wrote:
I don’t think there is any equipment carriage requirement specific to the EIR.
Thank you Peter!
UPDATE:
Since you were all so incredibly helpful in my decision-making I thought I should let you know where the pendulum finally swung.
Unsurprisingly the arguments against buying a Euro3-400k aircraft with new-but-basically-outdated avionics convinced me, and I spent long enough discussing it with the incredibly helpful and patient folks at Mistral (UK Robin agents) that they finally agreed to sell me the demonstrator (you saw pictures including the panel above) – there are no used DR401 2.0s on the market and the low per hour costs of the JetA1 engine were fundamental to the new vs old plane equation. Its fully loaded with everything from coupled autopilot to Virtual Terrain and TCAS so its future-proofed for the timescale I’ll be flying it.
By the way this engine now has a 100hrs (minimum once-a-year) maintenance interval costing <£2k – no other 50/150/annual checks.
I get it in a couple of months and it will live in a nice dry hangar at Shoreham.
This means my TB20 share is for sale by the way:
THANK YOU all again for your invaluable and knowledgeable advice :)
Hi Neal, we have one DR401 2.0s in the Club. G500, sTec 55×...... but it has the 3rd cooler. But easy to fly, no hassle with primer/Mixer. …start the engine and fly. Great decission. …have fun und enjoy
NealCS wrote:
By the way this engine now has a 100hrs (minimum once-a-year) maintenance interval costing <£2k
Scheduled maintenance, just for the engine?
Silvaire:
…that was the cost of the invoice I saw for the 100hr check, which included/replaced the ‘annual’ and included the engine maintenance oil and consumables. No 50 hr checks – just repeat this check every 100 hrs or each year if it flies under 100hrs.
So apart from unexpected failures and replaceable parts in later years (for example after 600 hrs there’s a gearbox overhaul and prop and engine will time out eventually), that’s the total marginal cost of every 100hrs. £20/hr including VAT plus about 23 litres jet A1NealCS
You have got yourself a very nice aircraft with a first class Avionic fit that can be operated a reasonable cost, with the engine life/cost issues I would advise flying the aircraft as much as you can as with all engines they don’t like sitting about doing nothing.
The DR400 airframe is a very good platform for a number of roles, the low powerd aircraft are cheap trainers and the higher powerd aircraft make good glider tugs and long range touring aircraft, I too looked at the diesel powerd aircraft but it fails to meet my mission profile so I stayed with my 180 HP Lycoming.
This being said I am looking for a few people who would like to get certified an electric VP propeller that is optimised for high altitude ( for a DR400 ) flight. The current fixed pitch cruse prop runs out of puff at 8000 ft and I am sure that there is more performance to be had from the airframe. MT currently have a number of VP props for the DR400 but these are all aimed at glider tugs and don’t address the high speed / high altitude case. I’m sure that all is required is a blade change for one of the MT glider tug props but if I can find a few like mined DR 400 owners to spur MT into action.
NealCS wrote:
So apart from unexpected failures and replaceable parts in later years (for example after 600 hrs there’s a gearbox overhaul and prop and engine will time out eventually), that’s the total marginal cost of every 100hrs. £20/hr including VAT plus about 23 litres jet A1
Or once a year, regardless of amount flown. £2000 per year is roughly the same as my annual fuel bill and engine maintenance bill (two oil changes) combined for a four cylinder Lycoming in the US. I guess occasionally I’d need to change spark plugs too, and overhaul mags, but that’s every five to ten years or so.
A_and_C if you don’t have any experience with the MT electric prop, I’d advise you to look at it (physically and otherwise) very closely. I own and fly one and while it does offer the performance benefits you describe, the hardware takes more of my attention that I’d like. I’d much prefer a hydraulic prop.
All that said, I looked at a new Robin DR400 at Friedrichshafen and I believe it was my favorite new aircraft at the show
