Tail wheel vs tri gear?

[maules.com]

The M4 and M5 210C and 220C are both good light performing aircraft.
Their production was up to 1974 220C and 1979 210C, so the comments you are seeing are for later models. The trigear Maules were not on the market until 1990.
There is a chronology of models under the specifications page on my website that will give you some ideas.
Rick at montanabyair can introduce you to 160hp and 235hp Maule flying in real life conditions.

[Mountain Doctor]

The 210 and 220 HP are excellent also.

When I said 235 I was referring to engines in the MXT/MT which I think are almost always Lycomings.

[Stinger]

Allegiant Airlines have cheep tickets up this way. Come fly my Maules and see if they are what you want. www.montanabyair.com
Rick 406-949-5709

What would be the closest AirPort to you that allegiant flies into?

It'd be GTF. Then it's either a 2 hour drive, or a 45 minute quick flight north to CTB.

[Flyhound]

I'd go with the tailwheel just because they are more fun to fly. I like the challenge and the option of making either 3 point, or wheel landings. I like being able to pivot my plane on a dime when on the ground. The baggage area is lower to the ground on the TW version and easier for me to load my dog into the back of the plane.

Looks also come into play for me. I've owned several tricycle gear planes (a C-182 and a Grumman Traveler) and they looked like they were designed as tricycle gear planes. Their proportions just looked right as trikes. I don't feel that is the case with the tricycle Maule. The tri-gear Maule looks awkward to me, since the original lines of the plane were developed with conventional gear in mind.

From a functional standpoint I guess you have to ask yourself if you are buying a plane for utility, or for fun. If utility is your primary expectation, then the tri-gear should work just fine, particularly if serious backcountry flying isn't your target environment. If having fun with the plane is your key motivation, then the TW version gives you more options for play. Cost for insurance surely comes into the equation, but if cost is your primary concern then you'd be better off renting planes and buying renters insurance.

[DeltaRomeo]

I'm a low time pilot coming out of trike trainers. The TW Maule is a blast! I would not say that the TW is as scary as some reading would lead you to believe, either gear can be wrecked in gusty cross winds. I searched for 2 years for a trike plane that would fit our mission requirements and ended up in the plane of our dreams in spite of my TW concerns. I'm glad I got the TW as we operate almost exclusively off airport (the only time I go to the airport is for avgas). Operating off airport will put your prop in a gravel environment and the trike prop will be more apt to suck up gravel than a TW. Also, the nose gear will kick up gravel and hurl it at the belly of the plane. Both versions will have chipped paint on the stab and stab struts from the mains, but I can work with that; fabric repair is a whole 'nuther story.

[Mountain Doctor]

Operating off airport will put your prop in a gravel environment and the trike prop will be more apt to suck up gravel than a TW.

Also, the nose gear will kick up gravel and hurl it at the belly of the plane. To that I add is holes in the bottom of the horizontal stabilizer.

Yup, that's been my experience. I have stopped operating off gravel and rocks because of this flaw. Fixing holes in fabric is a time consuming PIA.

[andy]

Deciding on tri-gear or tail wheel aircraft is a personal decision for each pilot. There's no right or wrong choice. Each aircraft has pros and cons. The factors that influenced me to buy a tail wheel Maule and fly mostly tail wheel airplanes relate to emergency and rough or soft field operations.

For many years I was based at a public airport with a grass runway which could get soft and wet after rains. Most of the pilots at the airport would not operate nose wheel aircraft until the ground dried due to the danger of digging the nose wheel into the soft ground and buckling the nose wheel. The weight of the engine directly over the nose wheel makes this a serious concern. The result would be a destroyed prop and and engine tear-down worth at least $25K. Even when the ground was dry, we had gopher holes that could do the same thing to a nose wheel airplane.

I wanted to be able to land in an emergency on rough areas safely and there are more options for this with a tail wheel airplane. Being able to add large tundra tires was also something I wanted in order to land on some really rough back country strips. While you can put somewhat larger tires on a nose wheel airplane, it won't come close to what you can do with a tail wheel airplane because of the limited nose wheel size. Someone else mentioned prop tip clearance from the ground, which is a serious concern when you are landing on an overgrown area. Big tires provide a lot more distance between the prop tips and the vegetation.

The other factor that influenced me is that it was a challenge to learn how to fly tail wheel airplanes. That's the way aviation works for some of us. Once we master one challenge, we look for the next one.

[redneck]

After a couple of company twins, I went looking for a TW Maule years ago and bought a tri-gear MXT7180 instead, mainly because it kinda fell in my lap. Although it was a capable airplane, it never satisfied me ... wanted the little wheel in the back. Sold that one after a few years, and since then, I've owned a C170B (wonderful airplane) and a PA15 Vagabond (most fun I've had lately with pants on), but neither one was a Maule. I'm driving a M5180C now, and happy as a pig in slop. If you're inclined toward TW, then dig in deep and get enough instruction to feel really comfortable. TW airplanes think their primary purpose in life is to swap ends with you ... very controllable, just not for the ill-prepared. Good luck.

[captnkirk]

Decide on what you want. Then spend the time and money to get what training you need to feel comfortable. Don't short change your self by thinking you need to be finished with training in X number of hours. After 42 years and thousands of hours I'm still learning. Enjoy the ride

[gregorydshanks]

Shop for insurance first. That could make your decision. A very low-time pilot with no TW experience is shockingly expensive to insure if you go the TW route. The insurance may be 4-5 times as much as a Tri.

[maules.com]

Actually, if one takes tailwheel training in a Maule by a Maule experienced instructor, the insurance is not that bad, and even if it is a bit higher it will be only until one logs a hundred landings and hours.
Extra insurance cost is offset against the fact that the taildraggers are lower priced to buy than the equivalent trigears.

[mburkhart]

Actually, if one takes tailwheel training in a Maule by a Maule experienced instructor, the insurance is not that bad, and even if it is a bit higher it will be only until one logs a hundred landings and hours.
Extra insurance cost is offset against the fact that the taildraggers are lower priced to buy than the equivalent trigears.

Would that have to be initial training or training anytime just to get the experience and knowledge?

[maules.com]

Not necessarily initial training though of course that would help, but anytime.
Many have bought their own Maule then trained in it with a Maule instructor where the plane is covered while instructor is aboard, i.e. no solo until a certain amount of hours and/or landings (landings make more sense) are achieved.
I had a total of 107 hours split between Taylorcraft and C150 when I first jumped in a M5-235, was given a total 3 landings by Dan Spader, turned loose and flew from Georgia to Fairbanks AK.
It was the same air as today and there were many many more aircraft in the sky than today.
If I can do that so can anybody, unless you listen to all the negative anecdotes and naysayers.

[Jimbabwe]

Speaking of insurance, could anyone share his/her insurance cost and/or carrier? PM me if you'd rather not post it here. I've already received one quote and, despite being told I'm in the least expensive bracket, due to my experience, it's more than I expected. Thanks.

[andy]

Most of my insurance premium with AIG is hull coverage. If you insure at a lower value or a higher deductible or both, you can significantly reduce the premium. Of course, you might not get enough to buy another airplane if you have a claim but that doesn't matter to some people. I got a significant reduction when I went over 500 hours PIC in my Maule. I have an aerial photography endorsement on my policy that costs me another $200 per year so I can use the airplane for commercial photography, which doesn't require an operating certificate as long as the flight is not "dual purpose", point-to-point transportation of people or cargo.