New guy investigating a dream...

[maules.com]

There appears to be a difference in cg position from the older MX7 with the short wing and the later MX7 with longer wing.
The later MX7 has larger, more effective ailerons and rudder and with the extra 25" wingspan has slower stall speed.
I don't recollect off top of my head names of Maule instructors in your area K/slim but hopefully they will read here and contact you.
Moose episode was coming off short bar on Black Rvr near Chalkyitsik headed for Circle AK. Bad tail vibration depicted flying at a nose up or nose down attitude, not level, and awareness off potential cg difficulty depicted staying 'well' above best L/D speed 85mph including the climb and a fast approach and touchdown, but there were no problems.

[Kansas Slim]

Strictly based on the past few posts, it seems obvious that there is no inherent design flaw regarding CG envelope with the Maule vs another like airframe. Then again, what's another "like" airframe? Your talking with someone who not too terribly long ago thought all high-wings were Cessna's and all low-wings were Piper's, with the exception of the V-tail Beech and the backwards-tailed Mooney.

Okay, so maybe my civil acft ID isn't quite that bad, but I must say that military aircraft are so much easier to figure out.

I was recently reading about the Found aircraft and the E350. That seems pretty impressive, but it certainly can't be compared favorably to a 180 hp airplane. I'd have to look at the numbers to compare with the 235, but it seems to carry a much higher price tag than the Maule's. I'm sure even 235 hp would be hard to measure against 300+.

The more a guy gets to dreaming, the farther away from reality he gets. Like I mentioned in the beginning, I'm just after speed and some utility for bringing the family along on rare occasions.

Thanks for all the discussion!

[Mr. Ed]

Andy,

'96 MX7-180C. I have the spring gear which weighs more. If you're running the small tires that might make a slight difference too. I have 8.50's which I think were 16 pounds heavier than the smaller tires it had when I bought it. Also have a Sandell 3308 glass HSI which has a rather sizable gyro mounted below the pilot seat. Other than that, fairly standard IFR set up with GPS. I think the gear makes up most of the difference. I haven't weighed it since I bought it but the mechanic is bringing his scales for the next annual in February. Will be interesting to see how close the weight is to the book weight. My empty weight in the book now shows 1517. Aft CG limit in my book is 20.5". At empty weight the CG is 13.44".

I know the plane will fly aft of the CG envelope and over gross. The problem is that I make my living with my ticket. In the off chance that I get ramp checked or have a problem with my little airplane and there is an investigation, things need to look legal. If you've ever seen me unload in Idaho you probably noticed that every bag/box has a tag pinned onto it with the weight. Been dealing with the feds too long to let them find a way to make me miserable.

[andy]

I have oleo struts, Goodyear 8.50x6 tires, Cleveland dual puck wheel conversion kit, ABW heavy duty gear legs and a pretty standard IFR panel. Maybe it's a combination of the gear and larger wing that accounts for the weight difference. Your empty weight is about 100 pounds more than mine. At 2500 lbs the CG range on my chart is 16.7 to 20.5. At an empty weight of 1409 lbs, my CG is 16.3. My airplane is also used commercially, but even with 4 adults, some baggage and full mains, it's not over gross or outside the CG envelope. I keep area C as light as possible when I have 4 adults. It's interesting that there's such a big difference between the 1986 MX-7-180 and the 1996 MX-7-180C.

[AndrewK]

Convince the wife? I spent 6 years trying to convince the wife, didn't happen so I bought it anyway. She still doesn't like it but knows it's here to stay.

I bought my little Piper to build time when we were dating so my wife knew what she was getting herself in to from the very start. It worked out in my favor since she was the one who suggested we get a slightly roomier airplane since she started flying with me pretty regularly so here I am.

I had "0" hours in type and all my insurance required was a check out with an instructor with no hour requirement so the insurance is out there if you are willing to pay for it. I have time in a short wing Piper which have a reputation for being squirrely on the ground so I am not sure if that helped or not.

[Kansas Slim]

...so my wife knew what she was getting herself in to from the very start.

My issue is more of the "You fly at work and don't have enough time around the house the way it is. Why do you want to go fly more?" variety. I do have the greatest job in the whole world. I can't argue with her there.

[aero101]

Andy- 1994 MX7-180A
Wow, the difference in EW CG's kind of tells the story... My empty weight is about 1350lbs and the CG at this weight is just aft of 12", over 4" fwd of your early MX7... I'm basic VFR panel, Firewall mounted LW Battery, Fixed Pitch Prop... Where is battery located in the early model, aft compartment, underseat, or fwd firewall? Not too much difference in our empty weights, just wondering why the huge difference of CG location as with your panel, CS prop you've actually got more fwd weight then me in options?

[maules.com]

Andy, 16.3 at empty of 1409lb seems rather far aft.
Are you sure??

[Duane]

Andy, does seem quite aft.. mail me your production nr (tag between the seats) and i'll check the original files.. of course, thats not counting anything added after the fact. suppose its possible the original figures may not have been right. just wanna check

[andy]

Spreadsheet formula problem (operator error). Thanks for pointing it out. My correct empty weight CG is 11.04.

[maules.com]

Now that, sounds realistic for shortwing MX7.

[aero101]

Yes, now you can use that Area "C" for something besides your toiletry's kit when loaded!!!