Update on learning to fly a Maule

[cubnak]

Thanks for the tips, I'm going to fly tomorrow so I'll give some of them a try!

[cubnak]

I did a few landings with less nose up trim and it's going to take a little getting used to, felt a little hot coming in but the flare was ok, I can see where timing is the key, flare at the right moment and use the braking to arrest the momentum after touchdown, definitely better visibility than really nose up attitude. Overall it's all just minor adjustments here and there to fine tune things.
And I think I found my issue with my kids roasting in the back seat....I figured out that one of my knobs on my panel was labeled wrong and when I pulled the ventilation and was turning on my rear seat heat! My poor kids were sitting back there on a hot day with the heat full bore! And I thought those complaints were just kids being kids, way to go dad! Lol

[andy]

I think Jeremy mentioned not to use elevator trim on landing because you run out of elevator travel fairly quickly just when you need it. I trim for level flight coming into the airport/airstrip but I don't use trim when I start the descent for landing. You have to apply more back pressure than you would with trim, but you'll have the elevator authority if you need it.

If you don't already know about it, another thing peculiar to Maules is the parking brake pawl. Recommend you don't use the parking brake at all on the ground to avoid getting the pawl stuck on the piston shaft. Before landing many of us pump the brakes a few times to make sure the pawl isn't stuck with one brake on and not the other. I had it happen once and it makes an exciting touchdown. Keep the pawl and piston shaft clean and lubricated to avoid dirt building up on it and making it stick.

[maules.com]

Adding to Andy
GUMPS U is for undercarriage. Check brake pedals Twice as you may have locked brakes on first try, in the case that Brake knob was pulled when you thought you pulled Heater or Cabin air. (Knobs are the same)

Owners and mechanics when topping up the cylinders may leave the plastic plug able to foul the brake locking tab holding it up. The system is foolproof as long as everything is mechanically correct and no humans are involved.

Trim for best glide approximately 85mph dependent on load (go practice glides) and marker screw should be about 1/2 to 3/4" back then use muscle feel and develop muscle memory thus eliminating need to look at ASI.
If yoke force changes you have changed speed up or down. Muscle memory automatically corrects the speed without the loong tiime it takes the brain to correlate Asi with control input.

[Gary Raser]

I am a new maule owner and learing to fly it. You said to trim for 85 mph. Is that with landing flaps and landing power?

[maules.com]

Not exactly. 85mph is too fast for landing flaps.
24 deg flaps Under 90
40 deg under 80
48 under 70
Those are max speeds for those flap settings, why stress the wings, flaps and mechanism.
The 48 setting will not fully deploy until 55mph.
Glide is power off and appropriate flaps. Go do some glide tests to see distance covered v altitude lost then you have found the best glide for that Maule. Different cg's will call for different glide speed but at first use the speed published in your POH. If carb, don't forget carb heat.
Once you have established trim position for glide, that is the position to use through the landing. As you slow down the yoke forces will change.
Once you've locked in your approach speed for landing type desired, hold that yoke force. If it changes then you know automatically that you've let the airspeed get away too high or too low. Muscle memory can automatically correct.
If landing, you will not be carrying power unless you need to blip it to adjust descent.

[Andy Young]

Not exactly. 85mph is too fast for landing flaps.
24 deg flaps Under 90
40 deg under 80
48 under 70
Those are max speeds for those flap settings, why stress the wings, flaps and mechanism.
The 48 setting will not fully deploy until 55mph.
Glide is power off and appropriate flaps. Go do some glide tests to see distance covered v altitude lost then you have found the best glide for that Maule. Different cg's will call for different glide speed but at first use the speed published in your POH. If carb, don't forget carb heat.
Once you have established trim position for glide, that is the position to use through the landing. As you slow down the yoke forces will change.
Once you've locked in your approach speed for landing type desired, hold that yoke force. If it changes then you know automatically that you've let the airspeed get away too high or too low. Muscle memory can automatically correct.
If landing, you will not be carrying power unless you need to blip it to adjust descent.

Hi Jeremy,

That all makes sense to me except the part about not carrying power into the landing. What speed do you advocate approaching at? I can see doing it power-off at 65 or 70 mph, but slower than that, I always feel like I need power to slow the decent rate, or I'll crater in. Always open to learning, particularly from you.

[andy]

Depending on wind, my final approach speed is 55 - 60 mph with full flaps. It helps to have vortex generators to lower your stall speed and improve low speed handling. I use a steep approach and minimal power. The lower speed steep approach buys me several things - better obstacle clearance, a more precise landing spot and less ground roll. The heavy Maule tail will not droop in a steep descent either. A brief shot of power is sometimes needed before touchdown to arrest the sink rate but if you time the flare right, that's not necessary. Power setting during landing is usually not a hands-off event. I adjust pitch and power to maintain the right approach airspeed, descent rate and keep the landing spot from moving up or down. Not much power is needed in a steep descent or you'll come in too fast.

In order to get comfortable with lower final approach speeds, one of the things that I learned in 2012 at the Idaho mountain-canyon flying course was to determine your actual stall speed at a safe altitude in every flap configuration and write it down on an index card. Of course stalls will vary with weight, wing loading and CG, but it will help you feel more comfortable approaching to land at a lower airspeed. If you approach too fast on landing, you will float, have difficulty touching down on a precise spot, and use up more runway.

[maules.com]

Andy, agreed. A note here, there is a marked difference between 180 and 235hp because of nose weight.

Andy Y, It sounds like your approach to land is too shallow thus you want to carry power. Steeper approaches are de riguer in the Maule especially for a short field, or a field with high obstacles on approach end.
Heres an exercise, make a longish final with landing flaps deployed holding pattern altitude or 100ft less, then pull the power off (carb heat) and hold the yoke to lock in an approach speed. If you decide on 60mph, then 60 it is, not 55, not 65, but 60. Or if 48degrees flap then 55 or whatever you are comfortable with.
The approach will be relatively steep but Aoa (angle of attack)of wings will be relatively flat, in fact it may be a few degrees up.
Note the VSI for future reference.
Note the muscle pull needed to hold yoke at the selected speed.
Take a look at wingtip aoa on horizon.
Set your wing down if a xwind and adjust rudder to align fuselage with landing track.
If you appear to be going to touch short, adjust with a dab of power but do not change airspeed, so adjust yoke pull.
If it seems you will land too far down the runway, you have three choices;
go around
set the plane into a slip but do not speed up
pull yoke back to lower airspeed but not to a full stall until you are competent.
Once competent, you can set the aoa and airspeed at the stall and approach quite steeply. If you think you will splat on the ground, you can lower the nose which allows air over wings to lift instead of burble and will add airspeed enough for a flare.
Be ready with power in case of sinking air.
Timing is everything.

[cubnak]

I agree with Andy and have tried power off glides to land but I just can't seem to keep it from pancaking unless I'm approaching fairly fast, like 65-70 and with that I seem to burn up quite a bit of runway in ground effect trying to bleed off the speed. My mechanic, who flies a 185 a lot told me to do the same sort of approach without power but a fast and steep decent rate (to power through wind and turbulence) and bleed off the speed in ground effect, you just need to learn your touchdown point vs your approach point and that will vary some with load and conditions, I tried it a few times but didn't like it one bit! But my experience is mostly Cub time so it's a different feel completely, I'll keep trying a few approaches and maybe I'll get it dialed in. In my limited experience it feels right to power back to about 1500 rpms and pull in full flaps on short final, a short flare just before touchdown point and a slight shot of power greases it on most of the time, that all feels good and similar to my Cub, but maybe I'm missing something that could improve the landing abilities of that plane and me? I appreciate the comments, i don't think you ever stop learning as a pilot, at least you shouldn't!

[Andy Young]

Andy, agreed. A note here, there is a marked difference between 180 and 235hp because of nose weight.

Andy Y, It sounds like your approach to land is too shallow thus you want to carry power. Steeper approaches are de riguer in the Maule especially for a short field, or a field with high obstacles on approach end.
Heres an exercise, make a longish final with landing flaps deployed holding pattern altitude or 100ft less, then pull the power off (carb heat) and hold the yoke to lock in an approach speed. If you decide on 60mph, then 60 it is, not 55, not 65, but 60. Or if 48degrees flap then 55 or whatever you are comfortable with.
The approach will be relatively steep but Aoa (angle of attack)of wings will be relatively flat, in fact it may be a few degrees up.
Note the VSI for future reference.
Note the muscle pull needed to hold yoke at the selected speed.
Take a look at wingtip aoa on horizon.
Set your wing down if a xwind and adjust rudder to align fuselage with landing track.
If you appear to be going to touch short, adjust with a dab of power but do not change airspeed, so adjust yoke pull.
If it seems you will land too far down the runway, you have three choices;
go around
set the plane into a slip but do not speed up
pull yoke back to lower airspeed but not to a full stall until you are competent.
Once competent, you can set the aoa and airspeed at the stall and approach quite steeply. If you think you will splat on the ground, you can lower the nose which allows air over wings to lift instead of burble and will add airspeed enough for a flare.
Be ready with power in case of sinking air.
Timing is everything.

Presumably this method requires a significant burst of power at just the right moment just before touchdown, to reduce the high rate of descent. Otherwise you'd pancake in pretty hard, and bounce, which just lengthens the whole landing. If so, it all makes sense to me. I was interpretting an earlier comment to mean that the entire approach and landing would be made without power, including the flair and touchdown. I've not been able to make THAT work at slower speeds, as there does not seem to be enough energy to arrest the descent. It does work at slightly higher speeds, but uses more runway. Conversely, 55 or so works for me, but requires power at the end (and sometimes down final, to adjust the touchdown point).

My continuing problem is correctly judging and implementing the exactly appropriate amount of power to arrest the decent without causing a float, or allowing it to hit hard enough to cause a bounce. I am consistantly getting landed and stopped in 400-500 feet, but for some places I go, that's uncomfortably long. For safety's sake, that limits me to strips 600' long, and that's not always available.

Jeremy, can you speak a bit more to the technique differences you alluded to on the 235 vs. the 180? I'm flying a 1986 M-6-235 with the wing it came with, plus VGs.

[montana maule]

Andy
I made a video of some landings here at Cut Bank in my MX7-160.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3xfgfds-e0
In my M6-235 I do the same technique. I use power in the round out as I pitch the nose up to arrest sink and stay in the air until I arrive at the end of my landing spot. In the M6 as soon as I reduce the power the nose drops and the wheels contract the ground. If you chop the power too abruptly you will bounce. At touch down the yoke is full back. From then on it is a balancing act on the brakes. Too much and over you go.

[maules.com]

Andy Y. The difference is related to the weight of the engine. Over 100lbs difference.
This affects how much trim to use. Less needed with lighter engine so not near as much muscle used to maintain elevator travel thus effectiveness.
On ground, roll in the normal amount of trim you have been using for landing then go back to the elevator and raise it until the trim tab is close to the same plane as the horizontal stabilizer. Now see how much more up travel remains on elevator for your flare.
My guess is zero, which is why the need for powered approach.
Now roll the trim tab to a position where, when in same plane as stabilizer you have plenty of up elevator travel to attain a good flare, and take note where the trim reference marker is in the slot.

[maules.com]

Oops, double post.

[Andy Young]

Ok, day off from flying the Beavers today. So I went out and played with some of the stuff we've been talking about. First off, thanks everybody for the tips.

I first went out and set up a power-off glide at 83mph, and set the trim to neutralize the pressure on the yoke. That set point ended up putting the reference screw head 1/2" aft of the reference mark. This also happens to be where I've historically set the trim for landing. That point doesn't neutralize the pressures on landing approach, but I have always put it there vs. all the way back, based on recommendations from Jeremy.

So I did several landings at 55 mph, mostly power off, though I occasionally needed a little power on the way down final, as I don't quite have the picture yet for that steep appoach, and would have come up short. At 55, my landings are still primarily right around 400 feet, though I did get a few 300 footers. At 50 mph, I could get landed and stopped in 300 feet consistently, but the nose is significantly higher at 50 mph vs. 55, which makes it hard to see over the nose. 55 is much more comfortable. Therefore, I may, perhaps, have reached my limit, and may have to live with 400 as my number.

Note that when I list landing distance numbers, I am always talking from the threshhold, not the touchdown point. I measure them that way so that I'm always accounting for my potential error in touchdown point, which is more real-world, in terms of knowing how much space I need at a landing site to do a successful landing.

One more musing: On several of the landings, I arrested the descent only or almost only with flare, vs. power, but this sometimes led to touching the tailwheel briefly, before I got rolled up on the mains. Using power to arrest the descent avoids this, but I still find it hard to judge properly so as to not float or pancake.

Question: Does moving the CG effect the deck angle on landing approach? It seems to me that acheiving a certain speed on approach will require a given wing angle of attack (and hence a given deck angle) regardless of the CG; all that would change with a CG move would be how much elevator is required to acheive said angle of attack. Is that correct, or am I missing something?