growing the group

captnkirk · Post by **captnkirk** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:29 pm

I thought I would put this in a new thread. Took a buddy from work flying. He has been thinking of buying a Maule. We flew over to Gary's place showed my friend Gary's m6. I would still like him to see Andy's 180 . Ken my friend is nor sure which model or engine just trying to give him some idea of the choices. Any way Gary his son and grandson give Ken a grand tour of their bird. I flew him around in mine powered back just to show that you can get fuel flows down with the 235 but still have the power when you need or want it.
Gary it was great to finally meet I'm sure your proud of your son and grandson they where great. We will do a BBQ run soon.

Tomkatz · Post by **Tomkatz** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:06 pm

Kirk,

I agree with what you were saying, but everyone forgets that you can dial back a 180 also and in doing so you are in Oz, as far as fuel burn is concerned. Knowing that I would not get out to the Rocky Mountains anytime soon or often, I knew I wanted a 180 horsepower. It is lighter, cheaper to maintain, had great performance down at sea level, and could carry more weight. Just last year I flew from Dothan Alabama to Norfolk Naval Air Stationed in Virginia, from Norfolk to Martin State airport in Maryland, from Martin to W48, from W48 to KCGE, all with one tank of fuel.

Each model has its benefits and I would not discount any of them. Everyone needs to find their glass slipper. Although, it might be a little harder to find a 180 horsepower on the market.

just my opinion, take care.

aero101 · Post by **aero101** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:57 pm

Tomkatz wrote:Kirk,

I agree with what you were saying, but everyone forgets that you can dial back a 180 also and in doing so you are in Oz, as far as fuel burn is concerned. Knowing that I would not get out to the Rocky Mountains anytime soon or often, I knew I wanted a 180 horsepower. It is lighter, cheaper to maintain, had great performance down at sea level, and could carry more weight. Just last year I flew from Dothan Alabama to Norfolk Naval Air Stationed in Virginia, from Norfolk to Martin State airport in Maryland, from Martin to W48, from W48 to KCGE, all with one tank of fuel.

Each model has its benefits and I would not discount any of them. Everyone needs to find their glass slipper. Although, it might be a little harder to find a 180 horsepower on the market.

just my opinion, take care.

Ditto!!

If you can even find a good one!!

captnkirk · Post by **captnkirk** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:08 pm

Tom I agree the 180is a great choice. I have a dream of making the trip to Alaska and out west someday so I looked for a 235. Andy's 180 is beautiful and works great around here. Out west you would just have to plan accordingly but that is true no matter what engine you may have. I just remember when I started my search you can feel a little overwhelmed with the choices. Anyway just trying to bring another person in to the fold.

Post by **andy** » Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:50 am

Choosing a 180 or 235 HP airplane depends on what you plan to do with it. I love my MX-7-180 but there are times when I would like to have the additional power and climb rate that a 235 would provide. If I were flying it out of short back country airstrips at high altitude surrounded by high terrain, the 235 would be the better choice. Back when I was looking for a Maule, if I had known then what I know now, I would have purchased a M7-235 that had: a fuel injected engine, universal wing, oleo strut gear, ABI extended HD gear legs, 31" bushwheels, baby bushwheel tailwheel, vortex generators and a 3-blade prop. Some of these features don't make sense economically if what you want to do is fly out of hard-surfaced airstrips at low elevations and occasionally land on grass. The 180 has a higher useful load than the 235 but I don't think the back seat is comfortable enough to fit two mid-size people. The height of the airframe is too low for a tall person in the rear, which is why I'd go with the M instead of the MX. Plus, at max gross weight of 2500 lbs, the takeoff distance and climb rate of the 180 isn't something to write home about.

The difference in average fuel burn of 9 GPH with the 180 and 12 GPH with the 235 isn't really important to me unless there is a long distance to the next fuel stop. Fuel capacity with aux tanks is 70 gallons in both of them. If your next fuel stop is 7.3 hours away, you can make it with the 180 burning 9 GPH and land with 30 minutes fuel reserve. The 235 has about 5.3 hours endurance at 12 GPH landing with a 30 minute fuel reserve. This might be an important item while flying to Alaska. Of course this depends on wind and drag of an individual aircraft.

If cost is critical to you and you don't need the performance of a 235, a 180 with the universal wing is less expensive to operate and maintain. The purchase price, insurance premiums and fuel costs are less.

Flyhound · Post by **Flyhound** » Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:08 pm

My MX7-180C is the right plane for me. Operational and maintenance costs are comfortable, and operated properly, I have very few limitations. I've departed from a 9,000' density altitude airport fully loaded without any trouble, although I did use up a lot of runway and my climb rate was not spectacular. Fortunately, the strip and the surrounding terrain didn't require an aggressive climb, so there were no worries.

I've flown my plane over the Rockies twice and with good planning on the time of day for my flights and proper attention to weights, I had no trouble. There are some really short, really high strips that I probably shouldn't go into, but they aren't critical for me anyway. I fly to lots of reasonably short grass strips (1500') for camping with my dog (my wife doesn't sleep on the ground anymore) and we've never had a problem getting in, or getting out. I do have to plan my load and the time of day I depart, but I don't consider that a deal breaking shortcoming.

My experience is that later in the day, flying in the mountains can be so darned rough that I prefer to stay on the ground then anyway. Having more power wouldn't change that. That said, there have been times I would have liked to have more power, but it's never been enough of an issue for me to even remotely consider trading up. Besides, I like the way my plane handles. I think the lighter engine up front gives it the best pitch balance of all the Maule designs. It's all a matter of cost/benefit for the type of flying you do most of the time, and the amount of flexibility you want.

51598Rob · Post by **51598Rob** » Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:48 pm

Andy, my bladder doesn't have a 5.3 hour range...let alone a 7.3!

Flyhound · Post by **Flyhound** » Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:59 pm

51598Rob wrote:Andy, my bladder doesn't have a 5.3 hour range...let alone a 7.3!

Amen!

gbarrier · Post by **gbarrier** » Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:11 pm

I expect that an 180 with the lighter weight and little farther aft CG might be a little better balanced airplane. Add fixed pitch to that and I'm sure maintenance cost would be a fair amount less. Doubt it would be quite as much of a handfull either when you decide to go around after approaching with full flaps and perhaps more up trim than you should have cranked in. You can only push a brick so fast and I don't really go anywhere most of the time.

But, Heck, everyone wants a bigger one. I've always said "there is no substitution for horsepower".

captnkirk · Post by **captnkirk** » Sun Mar 08, 2015 5:41 pm

I guess one of the best things about Maule's is everyone can choose what fits best.

Tomkatz · Post by **Tomkatz** » Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:27 pm

Kirk, what you state above is true, a lot of variations for different missions.
The ability to go many hours between fuel stops its not so that this can be achieved on one continuous flight, rather it is that one can travel from off field strip to off field strip several times before requiring another fill up.

Post by **andy** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:25 am

51598Rob, I didn't mean that you wouldn't land for 5.3 - 7.3 hours, just that you wouldn't be able to get fuel for that length of time. I try to plan flight legs for no more than 2 - 3 hours between landings for comfort's sake. I and my trusty pee bottle can go longer between bathroom breaks, but the seats in the Maule are not what I'd call luxurious and I can only go so long without stretching out my back and legs. When I'm flying fires in the 185 I sometimes go for 4 - 6 hours between landings but I need therapy afterwards.

Depending on your route flying to Alaska, you might be pushing the limits of fuel endurance - especially if you encounter weather, an airport closure or an airport out of fuel. Even on a long cross country flight in the lower 48 there are long stretches and rough country where fuel stops are scarce. Headwinds might dramatically extend your flight leg time to a fuel stop. Having an extra 2 hours of fuel could be a life-saver in some situations.

gbarrier · Post by **gbarrier** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:30 am

Therapy, mental or physical?

Sorry, just had to ask.

Post by **andy** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:17 pm

Definitely physical therapy but some may think mental therapy is needed for agreeing to orbit a fire for 4 - 6 hours.

gbarrier · Post by **gbarrier** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 5:06 pm

It all pays the bills.

growing the group

growing the group

Who is online