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

Peter wrote:

The full fuel payload is great (more than a TB20 actually, which is 260kg, and has the same empty weight of 900kg) because the fuel tank is small. OTOH it doesn’t burn much of the stuff to start with.

And you can go to croatia in one go while the DA40 would struggle (or might even not manage) to do it with 1 stop! Good thing is fuel is generally guaranteed available at any decent sized airport (for diversions etc)

I also like the da40ng a lot

I did my IR with a new NG (waas and gfc700). Yes. That’s a bird. and the AE300 are a lot more calm and feel “safer” than the centurions.

Even though the performance is not such a big issue. Both engines do quite well (2.0s and AE300). Just speed is a winner for the da40. It does easily cruise 145ktas at almost all levels

If I could choose, the ng airframe and the 2.0s would be interesting. But no such luck…1150mtow for centurions :-(

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.

Unfortunately not. You need a DA40 NG to get a better payload. The DA40D 155 HP is still limited to 1150kg MTOW.
The DR401 wins at payload: 460kg useful load or 385kg useful load with 5hr of fuel on board.

From here

The full fuel payload is great (more than a TB20 actually, which is 260kg, and has the same empty weight of 900kg) because the fuel tank is small. OTOH it doesn’t burn much of the stuff to start with.

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.

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.

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.

Let us know how it goes!