: Of course, keep in mind that the Archer will burn more fuel than the 172.
: I flight plan the Archer at 8.5 GPH (and 2350 RPM). The 172 burns more
: like 7 GPH. With the price of fuel these days, that's a good $5/hr cheaper
: to operate.

... only if you cruise it at 75%. If you cruise at the same absolute hp (e.g.
65% on a 180 vs. 75% on a 160), they burn the same. Approx 8-8.5 gph. I doubt a 172
with 150/160hp at 75% only burns 7 gph unless you're only running 60%... you need
fuel to make power.

That said, the Skyhawk vs. Archer has pretty much been beat to death.
Ignoring high/low wing debates, and the single-door that's already been mentioned,
they tend to fly about the same. Not sporty by any stretch, but not overly heavy
either. The biggest difference is in the sink/stall characteristics. The hershey-bar
cherokees (e.g. the Archer I as explained previously) has a very benign stall. They
also have a fairly high sink rate by comparison to a 172. I'm not so sure about the
taper-wing variety... I think they're somewhere in the middle.

Skyhawks carry a $5-10k premium over equivalent Cherokees. Most likely due to
"everyone" training in a Cessna. My feelings were Pipers give more bang for the buck.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************