Well, I happen to have a 1983 PA-28-161 with the post '78 wheel pants (duh) with a long legged trip profile, so here's my buck twenty... My mission set is 416nm one way, anywhere from 2 to 3 weekends a month. That's a lot of hours I'm putting on the thing. Around 8 tach hours per round trip.
The trip is painful. Beats driving for sure, and I do it non-stop, no autopilot (though Im /G..), because I'm solo and young. No way in hell I'd do that with a passenger, let alone 3. Single door is a retarded setup, a true contorting act to get in there. It's a simple and semi-economical ship for a 'certificated' (sic) spam can, and I have only one power setting: WOT. But it ain't a comfortable nor a perceptibly expeditious traveling machine.
As to the claim of 120KTAS? Sure at 8K on a below standard delta T day at redline. My engine is at TBO and I like it, so I run it hard, but most folks will probably try to dial back. At that point no way you're hitting that. As to
indicating 120 under cruise power? LOL only on a dive. Maybe a cruise prop, and that thing has a scary low climb rate as it is, even for flatlands. A little too long with the nose up and you're already running at the top of the temp gauge. A Grumman AA5A can do that on a O-320 consistently. The trusty warrior? nah, it's frankly a 110knot block time cruise bird after you normalize for the two days of climb it'll take ya to get to altitude, even the later ones.
I usually take advantage of being under gross solo with full fuel and get away with climbing to the oxygen requirement altitudes (hold your breath for 30 mins or less am I right? LOL) on the way east and get some use of the tailwinds. No way with passengers I could do that. The climb rate is just embarrassing, especially in west Mexi-texas for about 3/4 of the year. Economy on the 180 hp versions of these samples don't impress me very much either (180hp C-172 and P-archer). Same airframe and really no significant increase in cruise speed for the added expense of capital acquisition cost and fuel burn, what I call "dollars per extra knot". The gas mileage actually goes down on the archer, I don't care what their POH says. All you're buying is 300-500fpm. That's a lot of keish for 5 less minutes on the climb and an actual lower gas mileage and range (again, the archer POH is out to lunch). About the only sensible 180hp upgrade to these airframes that I would say is worth the added cost is the Tiger (de facto 180hp Cheetah).
One thing is true. I can't complain about the time saved. For 30 grand and a whole ton of gas and parts money I shaved 10 hours of driving per weekend versus driving my jeep. To each their own. Ideally I should have driven more until I could buy the lancair but hey, "waiting to live" is for the dead.
I'll do this until I can sport a Glasair/Lancair since my mission doesn't require passengers, and if I'm going to contort myself the way I do in the warrior I rather do it @ 150-165KTAS and spend 2 less hours in the air round trip...oh and save a bundle on ADs and FAA red tape silliness. No way I'd pick either of the OPs choices for an airplane I intended on keeping long term for that kind of mileage mission and involving passengers of any kind. You're in 182/ Tiger/ 235 territory in my opinion. If I had to stick with passengers, I guess I'd go with the Tiger. When you add cylinders #5 and #6, and the constant speed prop to the equation, whooooweee that "dollars per extra knot" goes silly cost ineffective. The sleek tiger frame gives you the economy without the added expense of the prop and cylinder work. But that's my back of the napkin math, I wouldn't touch any of them until they went "owner experimental". But that's for another thread.
Good luck. Beats driving.
P.S. As to going slower on purpose. Meh, if that was true I'd have bought an ultralight or pencilwhipped my logbook. Time is money. You can always dial back 160-200+knots. You can't dial back 110knots, automobiles start embarrassing your financial choices at that point. Ask me how I know.
