But you can throttle back and only burn 7 if you want to. Most of the
time you aren't in a hurry so why 75% it? The extra speed, climb, and
payload is there if you need it but you don't have to burn 8.5 if
you don't want to.


Trip

In article , says...

In article EapWe.332775$_o.8703@attbi_s71,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Of course I fly an Archer II and it serves my mission really well which
often have all 4 seats filled with flight legs of 2 to 3 hours.
Flight plan for 110 Knots, lean it well and cruise at about 2450 RPM to
use about 9.0 to 9.5 GPH.

Agreed, the Piper Archer is a great aircraft. It does everything okay, and
nothing terrible -- which is about as good as it gets in a Spam Can. And
it will out-perform a standard Skyhawk in every measure. (Of course, with
20 or 30 extra horsepower, it's not really a fair comparison. You really
should be comparing it with the Skyhawk XP...)

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.

But the bottom line is both the 172 and the Archer are good, simple,
reliable airplanes. Nothing outstanding from either in the way of
performance, but cheap to operate (by aviation standards), and any mechanic
anywhere will be familiar with working on them.