Which plane is most interesting to be trained on: DR400 or DA40 ?

They are both interesting planes! Personally I prefer the handling of the DR400, but the DA40 is a better long distance high altitude cruiser – and the FADEC diesel is great.

For NVFR you want something stable and simple: The DR400 is probably a little easier.

I would take the cheaper one, or the one you’re more likely to fly afterwards.

At the end of the day, you’ll be happy with either of them…

Sit in both as well as considering their other merits. I find the DA-40 seats uncomfortable unless I use a cushion to support the base of my spine, and then I’m a little short on knee room. The plane is not unpleasant to fly, climbs well with the available 180 HP, but is slow in roll response with the long sailplane style wing. Not exciting. I’d probably gravitate toward the Robin, but I’ve never flown one.

Otherwise, minimizing cost is a very good idea.

The DR400 is a delightful aircraft both in handling, comfort and excellent visibility. Nothing shabby about the DA40, just that you asked which one?

NVFR = night VFR, right? Then all else being equal, the internal lighting and instrument lighting could make all the difference. Also landing/taxi lights could make a difference, the DA-40 I fly used to have very weak taxi lights until upgraded. Is the DA-40 G1000 equipped? if so, and if that does not scare you, I would say that while G1000 leaves me cold for day VFR, it makes for a very nice night dashboard with good situational awareness. But if you do not fly the G1000 already, there is some learning to do.
I like them both – they are both better than the generic spam cams in both handling and visibility. DA-40 is a little more sailplane-like, I like that, others like Silvaire does not. Also, when flying a single at night, I take comfort in knowing that the DA-40 apparently is the safest type there is, statistically.

huv wrote:

generic spam cams

Language! I find this offensive to a very big part of the private pilot population and aircraft owners. We fly what we can afford and do not need fellow aviators’ using such derogatory terms to describe our aircraft.

huv wrote:

I like them both – they are both better than the generic spam cams in both handling and visibility. DA-40 is a little more sailplane-like, I like that, others like Silvaire does not.

It’s not that I didn’t like the DA-40, it’s just that it reminded me of nothing so much as Diamond’s version of a Cessna 172. Less room perhaps, and better performance, but with the same kind of predictable but relatively unresponsive handling. Neither the DA-40 or the C172 is supposed ot be exciting, just safe and useful. That’s OK.

Agree with Aviathor’s sentiments, the taper wing Warrior has very nice handling, and the 172 is very capable in most farm strips – I think the spam cam put down may have come when they replaced the Chipmunk, but it is only used in the UK AFAIK.

The phrase “Spam Can” was invented by pilots in roughly the 1940’s to describe aluminum monocoque aircraft that were replacing tube and rag designs at that time in the US. It’s remained popular with ‘antiquers’ in the US since that time, as a mild put down of modern aircraft. Europeans who didn’t understand the genesis of the name adopted it to describe the same aircraft… which by that time were old, no longer offensively modern!

Aviathor wrote:

Language! I find this offensive

My sincerest apologies. I honestly did not mean to offend. My respect for, or interest in, airplanes are not related to which material is primarily used in their construction, and definitely not to their affordability.