What's your EMPTY weight?

[xwildcat]

Two M6s on the map now. Here's the new table...

[Mountain Doctor]

Great.

Second to last.

Hey, it's paid for and I know how to use it!

[maules.com]

Mtn Doc, are you cs prop or fp. Gwt difference.

[maules.com]

Wildcat, is the PP derived from an average, or specific of empty and/or gross wt.?
Are the PP numbers derived from takeoff roll and climb numbers from Maule's brochures over the years or more simply from expected numbers re the weights and wing areas.
The wing span of M4 and M5 and 1984-1993 MX7 and MXT7 are all the same at 30'10" however the lifting area is greater on the squared tip MX and MXT than the droop swept tip of M4 and M5.

[bobguhr]

One more please. Mine is a 1997 MXT-7 180A 1458 lbs empty weight 2400lb gross weight 165.6 wing area Also paid for and I like to think I know how to fly it. Might be interesting to have some sort of Maule get together/STOL friendly competition. Thanks Bob

[mars]

Xwildcat, took a closer look at your table... just a thought! To compare performance numbers based on increased hp, useful load and wing area for the planes in the table ONLY, the ratio of usefull to gross #/hp multiplied by the wing area for that airplane may do the trick. The higher the ratio the greater the usefeull load or the lighter the plane, hp already factored-in. Can compare the twenty or so airplanes in table with different configurations and see how they stock up against each other ONLY, based on your performance criteria (hp, useful load and wing area) for that plane. Could probaly refine that number based on GW for each plane on the list. The lightest plane with the bigest wing area in the table should score the highest... loose weight, gain performance Comments?

[xwildcat]

Wildcat, is the PP derived from an average, or specific of empty and/or gross wt.?

Specific to that plane.

Are the PP numbers derived from takeoff roll and climb numbers from Maule's brochures over the years or more simply from expected numbers re the weights and wing areas.

No and not even expected. As I said, this throws out variables of pilot skills and conditions. Just crunching POH numbers really.

The wing span of M4 and M5 and 1984-1993 MX7 and MXT7 are all the same at 30'10" however the lifting area is greater on the squared tip MX and MXT than the droop swept tip of M4 and M5.

Right and this can get geeky quick. I don't want to run engineering studies or look at lift and drag coefficients of airfoils... etc. I just wanted a VERY simple method to come up with a comparative number.

There's performance (STOL) and then there's capability (load hauling and such). My "Practical Performance" combines these and gives a SIMPLE figure that compares the planes. One of the most ignored numbers in pilot's POHs is empty weight. However, it is vitally important to both performance and capability. It can be offset by thrust and/or lifting area. Neither one of which we have to work with. Instead, we can (poorly) substitute hp for thrust, and wing area for lifting area. Those are imperfect but at least we all know those numbers. The formula I came up with is SIMPLE and measures what I wanted to measure. Einstein said, "Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler."

So PP improves when we 1) lighten the plane 2) increase useful load by doing #1 or up grossing if possible 3) increase wing area, or 4) increase hp). Since inception the Maule factory has been doing #2, #3, & #4. Have the planes become better performers? You decide.

bobguhr, you're added to the table now.

[maules.com]

Thankyou Wildcat. I'm glad you are the mathematician. Interesting stuff.

[xwildcat]

the ratio of usefull to gross #/hp multiplied by the wing area for that airplane may do the trick. The higher the ratio the greater the usefeull load or the lighter the plane, hp already factored-in. Can compare the twenty or so airplanes in table with different configurations and see how they stock up against each other ONLY, based on your performance criteria (hp, useful load and wing area) for that plane. Could probaly refine that number based on GW for each plane on the list. The lightest plane with the bigest wing area in the table should score the highest... loose weight, gain performance Comments?

It's EASY to overcomplicate these things. I think the ratio is built in already, algebra being the cute & fun thing it is. mars, you're probably right and I'm sure it could be improved. But this has painted an interesting picture as is.

The table shows me that BALANCE of hp and load and wingsize matters. A big engine, not enough. A big wing, not enough, a big useful load, not enough. But when an aircraft improves all of these in balance, PP goes up. So I think it's a simple and effective tool.

Having said that, who cares? bobguhr is right. We really need to get together and fly these machines.

[Mountain Doctor]

Mtn Doc, are you cs prop or fp. Gwt difference.

FP. You advised me to go for CS back in 2002 when I bought it but I didn't have the budget. Wish I let you talk me into it though.

[Mountain Doctor]

Of course the least performing Maule is still a great performing airplane.

[JDW]

MTN DOC:
I'm right there with ya
Guess Ive always been one of those big girl & moped kinda guys
Still a lota fun, kinda hard to put a number on that?

[Maulehigh]

Am I too late to be included?

1366lb @ 12.16 inches empty. Stock MX-7-180 (short wing), 7.00 x 6 tyres, Standard panel plus Skymap IIIc.

[benflyn]

Jeremy, do you have any #'s for a 260 to add to the chart?

Playing with the units of Practical Performance

useful load – lbs
Wing area – ft2
Hp – ft-lbs/sec

lbs – ft2
lbs/(ft-lbs/sec)

which shortens up to,

ft3 – lbs
sec

[maules.com]

benflyn n Wildcat
A recently sold M7-260C(wide gear) with 165.6 sq ft wings and 2500 gwt weighed empty 1763 lbs.
260B(oleo gear) would be 50 lb lighter.
A hypothetical new M9-260 (wide gear only)with same equipment as above would be 165.6 wings, 2800 gwt 1795 empty wt.
Hypothetical M9-235, 165.6 wing, 2800 gwt, 1783 empty