STOL -- 180 HP vs 260 HP

[Norm]

Ok, I'm new to Maules and I'd like to ask a basic Q.

I'm hearing from some people that the 180 HP Maules seem to have a better reputation for short TOs as compared to the 6 cyclinder Maules. The reasoning is that the 6 cyc Maules weigh more and are nose heavy....

Limiting the discussion to the tailwheel Maules, are the 180 HP Maules the trick Maule to have for the shortest TOs? We all know Greg in BRLP uses an experimental "180" HP (but it's modified to actually make more HP as I recall).

I have an M7 260 and the simple math seems to favor it for a really short TO. However, with equalivant payloads, does the 180 HP get off terra firma shorter than the 6 cyc Maules, but once off the ground the 6 cyclinders will have a better ROC to altitude? ?

THANKS

[maules.com]

Norm, a little crossing of signals re weights.
The MX7-180A fixed pitch is 2400lbs gwt,
the MX7-180B and C constant speed are 2500lbs gwt
the M7-235 and 260 B and C are 2500lbs gwt
The bigger 6 cyl engines are heavier than the 4 cyl 180hp
and the 260 is heavier than the 235hp thus useful loads are highest in the lightest engine/prop configuerations.
If all are flown at gross, the bigger hp performs best, IF it has the best matched prop, however at sealevel it is hard to discern a takeoff advantage for the 260 over the 235. At 2500ft and above, you start to see a little difference and at higher altitudes the difference improves.
At the same load of pilot and half fuel in each, the differences between all models would be slightly different than all at gross, but the bigger horsepowers (again with best prop) would perform best.
In landing, the lighter gross landing weight will land the shortest.
It is all about gravity, or how much weight you are trying to get off the planet with how much thrust and lift.

[Norm]

It is all about gravity, or how much weight you are trying to get off the planet with how much thrust and lift.

Thanks, Jeremy. I'm currently having a discussion with someone about all of this.

So, if we take an MX7 180C vs M7 260C, both equipped with spring gear and similar options, 1 pilot, same amount of fuel, of course the 180 will land shorter because it's lighter, but in a Valdeze type of T.O. contest which one would break ground first? Can the 260's added thrust overcome the addional weight for a maximum takeoff effort given the same wing and tail-feather dimensions?

And the 260 would out-climb the 180 to 12000' of course. ?

(My particular plane is kinda heavy with 3 blades + spring gear + other options.)

[Lowflybye]

My Maule is better than your Maule...

Either way we are talking about a Maule and all are good short field aircraft. Whatever model you have will of course out-perform the other models. In most cases it depends on the skill and technique of the pilot more than the aircraft itself.

[maules.com]

Agreed with Lowflyby.
There is a vast difference between pilot skills.
At Valdez last year, those takeoffs and landings are being done in a headwind on the nose of 15-18knots. Plus it was ice cold.
The 260hp and 235hp loaded to full gross of 2500lbs at sealevel and on a standard 59F deg day can break ground at 350ft, but can the pilot do it.
The 180hp at gross will take longer.
The aircraft weight difference between the examples you give is about 160lbs, so you could test them by loading or unloading the copilot of 160lbs. To be fair, the CG position fore or aft should be equivalent in each plane.

[maules.com]

There will also be a difference on the 235 or 260 of thrust from the best prop as there are 5 choices, some giving better performance at initial acceleration to liftoff, but others giving better performance at VX, others shine at VY and others at cruise.
Now the cat's among the pigeons.

[Norm]

Thanks Jeremy for your input. Many of the Alaska bush guys seem to value light weight almost above all else and I think that works best for certain mission profiles.

I was actually having a 'discussion' about all of this with my son (Shaun Lunt who has a 180 hp Super Cub & he was in the "cubdriver 747er" DVD with Lonnie). He kinda wished I had gotten a 180 hp Maule with oleo struts and then start pulling stuff off of it to lighten it up -- but my mission profile doesn't really call for that kind of flying. I'll leave that stuff for Lonnie, Greg and others. Most of the Idaho strips are good enough for me.

[a64pilot]

Light makes right, up to the point of structual failure. From what I have seen the 180's can't carry the weight of the 540's because of CG. My heavy nosed 235 allows me to load the snot out of it and stay in CG. only because it is nose heavy to start with. Work up some W&B charts assuming most of the load will be in both the baggage compt. and back seat area and you will see what I mean.
Greg has also stated he went the I/O 360 route because he plays close to sea level. Now a turbo normalized I/O 360 may change the rules.

[xwildcat]

Now the cat's among the pigeons.

What the heck does that mean??

[maules.com]

It means that with 2x235 engines, 1x260 engine, and 5xprop options, the discussion can fly off in all directions.

[Mountainmauler]

Norm, I can't answer your question if you're looking at sealevel takeoff distance but if we were to look at the situation here in Colorado i can't imagine the 180 would do anywhere as good. This summer i took off out of Leadville Co with another guy and both mains topped off, density altitude was well over 11,000ft and it took a long time to break ground. Makes me happy i bought the 235 every time i fly here in SE Colorado. Come to think of it I have not seen 5000' or less on the alt. indicator since i moved from Michigan. Petar