Recently, Marco Leon posted:

On Jan 2, 4:09 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote:
Marco Leon wrote:
Just read the article on the new sweepstakes plane. What stood out
was the 700 lbs.+ full-fuel payload on the early Archers. Is that
right?? Is anyone seeing that kind of payload? It's hard to believe
it has the same if not better load-carrying capability than some
Sixes/Saratogas.

That would sound right for the early Cherokee 180s (mine in 715 lbs
with 50 gallons onboard), but isn't typical for the Archers. The
Archers gained weight with the longer wing, extended fuselage and
much larger stabilator. Piper tried to offset that somewhat by
bumping the gross weight an extra 50 lbs. but the typical useful
loads were still around 600 lbs with full fuel.

That is still much better than the later model Archer III which
really suffered from weight creep. I flew a new one a couple of
years ago and was surpised to find that it's useful load (with a
modest panel) was over 200 lbs. less than my short bodied Cherokee
180.

So I have my Piper - Single Engine Aircraft book (that orange one by
Jones Publishing) in front of me and it indeed says the 1976 Archer II
has a useful load of 1160 lbs making the full fuel payload about 860
lbs. (2550 lbs Gross wt. and 1390 Avg Empty wt. with 300 lb full
fuel) Yeah, *sure* it is. The 1977-1979 models are shown as having a
1034 lb useful load which equals a 734 lb. full fuel payload. I
realize my Piper book is showing marketing..err..book numbers but a
260 lb difference from actual is a real stretch. Maybe the Piper guys
were still suffereing from the effects of acid in the 1960's...

Those numbers are in the same ballpark as our club's Archers, and I think
the differences may be due to different interiors, avionics, etc. Also, in
my experience Piper's numbers for their '70s - '80s aircraft tend to be
conservative.

Neil