Gary,
I agree with most of what you said in balancing features in relation to need, and I think these issues are relevant to Bill's decision. A couple of exceptions:
- Unlike the DA40 designation, the PA28 designation encompasses quite a wide range of different aircraft configurations, even different airfoil designs (I believe there was even a short run of a T-tail with a PA28 designation). The Warrior, as you say, and the 180 are somewhat similar to the earlier DA40s, much more than the larger PA28s, such as the 235 and, especially, the short run of the 201T where 50 gallons gets you a payload of more than 1,000 pounds and around four hours flying time with reserves.
- Some PA28s are slower and some are faster than various DA40 years. My XLS is pretty fast in relation to book values. I have flown is side by side with my 201T on several occasions. There is no circumstance in which it can keep up and is generally 10-15 kts behind when both aircraft are at 75%. At my airport, a fully loaded XLS is coaxed off the runway in the summer. The 201T lifts off aggressively if needed.
Of the few considerations I threw out to Bill, I think the most significant may be looking hard at his projected flying habits and payload needs. In my opinion, the maintenance and annual issues, while important, are less important than the missional fit. The DA40 is
not a serious four-passenger aircraft and, even though you can take the DA40 to
tame grass strips, it is designed for concrete or asphalt runways. Also, it can be a real annoyance to have to drop 25 or more gallons of fuel so you can take another couple for a nearby hamburger while pointing out that they can't bring anything heavier than a billfold with them.
I know DA40 pilots who are moving elsewhere because of the limitations in SOB, baggage, and W&B.
Like you, I love the design of the DA40 and the safety record is without equal. Most important, it fits my mission about 80% of that time and that's probably as good as you can hope for.