Thanks for the input.
Regarding the rental cost: it is exactly the same for both aircrafts
Regarding the exact types:
I guess I will have a look and sit to see which one is most confortable 
hi jfw
which airfield will you be using for the training
Walter wrote:
which airfield will you be using for the training
EBCI
As this is the most recent DR400 thread thought the forum might be interested that a Capitaine has come up on Planecheck.
http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=33001
This conventional gear four seater with a simple 320 Lycoming with a stated 130 KTAS (I believe this is an honest max cruise) does credit to French GA.
I eventually decided to do the training on the DR400.
Thanks a lot for the comments & inputs.
Let us know how it goes!
Noe wrote:
Let us know how it goes!
WILCO
I have some experience with the “old” DA40TDI, with the 135 HP 1.7 engine, some experience with the “old” DR400 ecoflyer (135 HP 1.7 engine), a lot of experience with the DR400 Ecoflyer (135 HP 2.0 engine), and one or two flights with the DR401 (155 HP 2.0 engine). I have no experience with the new DA40 (155 HP with either the 2.0 Thielert or 2.0 Austro engine.)
First, avoid the 1.7 Thielert engine. It’s simply not good enough. We’ve had problems in any airframe it was installed in, leading to several forced landings (fortunately nobody got injured, and the damage to the airframe was always minor.)
For training, the DR400 wins hands down. It’s a very stable platform with very direct controls, a very forgiving stall, excellent visibility. With full tanks it can carry 3 POB so you can take a student friend in the back. However, the cockpit ergonomics (particularly the seats) are not very good for long touring flights.
For touring I’d choose the DA40. The aerodynamics are slightly less forgiving, you need a bit more rudder when maneuvering, it’s a bit harder to bring the speed down in the circuit and it balloons quite a bit when deploying flaps. But the seats are a lot more comfortable, the cockpit is a lot more ergonomically designed, and the passengers and cargo in the back have more space. Also it’s easier to enter for the back seat passengers: They have their own door.
I don’t have the exact data to hand but for the same power setting/fuel flow the DA40 seems to cruise just a tad faster. OTOH, the DR400 seems to need a comparatively shorter runway than the DA40.
The DR401 (155 HP) can take 4 POB and a reasonable amount of fuel. I expect the same goes for a modern DA40 with 155 HP.
BackPacker wrote:
I expect the same goes for a modern DA40 with 155 HP.
The DA40NG (168 hp) I fly has 285 kg useful load at full fuel (without long range tanks), but it doesn’t climb well off the ground!
Since it carries little fuel (because it consumes little fuel), you also can’t really remove much in order to remove weight removing 50kg of fuel will give you a total of less than 2h endurance!.
I think the DR401 is a bit better in that regard.
Noe wrote:
The DA40NG (168 hp) I fly has 285 kg useful load at full fuel
In my book that is pretty good! That’s 3 people and some luggage.
