New article on tailwheel Maules

[Mountain Doctor]

http://www.avweb.com/news/features/Used ... 274-1.html

Not a glowing report, but makes some realistic points.

A long article but should provide good material for discussion here, and a help for people shopping for a Maule.

Hot off the press.

[maules.com]

Yes, there are a number of mistakes among the technical information re models, wings, performance, dates, etc. Anecdotes are confused with actual numbers.
Nevertheless, those who own the Maules and have been taught to use/handle them are more than satisfied.
Good to see Maules still being written about though the pricing paragraph is most misleading as there is no explanation of the add ons and deductions info necessary to qualify realistic value.

[Maulehigh]

Yes, there are a number of mistakes among the technical information re models, wings, performance, dates, etc. Anecdotes are confused with actual numbers.
Nevertheless, those who own the Maules and have been taught to use/handle them are more than satisfied.

From the article:
"Some years back, Aviation Consumer loaded up a Piper Dakota and an M-5-235C to compare them. In cruise, with both engines firewalled, the monocoque-hulled Dakota was 5 MPH faster despite book numbers that showed it to be slower. It also climbed better,..." I can understand the cruise, but the climb rate? Really?

With just my young son and me on board and full inboard tanks, we always see 1000fpm, often 1500fpm (no fields above 1000' msl) and cruise at 130 mph (23"/2300 rpm). I can only imagine what a long-wing, -235 would do.

But then, with a light aircraft (1366lb), light pilot, very light passenger and low density altitudes, who needs long wings and a big engine to have fun?

[chris erasmus]

I enjoyed the article, as Jeremy said, it's nice that things are still being written about Maules.
However there are a couple of things that they got wrong, the primary is the X wind landing. I have landed my m7 in crosswind far exceeding 12 kts, and on one occasion in an 18 kts X wind, (posted a video of that landing on YouTube), so the concept of the plane not being able to handle x winds are wrong, it is pilots who can't handle x winds, the plane is more than capable.
The one thing they did get right is the useful load. What the book says and what the plane can handle are two very different things.
Because of the long distances between fuel stops in South Africa, I regularly fly with spare fuel in the back, and it is common for me to fly 300 to 500 lbs over gross.
Last Sunday I took a couple of mates airport hopping, full fuel (72 gal), plus the four of us in the plane, 362 lbs over gross and she went in and out of all the horrible little strips without me feeling under stress once, we had great fun. We fly fantastic planes, that are a lot more capable than what we give them credit for.

[Jayson v Schalkwyk]

Chris, do you have a link to your Youtube video clip?

I have been watching all the Maule clips I can find on youtube. enjoying them!!

[chris erasmus]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lptvz9_GFaM