Lets do this

Hooker · Post by **Hooker** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:06 am

I am in the beginning stages of searching for/buying my first airplane and to be more specific , it's going to be a Maule. I have my search narrowed down to the M(X)7-180 or an M7-235. I keep bouncing back and forth between performance and useful load, but that is not why I am writing to you all.

I would like this process to be as smooth and seemless as possible. I would also like to have everything ready to go so I can pull the trigger at a moments notice if and when the right Maule pops up. I am also realistic in that i know issues will pop up. I am not in any hurry to purchase(thats a lie, I want a Maule and I want it now). But more realistically it will be 6 months to a year. Since I am new to this process any tips, suggestions on down payments, financing, insurance, pre-buy inspections, and anything else you can think of would be much appriciated

rjb · Post by **rjb** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:52 am

Contact Jeremy (MauleAK) and see if it makes sense to you to work with him.

Mountain Doctor · Post by **Mountain Doctor** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:57 am

+1 on Jeremy.

As an owner of a 180 HP Maule, who lives close to and and flies in some of the highest mountains in the Lower 48, I totally wish I had more HP and if I had to do it over again I'd want an IO-540.

In Nebraska I bet 180 HP would be fine, but it depends on your needs and mission. Even out here it's fine, my Maule has taken me all over the country for the past 1,100 hours safely.

Remember you can run a powerful engine at a low power setting and reduce burn, but there is no way to get more pull out of a 4 cylinder once it's firewalled.

In the mountians, Power=Safety (improvement).

Tomkatz · Post by **Tomkatz** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:35 pm

Everyone always speaks of taking a large engine and running it at a lower power setting to achieve the fuel efficiency of a smaller engine, forgetting that the smaller engine can lower its power setting to get an even lower fuel burn. I agree fuel consumption is a big issue in aviation today and when I run my MX7 180B at the lower numbers, I do enjoy 7 GPH. Also, on the East Coast you have to travel quite a bit to reach the mountains and altitudes which would require the big iron. It really all depends on your mission, your area of operation and the size of your wallet.

Mountain Doctor · Post by **Mountain Doctor** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:58 pm

Absolutely.

When I'm just flying for the sake of flying, not heading anywhere in particular, I run about 60% and about 7 GPH.

Similarly, when I am up high, I can acheive similar fuel economy at full throttle.

The 180 works, and as I say has gotten the job done safely for me for more than 1,100 hours in the Pacific Northwest and the California Sierras, but for me at least, I'd like more power for a larger safety margin high and hot.

FARMAULE · Post by **FARMAULE** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 2:49 pm

My biggest hurdle was and is insurance. First it was tuff to even get now I just pay dearly. I recommend pricing it before pulling the trigger on anything. I wanted a maule regardless so I just pay. I would love a lower fuel bill but the franklin sure does sound good. Good luck.

Hooker · Post by **Hooker** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 8:54 am

Farmaule, I'll bite the bullett on insurance I'm sure but, like you I just want a Maule.

The Maule will be used primarily for recreation. I am a flat lander, but only a bag of gas away from the Rockies. I want to keep my options open and of course have that safety margin. We plan on cross country trips, between 200 and 400 nm, plus I'm going to put her to work getting IR and Commercial tickets.

Post by **andy** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 9:45 am

Work with Jeremy if you can. To pull the trigger at a moment's notice you need a reasonable down payment ready and you need to have lined up financing (if you need it) beforehand. Don't discount the problems involved with getting insurance on a Maule if you don't have any time in one and are a low-time tailwheel pilot. Dual with a qualified Maule instructor will help.

A really thorough pre-purchase inspection is a must. Jeremy can help with that. Maule Flight did a good job with mine but they're not near you.

Maule owners on this forum often know quite a bit about individual airplanes that come up for sale, such as damage history, so take advantage of the forum.

You'll also need a high performance endorsement with the M7-235 if you don't already have one.

Although I love my MX7-180 and its fuel economy, I'd rather have more power and a universal wing. With either model it's possible to land in a place that you cannot take off from, but it's less likely with the M7-235. The difference in useful load means one less adult passenger with the M7-235 if you operate near max gross weight. But the MX7-180 with four adults and full fuel won't win any takeoff distance or climb records. If you are a low-time tailwheel pilot the M7-235 is going to cost a lot more for insurance - if you can get it.

You'll need a title search before purchasing. AOPA did mine but you need to be a member. I used AOPA for the entire transaction and was happy with the result.

Mountain Doctor · Post by **Mountain Doctor** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 9:54 am

At the risk of getting poo thrown at me on the forum, you may also want to consider a Trigear.

You will still be able to get in and out of every strip 99% of pilots have the desire and skill to go, with (sometimes much) lower insurance rates and general increased safety with reduced incidents on takeoff and landing.

Compared to many pilots on this forum I'm a lightweight, but compared to the average pilot in my area I go places that startle them, and my Trigear does it just fine. Anything rougher the limiting factor would be my skill, not the aircraft.

Mountain Doctor · Post by **Mountain Doctor** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:05 am

Also the 4 cylinder does have a higher useful load, but as mentioned you will not be able to carry that load with good climb performance.

Ultimately, it's all about the mission and the wallet. Everything in life, and aviation in particular, is a compromise. Performance costs money, how powerful can you afford to go?

At times when I'm making 400 FPM climbing out of a canyon and the granite and pine trees are looming higher than my wingtips I wish I spent the extra cash for a IO-540.

I bet there are few times the pilot behind a big Lycoming and C/S prop wishes he(or she) could burn less than 7 GPH.

TomD · Post by **TomD** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:38 am

As many have said in the past....consider the mission(s) you are planning for the plane. You can then assign a percentage of time for each mission.

For example if you are going to use the Maule primarily for flying East of Denver and as a platform to get your instrument ticket, then the reduced operating cost would weigh heavily towards the 180hp.

If, on the other hand, you are going to be flying in a lot of high density altitude situations and short strips, then the thirsty 235 ponies might be worth it.

In fuel alone, you are saving about $24/hr 180 v 235. I have no idea about engine depreciation differential or insurance cost differential on top of this.

While I love my M5-235C, the majority of my flight time could be accomplished with a 180, but the mountains, short strips, and high lakes would be more of a challenge.

I purchased the plane for both floats and wheels operations as well as operating around the big bumps in the road immediately to my East, all of which pushed me towards the 235HP engine. In addition av gas was less than $2/gal. when I purchased the plane which made the operational cost difference less pronounced.

Insurance was a hit initially since I had no tail-wheel time at time of purchase, but you have to start somewhere.

Bottom line, define you mission and choose a plane that will accomplish it. Also keep in mind that you can always change planes later.

TD

Mountain Doctor · Post by **Mountain Doctor** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:46 am

In fuel alone, you are saving about $24/hr 180 v 235. I have no idea about engine depreciation differential or insurance cost differential on top of this.

I think a good general rule is that the overall operating cost is twice the fuel cost, so roughly $50/hour.

Not insubstantial.

Also there are 50% fewer cylinders to fail, no prop governor (in my case) to fail or leak, no prop seals, and 50% fewer cam lobes to gall etc. so I think the smaller motor may be more reliable/safe and certainly cheaper to maintain.

It's all part of the big equation that varies from person to person, mission to mission, and place to place.

MauleWacko · Post by **MauleWacko** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 11:06 am

shock:

iceman · Post by **iceman** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 3:30 pm

yep I figured I would be just fine with my M4 and 210 HP. but after so many years I lust after more HP... don't get me wrong I love my M4 but a few more MPH and a sooner get off the ground up at altitude airports would sure be nice...so if I had it all to do over again I would wait for the oportunity to get that Mx 7 or M7 ..... or even a M5 as long as it had the 540...

iceman · Post by **iceman** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 3:40 pm

on the other hand... think about this.... lose a cylindar on the 180 and you are going down with only three firing... lose one on a six cylindar and you still have 5 firing...I"m not a mechanic but a mechanic made that point to me a long time ago....and I don't know if it's a valid argument but take it for what it's worth.....I long ago gave up worrying about the price of things.. We're not on this earth long enough to not have what we want... so I get what I want and worry about the cost later... after about a year the cost will be just a memory anyway....

Lets do this

Lets do this

Choice

Who is online