Thinking about a Maule

Trigear? Taildragger? Fixed pitch prop? Which Engine? ...anything related with model selection considerations and questions about buying a Maule
jasont
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:53 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Thinking about a Maule

Post by jasont »

Hello - been reading up as much as I can! I am looking for a 'fun' aircraft to fly out of our home in Utah, airport elevation around 5700 feet. The runway is plenty long, but I would like something that has STOL capabilities (meaning 500 feet or so of runway roll). I intend to do some off-airport landings, lots of dirt/gravel strips around.

I have an aircraft I use for travel over any appreciable distance - so being able to do more than a small trip to a campsite isn't that important. I do want to do some instruction for my two boys - which is why I am thinking a side-by-side seat will be nice. This will be the airplane they learn to fly and solo in.

I have a Citabria that I keep in California, which is fun, but I worry about its performance at altitude, especially since it gets hot in the summer. DA could be an issue around the mountain areas.

Tailwheel is important, otherwise I would look at some other options. Was thinking about a used Husky or Scout, but those are both tandem, although I won't rule that out yet.

For some reason the Maule's seem to have a bad rap - not sure why and I would be curious to hear the feedback. I won't be flying in bad weather so hopefully pilot decisions will help out.

I want to have good performance, and at most will have 300-350 pounds of people on board with little to no luggage.

Thanks in advance!

-jason
Jason Talley

CJ2+, 7GCBC, ATP, CFI

User avatar
BamaMaule
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:26 pm
Location: Athens, AL
Contact:

Post by BamaMaule »

Ok Jason, I will bite. :)
It sounds like a Maule fits your mission profile very nicely. It's a very capable short field airplane and the side by side seating (and the two in the back) is very nice. Useful load is also a plus.
As for the bad rap....I too had heard all the "horror stories." At one point I almost gave up on the quest for a Maule thinking that you had to have a big S on your chest to fly one of these things. After further questioning and investigation, I found that many of these comments were from people who had never owned or even flown a Maule. The airplane is very fun to fly. It performs well in the air. The sink rate is a little higher than your typical spam can but you learn fairly quickly to carry a little more power on approach. No biggie. On the ground is probably where it takes more attention but that is true of any taildragger of course. I had a little over 100 hours in a Champ 10 years before I got the Maule and with some Maule dual time i was feeling at home with the plane. I don't want to minimalize the need for quality MAULE specific training. If you go the Maule route I would highly encourage this. I see from your signature that you obviously are a capable pilot and I don't mean to insult you but MAULE specific training is a must, IMHO. Unfortunately, some pilots get a Maule and go try to do riverbed landings without proper training and make all our insurance rates go up and the bad rap is perpetuated.
Sorry for the long post.
BTW, please don't let my wife or airport buddies know that you don't have to be Superman to fly a Maule. :D
Greg
1980 M5-180C

User avatar
gbarrier
100+ Posts
Posts: 1559
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: 9NR4 North Carolina
Contact:

Post by gbarrier »

Welcome Jasont. Think Bama hit the nail on the head. Flies about like any short coupled taildragger. After you fly it a while it is very comfortable. the good sink rate lets you do about whatever you need and you do it with the power necessary to accomplish that. Like he said, flying on the dark side of the power curve, landing on all kind of ungodly places and asking all things of the bird takes some training/practice but like the CJ, the citabra, and other airplanes you are comfortable in they are just different and great in their own. Would look for a higher powered one for your missions. I like my 235 but the 260 I flew for a while was quite a blast. You might like an AOA indicator for the precision stuff. The Alpha Systems one looks a lot like the indexer in your CJ.

StuporRocket
100+ Posts
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:43 am
Location: Florida / Alaska
Contact:

Post by StuporRocket »

GB,
I love my -235. Was the -260 that much more of a hoot?
Scott@Oglesby.org

"Don't follow me. You won't make it."
PA-12-150
M-7-235

User avatar
Chris in Milwaukee
100+ Posts
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:24 am
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Post by Chris in Milwaukee »

BamaMaule wrote: BTW, please don't let my wife or airport buddies know that you don't have to be Superman to fly a Maule. :D
On the flip side, when I was out at the lake last weekend, a guy asked me what I fly. When I told him it was a Maule, he called me a god and that he wasn't worthy. I'm neither, but it certainly justified my aircraft choice. :lol:
Christopher Owens
1993 MX-7-180A
Members: AOPA EAA VAA

User avatar
gbarrier
100+ Posts
Posts: 1559
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: 9NR4 North Carolina
Contact:

Post by gbarrier »

StuperRocket, yep I love my 235 also but the acceleration was quite noticeably better. Didn't cruise much better. Don't guess you can push a brick but so fast.

Rezrider
100+ Posts
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:53 am
Location: CO
Contact:

Post by Rezrider »

welcome Jason. Get a Maule and lets go fly the Utah backcountry!
1980 M5-235
Four Corners

User avatar
andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1662
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:05 pm
Location: Lake James, NC, USA
Contact:

Post by andy »

I haven't flown the Utah back country but I've flown the Idaho back country a few times in a SuperCub and my Maule MX-7-180. Side-by-side seating, rugged airframe, enormous baggage area with good access, hefty useful load and great STOL performance were the things that attracted me to Maules. I've owned mine for 19 years and haven't regretted it for a minute. Sure, I wish I had the universal wing instead of the short wing and I'd love to have a 260 hp IO-540 engine but I've adapted to what I have. Someday when I win the lottery I might replace the wing. I'm not sure I'd go with the heavier engine though. Balance and useful load are better with the 4-cylinder O-360, although increased engine vibration with the related exhaust system cracks is a downside. Takeoff distance isn't that much different and landing distance is a bit shorter. Climb rate with the 180 hp is what really suffers when heavily loaded or high density altitude. If the terrain around you or high density altitude needs a good climb rate, then you need the 235 or 260 hp engine. I would look for one with the universal wing, vortex generators and elevator gap seals. I"m partial to the ABI 3224A tail wheel or a Scott 3200, but not the Maule tailwheel. Beyond that are hundreds of great-to-have options. All it takes is money.
Andy
1986 MX7-180
Image

Steelroamer
100+ Posts
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:26 pm
Location: Kenora, ontario canada
Contact:

Post by Steelroamer »

Hi Jason and Welcome,
I am a fairly...ok really low time pilot having just passed the 200 hour mark. all but about 10 of my hours are in my m6-235. I bought my maule and got my licence in it. I am told that my time to solo was on par with most students learning to fly in a tailwheel and total time to my PPL was also on average. so if you are looking to teach your kids to fly in it I say go for it.

other than that I'll let the experienced guys fill you in from here!! have fun

Roamer
There is no such thing as bad weather, just inappropriate clothing

Archer
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:04 pm
Contact:

Post by Archer »

Ok, I'm not sure you are all ready for me on your blog, but thank you in advance. I am new at all this stuff so bear with me. I am not a pilot but I have spent some time in the right seats of 182, 208 and the rear in super cubs. I'm looking to retire in a couple years, and I think that I am going to be ready to play for real. Like Jason, the "bad raps" have me spooked a little. Aside from always wanting to fly...here's my story. My wife and I recently finished construction on our cabin and summer home in northern Arizona and would like the option of flying, cutting the 6 hour drive to something more like 1 hour. There are two airports within 20 minutes of the house so the STOL capabilities are not a big deal....yet. About a half mile from our home is a beautiful meadow that is about half mile long, I suspect that any accomplished pilot could get in and out with no problem. Someday I would like to be able to do that. Here's the rub, both airports, and the back country meadow sit about 8500 ft, did I mention that we are talking about Arizona? The 90 degree days at 8500 ft make the DA a serious consideration.
The world is in love with the 185's and rightly so, but I keep arriving at the same place as Jason. After consideration of price, age of the airframe and available horsepower, the Maule seems like an obvious choice. Like Roamer, I had intended to buy and learn. Then you start hearing of the higher insurance cost and the inevitable ground looping. :shock: I would love something with a turbo charger but I think that puts me into a 182 and a lot more money, if I want a 10-15 year old airframe.
Any advice? and just as important, any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Archer
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:04 pm
Contact:

Post by Archer »

Ok, I'm not sure you are all ready for me on your blog, but thank you in advance. I am new at all this stuff so bear with me. I am not a pilot but I have spent some time in the right seats of 182, 208 and the rear in super cubs. I'm looking to retire in a couple years, and I think that I am going to be ready to play for real. Like Jason, the "bad raps" have me spooked a little. Aside from always wanting to fly...here's my story. My wife and I recently finished construction on our cabin and summer home in northern Arizona and would like the option of flying, cutting the 6 hour drive to something more like 1 hour. There are two airports within 20 minutes of the house so the STOL capabilities are not a big deal....yet. About a half mile from our home is a beautiful meadow that is about half mile long, I suspect that any accomplished pilot could get in and out with no problem. Someday I would like to be able to do that. Here's the rub, both airports, and the back country meadow sit about 8500 ft, did I mention that we are talking about Arizona? The 90 degree days at 8500 ft make the DA a serious consideration.
The world is in love with the 185's and rightly so, but I keep arriving at the same place as Jason. After consideration of price, age of the airframe and available horsepower, the Maule seems like an obvious choice. Like Roamer, I had intended to buy and learn. Then you start hearing of the higher insurance cost and the inevitable ground looping. :shock: I would love something with a turbo charger but I think that puts me into a 182 and a lot more money, if I want a 10-15 year old airframe.
Any advice? and just as important, any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

User avatar
Njacko
100+ Posts
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:26 am
Location: SW Scotland, UK
Contact:

Post by Njacko »

Welcome Archer,

I bought my Maule by mistake (I wanted a tailwheel Cessna), but I'm not at all sorry. Mine's a MX-7-180 and I've flown it in and out of alpine airstrips, 300 yards or so (but sloping, of course), on hot summer days up to about 12,500 ft DA. The O-360 isn't ideal for that, but it's OK if you are willing to say "no" to a take-off - for instance when the wind is blowing downhill.

As for insurance, I don't know. I pay about 1,400 USD for hull and third party, including mountain flying and glider towing. With no glider towing it would be quite a bit less.

Ground loops, any tailwheel airplane and pilot can do them, but an oleo-gear Maule is pretty docile. She's really only veered off towards the bushes once, when I made the mistake of switching my brain off after landing as if I was in my old C150. I woke up just in time, and a dab on the right brake was all it took to straighten up.

I've only four years and about 1,000 landings in mine so you'll get better advice from the old hands here, but I think you'd be as happy with any 235 hp Maule as I am with my machine with just 180 hp and a short wing.
MX-7-180 N280SA

User avatar
Flyhound
100+ Posts
Posts: 413
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:04 pm
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Contact:

Post by Flyhound »

To both of the pilots considering Maules. I've had a newer MX7-180 with the universal wing for 4 years and about 500 hours of flying. I've crossed the country (Washington to Virginia and back) twice in it and I've flown it to the High Sierra fly-in and to Oshkosh fully loaded. Yeah, high density altitude affects the plane, but it affects all airplanes. I've gotten off the ground at Big Rock Springs, Wyoming at a field elevation of 6,800' and 102 degrees fully loaded. My climb rate wasn't great, but it was positive. With a lighter load, or earlier in the day with cooler temperatures, a more normal departure could be expected. The operating manual for Maules is really skimpy. There are no TO distances described based on load or conditions. In fact, there aren't many normal operating performance graphs of any kind.of Most of the standard operating capabilities have to be worked out by each owner for their aircraft. Yeah, more power provides some advantages, but it comes at a cost. 6 cylinders are a lot more expensive to maintain than 4. I had to have a top job done when I bought the plane. Another 2 cylinders would have been really expensive then! I've never wanted to go someplace in my plane that it wouldn't take me. And I've gone a lot of places. Whichever Maule you select, it will give you years of adventures at a reasonable cost. Enjoy the journey!
Por mares nunca dantes navegados - a line from a Potugese poem about exploring the unknown.

User avatar
andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1662
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:05 pm
Location: Lake James, NC, USA
Contact:

Post by andy »

Archer, I fly a 1985 Cessna A185F for work and I own a Maule MX-7-180. On a rough or soft airstrip there's no contest - I'd rather use the Maule. The 185 is a wonderful airplane but I don't think that the airframe is as strong and forgiving as the Maule's welded chrome moly steel tubing. Certainly the 31" tundra tires, oleo struts and Alaskan Bushwheels tailspring and 3224A tailwheel on the Maule are stronger and more forgiving than the 8.00x6.00 tires, spring steel main gear legs and Scott 3400 tailwheel on the 185. Also, the Maule is quite a bit lighter in empty weight by about 200 lbs. They get off the ground at high density altitude in about the same distance but the 185 climbs much faster with the 300 hp fuel-injected Continental IO-520-D engine. The 185 has a 3,600 lb max weight while the Maule is 2,500 lbs. Purchase cost is quite different with the 185 in good condition being tens of thousands of dollars more expensive. Those are the main variables for you to consider. Insurance will be about the same for a low tailwheel time pilot although most insurance companies put Maules in a separate pool due to more claims. I think the claim rate is higher because Maule pilots takeoff and land in terrain that is more challenging to enjoy the capabilities of the aircraft. Ground loops aren't any more prevalent in a Maule than in any larger taildragger because the mass of the tail increases as the size of the aircraft. That extra mass on the end of the lever arm means more force is exerted by the tail if you let it misbehave. Training, experience and flying within your capabilities are the counter to that problem. The 4-cylinder Lycoming O-360 in my Maule is about 200 lbs lighter at the nose than a 6-cylinder Lycoming O-540, so if I'm landing at a really short airstrip and I need to use a lot of braking, I'd rather have a lighter nose to avoid the possibility of nosing over. However, if I need to take off again on that short airstrip when I'm loaded down and there is lots of high terrain around me that won't allow me to spiral up gradually, then I prefer the more powerful 6-cylinder engine. I flew my MX-7-180 in the Idaho back country last August at some fairly high density altitudes at about 2,300 lbs. It had no trouble getting off the ground in less than 900 feet but I usually only got about a 300 fpm climb rate. I managed that by climbing leisurely as I flew in the canyons over the Salmon River or in one case by spiraling up in a valley surrounded by mountains and looking for updrafts to gain lift.

If you plan to regularly take off at a density altitude of 8,500 or more when heavily loaded, then I would go for more power and more lift (6-cylinder engine, universal wing). You didn't mention how long the airstrip is or what kind of terrain surrounds it or if the airstrip has a slope. A high altitude 4,000 foot airstrip with clear approach and departure paths like Cold Meadows in Idaho is a different situation than a high altitude 1,000 foot airstrip with a 10% slope. I would be more inclined to take off or land a 180 hp Maule weighing 2,300 lbs at Cold Meadows at 80F than at Mile High.
Andy
1986 MX7-180
Image

User avatar
chazdevil
100+ Posts
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:31 am
Location: gone flying
Contact:

Post by chazdevil »

Well said.
79 M5 235Turbo

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests