2008 AOPA Sweeps Archer Useful Load

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.

Also, it'll be interesting to see if Aspen gets their PFD's certified in
time for the scheduled installation. My guess is that at best they'll get
just one column (the AI/DG) in time for the delivery.

Marco

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.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

I've got the earliest year of the official 'Archers' (1974)and have a 920 lb
useful load or about 600 lbs with full fuel. I normally 'fill to the tabs'
to get 700 lbs with about 3.5 hrs with a reserve.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel


"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:7d9fdfd070af3@uwe...
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.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

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...

I wonder where AOPA is getting their data.

Marco

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

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...

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.

OK I apologize for the Piper-guys-must-have-been-on-acid comment then.

Those are great numbers. Seems odd to me that the various media outlets
never refer to them as "haulers" given that it's the same useful load as
many six-seaters. I guess it's because the Dakota will always get the nod
since it carries more with the same airframe.

Marco

Marco Leon wrote:

Those are great numbers. Seems odd to me that the various media outlets
never refer to them as "haulers" given that it's the same useful load as
many six-seaters. I guess it's because the Dakota will always get the nod
since it carries more with the same airframe.


I like to think of them as economical haulers. If you need to lift 4
people and light baggage, with a relatively low fuel burn, the Archer series
is a good choice. If you need more capacity, you step up to the Dakota if
you just need to lift more weight, or the Six series if you need more seats.

As far as numbers go, I quit relying on "book" numbers a long time ago.
The 1160 lb. useful load you cited for the Archer II would be for a plane
with a stripped panel and stripped interior. It would be unlikely for you to
find that number in the real world. As a rule, if you start with the '63
Cherokee 180 and take (real world) samples of useful loads, you will see the
number start in the high 1000s and generally go lower as the years go by.
The reason is that throughout it's life, the horsepower has remained the same
(180 hp), yet the numerous improvements have taken their toll in weight.
Piper has tried to mitigate this by increasing the gross weight by 150 lbs.
over the years, but you can't keep trading performance for capacity
indefinitely.

I have a friend with an early serial number '63 Cherokee 180 and his useful
load is 1085 lbs. The '05 Archer III I flew a couple of years ago (Sabena
training plane, not a lot of options) had a useful load of 825 lbs.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200801/1

In a previous article, "Marco Leon" said:
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.

In the last 10 years, our flying club has owned 5 different PA28-181
Archers, all mid-1970s vintages. In every case, the no-fuel payload has
been around 900-1050 pounds. Subtracting the 288 pounds for fuel, gives a
600-750 pound full fuel payload.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
Hi, I'm Marc Andreesen, and after a hard day working on our ****-poor
browser, I need to relax with a ****-poor beer!
-- Malcolm Ray, on Marc's Miller Lite beer ads

On Jan 2, 11:31*am, "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.

Marco

I don't know about the early Archers, but my Cherokee 180 (pre-Archer)
has a useful load of 1049 lbs, or, 749 lbs with full fuel.

John