I wonder why the Enroute-IR hasn’t come up.
The pros and cons have been discussed at length, but if you have an academic interest in learning and the full IR is too expensive for your budget at the moment, you seem to me like the perfect EIR candidate. It will satisfy your desire to learn more, you will have to go through the entire (stripped down) IR theory and pass the exams. You will receive practical instrument training (as Peter suggested) and you will actually be able to USE it legally (granted, under very limiting conditions). It will also be a door opener for the full IR (the “competency based” approach CB IR) through its gradual approach, which a) many say is the main benefit of the new regulations and b) seems like it suits your personal approach very well. Having said that, I’m not sure if you’ll find a place that already offers an EIR course in your area.
Btw. I’m in a similar position as you and am going to post a similar question with some different perspectives once I find the time to…
Your interest in IR indicates to me that you may be interested in using your license to go places. I agree with @dublinpilot. Use your current ratings and your newly acquired LPE to fly all over Europe, visit places, build experience, enjoy yourself.
As suggested by @Rhino the EIR would give you a glimpse of what IFR is and can be used as a stepping stone to a full IR thanks to the CB-IR. It will also allow you easier transit through controlled/complex airspace when you are roaming around Europe.
-or start building your own airplane 
The only down side is it tends to steal rather large chunks of flying time… but when finished you will get it back in buckets.
Flying the club C-172 is, well – boring after relatively short time. Flying a Cub is never boring. Hard to tell exactly why the Cub is fun, it just is. Be a real Aviator and learn to fly with tail wheel in a Cub. That is something you will never regret and never get tired from.
Having flown both the C172 a lot an a reasonable amount with the Cub, I do object to the claim that flying a C172 is “boring” and that you would be less of an aviator if you don’t fly tailwheel. It really depends on what you think is fun. For me, going places is fun, and also the intellectual challenge of planning and carrying out a flight. So I would actually be more “bored” in a Cub with basic equipment than I would be in a well-equipped TB20.
I agree 100%.
You’ve got to do whatever you find interesting.
For me, it’s going to interesting places and meeting interesting and nice people, and solving technical challenges (flying, and the aircraft itself and its systems) and for me GA has delivered that in large quantities. It hasn’t been cheap but when you are on your deathbed you will not be wishing you spent less money on stuff you enjoyed, or spent less time with people you spent nice time with.
We had a thread here very early on, on how many people here are into IT. There is a definite correlation between software people and pilots, and one can see why…
That said…. I still want to fly an F16!
Of course it depends on what you think is fun. But flying in a basic C-172 is the equivalent of driving the most basic version of a 1980 Volvo 240. That could be fun, but it cannot be compared with an old and perfectly restaured MG or a brand new Audi.
I have a few hours in a C-172 with a 6 cyl Continental, CS prop, autopilot, full IFR. If I were to “go places” (flying straight and level for hours), I cannot understand how that is enjoyable in anything less.
But, I tend to spend way much time in my shop building aircraft (instead of flying), so who am I to tell?
I just object to the philosophy that flying is all about “going places” in a 700€ IFR equipped turbo charged monster. There are so many other things you can do, but you have to step out of the basic 4 seat “sedan” and into more “exotic”, old or just different stuff.
That could be fun, but it cannot be compared with an old and perfectly restaured MG or a brand new Audi.
I disagree. This stuff is 100% subjective and a matter of opinion.
I have absolutely zero interest in being in a restored MG, and I could buy a brand new Audi today but have zero interest in doing that too. I also have zero interest in wearing a £2500 Breitling watch or wearing a £500 “authentic” leather jacket – things which feature prominently in some areas of GA (the airport bar, usually).
A C172 (depending on type) can reach most of France in one leg, from southern UK. That’s pretty damn good.
I just object to the philosophy that flying is all about “going places” in a 700€ IFR equipped turbo charged monster
I don’t think anybody said that. (I assume you mean €700k). Anyway, a €700k IFR tourer will be wasted unless you have an IR and plenty of time and money to throw at the whole thing.
The other thing is that you need to match the aircraft to your desired mission profile. This may be obvious in say aerobatics (you get an Extra 300 or whatever, not a TB20) but it’s less obvious in normal GA, and a lot of people have bought planes which are no good for the flying they want to do.
We had a thread here very early on, on how many people here are into IT. There is a definite correlation between software people and pilots, and one can see why…
Well, there is a definite correlation between software people and pilots on web forums. I wonder how strong that correlation still is if you take the “web forum” variable out? I used to be active on a car forum in my early twenties and there were also lots of IT people. Surely that doesn’t mean there is a definite correlation between software people and people who drive cars?
Of course it depends on what you think is fun. But flying in a basic C-172 is the equivalent of driving the most basic version of a 1980 Volvo 240. That could be fun, but it cannot be compared with an old and perfectly restaured MG or a brand new Audi.
Yet with cars as with airplanes, it is a matter of taste and personal affinity. I know people who gain great satisfaction from buying an old VW Passat, keeping it in good shape and driving out to the Dutch coast for the occasional coke and fries with a view (the equivalent to the 100$ burger or the 100€ Schnitzel). A Passat will NEVER be fun for me – it is a utility vehicle and nothing else. On the other hand, I’ve had my 4th Mazda MX5 and some people might say “Mate… grow up!” but I won’t in the near future. It’s all I need and it’s great fun.
In terms of flying, I find the C172 isn’t boring at all and flying one all the way to the Balkans has been one of the coolest things I’ve done in my life so far. Flying an airplane isn’t boring in the first place, no matter what the type. I will progress, but if that’s a question of types or mission types or what not – I don’t know.
There are so many other things you can do, but you have to step out of the basic 4 seat “sedan” and into more “exotic”, old or just different stuff.
I agree
This is a forum where most folks take a very keen interest in instrument flying and in flying to go places. And why not? Hey, whatever sets your wings ablaze! But as LeSving says, there are lots of other options, too. I’d do a tailwheel conversion for sure; it’ll be a challenge that will add to your skills, won’t cost the earth and should be fun.
At your stage (at any stage!), I’d be curious to fly all the aircraft I could get my hands on, and experience different types of flying. But then I’m not too bothered where flying takes me…I just like getting off the ground
Well, there is a definite correlation between software people and pilots on web forums. I wonder how strong that correlation still is if you take the “web forum” variable out? I used to be active on a car forum in my early twenties and there were also lots of IT people. Surely that doesn’t mean there is a definite correlation between software people and people who drive cars?
Yes that is no doubt true. Forums = access to the internet = IT savvy (well to some extent at least).
I do however think there is a strong correlation between IFR flying and IT as a hobby/profession. You need the same warped brain to do both 
