Andy, you have a CS prop?

Chris, yes I have a CS prop. It gives me more flexibility than a fixed-pitch prop at the expense of more complexity and cost. I can get 2600 RPM at a flatter pitch on takeoff when I need the power to help compensate for the 180 hp engine. With my big draggy 31" tundra tires and un-faired ABI HD main gear legs, the CS prop doesn't get me much of a speed increase in cruise, but I can cut way back on fuel burn. In some operations, such as seaplane, a fixed-pitch prop can be useful since you can optimize the prop for climb. A fixed-pitch prop also gives you fewer controls to deal with when time is of the essence.

Thanks for the insight. Considering it as a potential upgrade option for my A-model. Get that extra 100lbs gross weight increase (50-ish net, I’ve read), and added flexibility of a CS prop for the reasons you mentioned.

The time I flew behind a fixed pitch prop was a Piper Cherokee in the early 1990's so can't make much of a comparison. Been behind either a Hartzell 2 blade of MacCauley three blade CS since 1994.

This might or might be useful:

https://www.propilotsinc.com/questions-answers/

An interesting graph here: https://www.avweb.com/news/maint/185020-1.html

I am not sure but I don't think the CS mechanism adds an excessive amount of weight to the nose of the AC. You should be able to get the total weights from the propeller mfg for the blades you want.

TD

I think it is noteworthy to mention the mid-size Maule engines also. The cont, io360 @ 210 hp and the 200 hp franklin are both 100 pounds lighter than the 0-470 @230 hp, but only 50 pounds heavier than the 180 hp lycombing. I have the io-360 with the CS long prop...I feel that it performs very well.

That’s cool. I’m thinking more about there being a factory kit available to make the updates with. There is a kit to convert the A to B model for my MX. Otherwise, the next kit up, engine-wise, turns me into an M6 with a 235.

Dreaming a little dream here

Hey guys thanks for all the information I really enjoyed reading up on this stuff.

It occurs to me that I may not have asked the most important question of all, I'm 6 foot 5 and 220 pounds will I even fit in a Maule?

I’m 6’2â€￾ and 210-ish and fit fine up front. As with most planes of this size, including C-172 and similar, you’ll be rubbing shoulders with your passenger. My head doesn’t touch the ceiling with headset on, but it depends on your torso height. I thought I’d read in past threads that really tall folks might appreciate a skylight model from the extra headroom. But I’m okay with mine.

Maule's are a small airplane. At 6'5 you will be a slinky in a can and have to be bent over walking under the wings. I have had a few Maule's over the years even the so called long wing. There is a lot to learn about them. If you just buy and fly you may not know some of the things I would say. This site started from a Maule Mod's site from guy's wanting to change or improve a Maule. One mechanic described it best as a Maule being a MR. potato head. Same fuselage different, wings, gear, engine etc. If you want performance out of a short wing airplane you need Horsepower. More wing on a short fuselage will have adverse yaw affect. Buy what will fit your needs. It will be a waste of time and money to change or convert one. Try and build one. Not many parts on the used market and one off model numbers for engine and propeller's. Makes it hard to find them. I know. New parts prices have gone up and after market gear is a lot of money for ground use. They are a great two place airplane with some gear. Useful load is light for a four place airplane. Take one apart and put it together and you learn a lot. I know. I had a round tail and a swept tail. I think the swept tail is unfitting and I know the round tail is more efficient and looks great. You would have to go fly a few to be able to tell the difference. That pure Maule performance is with horsepower and keeping it light and simple. I have never know anyone that said they had to much power and wish they had less. They are good airplanes for what they are, but all are different and opinions vary.

MauleWacko wrote:Maule's are a small airplane. At 6'5 you will be a slinky in a can and have to be bent over walking under the wings. I have had a few Maule's over the years even the so called long wing. There is a lot to learn about them. If you just buy and fly you may not know some of the things I would say. This site started from a Maule Mod's site from guy's wanting to change or improve a Maule. One mechanic described it best as a Maule being a MR. potato head. Same fuselage different, wings, gear, engine etc. If you want performance out of a short wing airplane you need Horsepower. More wing on a short fuselage will have adverse yaw affect. Buy what will fit your needs. It will be a waste of time and money to change or convert one. Try and build one. Not many parts on the used market and one off model numbers for engine and propeller's. Makes it hard to find them. I know. New parts prices have gone up and after market gear is a lot of money for ground use. They are a great two place airplane with some gear. Useful load is light for a four place airplane. Take one apart and put it together and you learn a lot. I know. I had a round tail and a swept tail. I think the swept tail is unfitting and I know the round tail is more efficient and looks great. You would have to go fly a few to be able to tell the difference. That pure Maule performance is with horsepower and keeping it light and simple. I have never know anyone that said they had to much power and wish they had less. They are good airplanes for what they are, but all are different and opinions vary.

Hmm....I have to respectfully disagree with a few points here, those being that it's not a good four-place airplane, and that it has a low useful load. Even with the relatively heavy IO-540 in my M-6, I have more useful load than many or most four-seat airplanes. In fact, it's commonly said that most four seat light aircraft (including the most common Cessnas) cannot be legally flown with all seats full. By contrast, I regularly fly mine with four people aboard, within legal gross. I just did the math, so I could report real numbers. With two hours of fuel on board, I can have myself (160 lbs.) three passengers at 200 lbs. each, and 29 lbs. in the cargo area. At full fuel in the main tanks, I'd just have to lose the cargo and have the people weigh a total of 67 pounds less. So say, exchange one 200-pounder for a 133 pounder. I doubt you could do that in most other light four-seat aircraft. As I bonus, I can (and do) fly it in and out of 600-foot gravel bars with all four seats occupied! My rear-seat passengers report that it's quite comfortable back there also.

I do agree that it would benefit from having a taller fuselage in front. I am not fond of the semi-reclined seating position. I've come to terms with it over the years, but if I had my way, it'd be about a foot taller, with an upright seat, more like a Cessna, American Champion, or Dehavilland product.

Yeah, I didn't like the knees in the yoke thing either. I installed a dropped section in my floor on the pilot side that allows my heels to drop down about 1.5 inches. Made a surprising difference in how roomy it felt in the knee area! Yep, read and learn; that's most of why I'm here also.

Hey Andy, droop sounds great. Can we get a pic.

Ditto on the knees thing. I thought I’d get outfits that when I got out of the Piper Archer, but alas, I’m back to yoke in the knees. I’ll have to check out the floor dip at the heels. That sounds like a cool idea.

The shape and size is limited by the tube structure underneath. These photos were taken when I first did the mod. I have since replaced the sad-looking old floorboards, and have modified the side panel so that it comes straight down vs. curving In and covering part of the drop section. That also gives me more foot room.

<a><img src="https://i.imgur.com/OoFKSl8h.jpg" title="source: imgur.com"></a>
<a><img src="https://i.imgur.com/Drahw3Yh.jpg" title="source: imgur.com"></a>
<a><img src="https://i.imgur.com/jH7mEyth.jpg" title="source: imgur.com"></a>
<a><img src="https://i.imgur.com/u8PvViZh.jpg" title="source: imgur.com"></a>
<a><img src="https://i.imgur.com/CM0I8xQh.jpg" title="source: imgur.com"></a>
<a><img src="https://i.imgur.com/Hnt3Dt7h.jpg" title="source: imgur.com"></a>
<a><img src="https://i.imgur.com/o0KGmVGh.jpg" title="source: imgur.com"></a>