I agree that would have made sense!
Who knows what the thinking was, maybe weight/structure, maybe they didn’t see a market for it, maybe something else
I do think the Dakota engine is fantastic! A bit thirsty, yes, but it’s just so nice to have that power (and load capability). Plus it has no exhaust mufflers 
Would also have been a good bridge between the Arrow III and the Malibu. But who knows what kind of considerations went on then behind closed doors
My favorite one engine - PA32 II TC for sure, with steam gauges as Seneca or with G1000NXi variant also.
Never flown a cherokee six IRL but I sat in one as a passenger once… it feels a step above the p28a/b for sure, a fantastic aircraft!
With 4 people and full fuel he is without question over max gross. That is not good decision-making.
It doesn’t make sense at the speeds that plane flies. If you look at the cruise speed of a 180 HP Arrow and a 180 HP Cherokee, it’s maybe 6-8 knots. That just isn’t worth it for the maintenance and potential for a gear-up. Retracts and turbocharged airplanes are always more popular with sim pilots than real pilots for good reason.
I’m all for your suggestion, but, to your question, putting a powerful engine in a fixed gear plane makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. In the sim it doesn’t matter, but in real life, retractable gear are quite expensive to maintain, add considerable weight, can fail, and are a safety hazard in that you can forget to extend them, and increase the value of the plane purchase price-wise (but not necessarily worth the value performance-wise).
Which, to me, the Cherokee was always the more attractive plane for me to purchase over the Arrow since it has very similar performance, was way cheaper to purchase and maintain, and does what I need it to do, and, in the end, is safer. Same thing with the Dakota. The lower purchase and operational cost justifies the fixed gear for a lot of people.
I grew up in the back seat of a 235. Absolutely astonishing aircraft. One of the few you will ever find that can carry its own weight!
Nope. Actually that worked out pretty well. Almost exactly in fact. The Warrior has a surprising amount of payload (430kg). If you subtract the fuel (48gal = approx. 130kg) then you still have 300kg for 4 people = i.e. average 75kg p.p.
Since we were on a day trip we didn’t have any baggage (small rucksack and handbag. Altogether less than 10kg).
Yeah that makes sense unfortunately. 
In the sim of course I always go for the RG version, since it’s a way cooler way to fly. I never liked the SR22 because of those small tentacles sticking out of its bottom. It’s an old-fashioned way of thinking, but to me a high-performance plane needs a retractable landing gear, otherwise it’s just like having a Ferrari on four narrow spare wheels.
That was his point. Meeting max weight is not a fun place to be and isn’t the smartest decision. I’ve done it, but I wasn’t proud of it, and I was happy when I had burned off some fuel. With myself and 1 adult women and a couple teenagers (nobody overweight) with fuel to the tabs I was right at max weight.
Not many adult men weigh less than 75 kg. So getting 4 adults is difficult if not impossible with full fuel.
But, to your point, fuel to the tabs will get you most places and makes carrying 4 people possible, but very, very tight.
Totally makes sense in the sim. Totally!
Yeah the pilot wasn’t exactly happy about it either, since he had only planned for three people and the airfield only had an 800m grass runway.
Plane wasn’t full to the brim, but over 2/3 and we had to make a flight to a nearby field first which had a much longer asphalt runway. So he brought me there first and the collected the other two and we flew off from there.
Also the weather was cool and the engine was brand new. So that helped
Zero chance you were under max gross with 4 adults. None.
Don’t know were you get THAT conviction from … Two blokes of about 80kg and two women in the 55-65kg range. The math is pretty clear …
and I just checked again with the POH to make sure of the empty (690kg) and gross weights (1120kg).
Also as I wrote we had to hop to the other airfield and back anyway because of the short grass runway, so a few gallons would have been burned off as well when we actually had four people on bord.
Two things that stand out to me are “pretty clear” and “in the X range”. Did you do W&B?
I just ran your numbers on my Cherokee 180 and with full tanks, 80kg males front and 65kg females in the back, 10 KG in baggage compartment, I am exactly 14 KG under max gross.
No matter how you slice it, you were close. The book takeoff roll on a Warrior is under 1000 feet = 300 meters. It took you 3 times that to get off the ground. That alone should tell you something. The point is, a hair under or a hair over, if anything goes wrong, you’re in a right bind. A wise pilot (Barry Schiff) once said, “put all the odds in your favor”. God forbid the engine quits while you’re climbing out at 300 FPM.
Remember, it’s always better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than to be in the air wishing you were on the ground.
Be safe out there. 
You can do it legally if you assume a basic empty weight of 1500 lbs and MTOW of 2440. Fuel fuel is 288 lbs, which leaves 652 lbs for payload, or an average of 163 lbs per passenger.
Now, those are some smaller people, mind you, not a lot of room for bags or additional installed equipment that would raise the basic empty weight.
Whether it’s smart depends on density altitude, surrounding terrain, and runway distance available versus calculated performance (plus a safety factor)
As another wise pilot once said, legal isn’t always smart.
And I’m sorry but from the sounds of things they clearly “eyeballed” weight and balance. Normalization of deviation: “worked last time!”Full fuel is 300 pounds, and people don’t count clothing as weight. Not much of it makes sense. can you fly at max gross? Sure! But I would actually do W&B.
People can do what they want but you wouldn’t catch me in that plane.
I’ve flown near MTOM many times, and it can be done safely!
-however-, it needs very careful planning, weighing, and monitoring (takeoff power, distance, etc). You need to be very vigilant
So if all that is done properly including a safety margin in all calculations, there is nothing inherently unsafe about making full use of the capabilities (airlines do this every day)
Eyeballing or “it worked last time” is clearly not a part of this equation (and a 1000m takeoff run in a PA28 has to be aborted way before you reach that distance!!)
Fun plane, just bought it.
So what do we have with this bird? I’m all of a sudden Caranado giddy after the 182 FINALLY became a 182. I already have quite the stable of their aircraft, and my father part owned an Archer II many moons ago.
Don’t need circuit breakers, except in the Flotiak where you can disable the landing gear nanny.
Carenado gets a lot of hate, and I wasn’t a fan of them in X-plane 11, but I’ve been happy with all their aircraft in MSFS. The Mooney is still one of my favorites. I did a quick pattern around my local airport with the Archer ll, and I like it. It and the Just Flight warrior are both a little slower than I normally fly, but I enjoy both of them. I’ll do a full flight with it this weekend.