Good Idea for a new section?

I would like to know more about this, like what does it take to go experimental and what the drawbacks may be. I would be most interested in this route for the diesel engine possibilities.

You have to document that you built at least 51% of the aircraft if your going experimental home built which is about the only option you have, manufacturers have other options.
I know of two experimental Maules, how many are there?

Five that I know of and more I've no doubt forgotten for immediate recall.

these that I know of for sure....

Bushwhacker
David Wrights Clip wing
Frankin Maule
Bill's Maule Cub
The M6/whatever it was in AK
Cookers M4
M4 In TX

There is a couple on barnstormers ...
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_ ... ca+M7.html
Looks Maule but I have no information on it other than what is in the listing.

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_ ... er+XP.html i don't think there is much "Maule" left in this one though other than some of the original fusalage structure. Even the wings have been completely changed out to D&E i believe which are completely fabric.

The best source of information is EAA. COPA here in Canada also has some good publications though you may have to be a member for some. Ours went experimental when the rules were far more lax, now you have to have a good case that you built or re-built 51%.

The last time I was in Moultrie Ray still had an M4 180hp constant speed prop on Bauman Amphibs registered experimental

Basically, up here anyway, with enough changes and mods, recovering, etc pretty easy to justify experimental, but you do have to justify the 51% rule, which is really pretty easy. There is an AC with checklist published by Feds on individual items... There are a few disadvantages, no commercial use, insurance generally good for pilot-builder only can be a little more costly for same coverage. Resale value and market is also usually affected as well, but who cares? Sure is nice to not have to worry about dealing with feds whenever you do anything but air up tires!! And as Wup's list shows, there are some awsome performers there!!!

The 51% rule applies to the amateur built, E/AB, airplanes. We're not allowed to modify a certificated plane into an amateur built one.

Experimental Exhibition is for planes that have been modified for a purpose. The FAA will inspect the plane for airworthiness and issue the appropriate certification if they want to.

The catch is the plane can only be used for exhibition purposes such as racing or stol contests and for training for such things.

See: http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/forms/Devia ... %20PDF.pdf

You destroy the old data plate, build a new airplane, it's experimental!! I guess feds got different outlooks in different places, but never been a problem up here if you make enough changes... You just can't call it a Maule any longer, as there's no such thing as an experimental Maule unless put into experimental category for test flight / certification purposes... Although Jeremy had one for awhile that had never been removed from experimental after certification?

Much as I love my Maule, one of the things I DON'T like is the semi-reclined seating position, with the feet stuck out in front, and yoke in my knees. And I'm only 5'8". I much prefer the upright, sitting-in-a-chair position of Cessnas, Citabrias, and Cubs. I have fantasized about a modified fuselage that is several inches taller, to achieve the same thing with a Maule. Either that, or just a bump out the bottom to allow one to lower the rudder pedals significantly, and allow a re-angling of the seat (limited of course by the cross-tube where the gear strut attaches).

I doubt anyone has ever done either of these, but if they have, I'd love to hear about it.

Andy

Andy, its possible you have the commonly broken seat back, as the Maule seats do not rake back much or you may have the lumbar support offered in later optional cushioning.
Cut out the extra lumbar support or weld up the potentially cracked seat and pile on cushions till your headset band is half inch from headliner.
I'm 5'9' and on 31" tyres, see ahead okay, reach the flap handle okay and have plenty of legroom.

Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for the ideas. Unfortunately, it's not so simple.
My seats are fine; I've welded them up, and custom-sculpted foam to suit my preferences as best I can, within the limits of the design. I reach everything fine, and can see fine, and my headset is very close to the headliner; I just don't like the basic ergonomics of the design. In the other aircraft I mentioned, it's like sitting in a chair at the dining room table. Seat bottom nearly level, legs go almost straight down to the floor. In the Maule, the seat bottom has a significant angle downwards towards the back, and the legs go almost straight forward. One metric to look at that illustrates what I'm talking about is how high the seat bottom is off the floor. In a Cessna (except for 150/152) or a Citabria, it's about 15" to 18". In the Maule it's more like 8" to 12". These measurements are guesses; I'm too lazy to go down to the airstrip and measure right now. Maybe I'll do that tomorrow, just so I know what the heck I'm talking about. Nevertheless, the fundamental concept will be the same.

Andy

Similar to Comanche, Mooney etc. Sportscarlike.
How about , better leg leverage for braking.

Yeah, never really been a sports car guy, even though I used to be a Porsche mechanic. I still drive a 1966 VW Bus, partly because I love the extremely upright ergonomics. Come to think of it, that's why in the motorcycle world I ride dual-sports (I have a few Cagiva Elefants, if you know what those are).

Good point on the brake leverage though, especially for those of us with single-puck brakes!

Andy