MT-7 235 for a family plane?

A catch-all forum for anything remotely related to Maule flying.
Post Reply
NWBrit
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:36 am
Contact:

MT-7 235 for a family plane?

Post by NWBrit »

Hello,

I’m a new pilot looking to buy my first plane to haul around our family of 4 (3 & 6 yr old) on some fun adventures. The majority of the time we’ll be landing on pavement but love the option of backcountry camping/hiking/fishing trips.

Can anyone speak to or have experience with a tricycle Maule as a family plane? Seems like I would have to be conservative with fuel (not fill up 70 gals) and keep an eye on how much crap we allow the kids to bring. The only other plane that seems to make sense for us would be a 182 but they are so overpriced and I’m not sure we would gain much on the useful load.

Thanks!!

User avatar
andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1662
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:05 pm
Location: Lake James, NC, USA
Contact:

Re: MT-7 235 for a family plane?

Post by andy »

I've flown 182S and 182T airplanes for NC Forest Service. The seats are a bit more comfortable than my MX-7-180 but that they don't have a very large baggage door like the Maules do. It's hard to get oversized items like folding bicycles or large bins in and out, although the baggage area is pretty large. Insurance should be comparable on a nose wheel Maule vs. a C182 but Cessna parts are expensive. I would be more inclined to land off-airport with the Maule because the nose wheel is stronger. The 182 has about 200 lbs more of useful load but that might vary depending on how it is equipped. I really hate the lap belt retractor reels on the 182. When you use a seat cushion, they lock up and gradually strangle you until you have to release and re-attach them in flight. I also prefer the manual flap control on the Maules to the electric flaps on the 182. Manual flaps respond quicker and have fewer maintenance problems due to lack of a motor.

Although fabric skin on the Maules has a downside - expensive replacement in about 25 years - I think the welded chrome-moly tubing of the Maule airframes is a lot more rugged than the riveted semi-monocoque aluminum skin on any of the Cessnas. The 1985 C185 taildraggers that we fly for NC Forest Service had problems with flexing and wear of the rivets, cracks in the skin and replacement of some structural aluminum pieces in the tail. Landing on rough airstrips would accelerate these kinds of problems and result in an expensive repair. In that regard the Maules are a better choice if you are going to land frequently on anything other than smooth, hard surface runways.
Andy
1986 MX7-180
Image

ZS-PLT
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:29 am
Location: Himeville, Kwazulu Natal, South Africa
Contact:

Re: MT-7 235 for a family plane?

Post by ZS-PLT »

I bought my MXT7-180A (1998) in 2003 from a retired American Airlines captain in LA , had it shipped in a container to South Africa and used it here in SA for ten years from a grass strip at 5000 ft altitude in a mountainous area. With elevator gap seals and VG's it proved to be an eminently practical, reliable and confidence inspiring family plane.To keep the weight down we used bags made from recycled parachute fabric, light weight aluminum tie down pegs and (important) a fiberglass folding stool for checking fuel levels and for refuelling. She has now moved on with a new owner to New Zealand. Find a Maule and owner/instructor and fly it. YOU have to feel comfortable !
Maule MXT7-180A
Himeville airfield
Southern Drakensberg
Kwazuku Natal, South Africa
29°45'0" S 29°31'0" E 5100ft amsl

User avatar
AndrewK
100+ Posts
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 7:38 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Re: MT-7 235 for a family plane?

Post by AndrewK »

I don't have a trike but my M5 currently has just under 800 lbs useful (2300 lbs gross) and I can carry the family, some gear and enough fuel for 2-2.5 hour legs (+reserve) without too much issue.

The 3 and 8 year old fit in the back seat even with the 3 year old in a car seat at the moment. I fly with my seat all the way back so it might get a little tighter on leg room back there as they grow but so far so good. The M7 and MT7 are a few inches longer, maybe they have more rear seat legroom? Not sure.

The -7 already has the 2500 lb gross but on my -5 I will need to install the +200 lb up-gross kit sooner or later to help offset the kids' growing weight while still being able to carry the same amount or even extra fuel.

From what I remember of my one and only flight in a C180 over 10 years ago is the Cessna had more leg room front and back. But we really liked the cargo door and relative cost (among other things) on the Maule so here we are and so far it suits us well.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests