Do you feel like the M7 is big enough to be a true 4up + gear airplane?

In addition, where is everyone's go to for searching/buying a Maule?

TxAg, I have used the M7 to carry 5 seated adults satisfactorily.
Of course it’s fuel or people and thus depends on the mission.
Useful load varies dramatically on M7s. 235, 260hp, wide or oleo gear, two or three blade prop, AP or not, avionics stuff, battery weight, tyre weight etc.
They can range from a slender 1000lb useful to a bloated 700lb useful. That is 2x 150lb people difference.

Thanks Jeremy, if I make the move into one it would be a 235B, AP/IFR would be nice but I like a skinny girl too.

TxAg,

I can only speak to my airplane...2001 M-7 235B. Empty weight around 1650 which gives a legal useful load of 850. If you fill the fuel tanks with 73 gals of AVGAS (438 lbs) you have about 410 to play with in terms of people and gear. My airplane is close to stock with factory vacuum gages, Garmin Radio and Garmin transponder and an old Garmin GPS - VFR only. I have the O-540B4B5 with a 2-blade McCauley. I always plan for full gas and 2 folks with gear, full mains and 3 folks and gear, or 3/4 mains and 4 folks. Space is not a problem...just useful load and how short you need to get in and out of.

So to answer your original question about a 4-place airplane...it depends

, but yes there is space for four plus gear and if you don't need to carry too much fuel.

I have an M-6-235, so not quite what you’re asking about. Still, similar enough that it seemed worth adding in my experience. Mine is a slightly porky M-6, as it’s full IFR. This gets it close to M-7 weight; it’s right around 1600 pounds when on Bushwheels. That gives me 900 lbs useful load. With full mains, that leaves 620 lbs for people. Now, adult humans vary a lot in weight, from under 100 pounds to over 600, so when you say “four peopleâ€￾, it depends which four. That 620 pounds allows four at an average of 155 pounds. In my world that’s not a hard average to hit; YMMV. Of course that leaves no legal room for gear. I have often flown with two 160 pounders in the front seat, a couple of, say, 130 pounders in the rear, and some gear. I could still do gravel bar work with this load, but it took a solid 500’ to get off the ground. Something to keep in mind, depending on your mission. Comfort-wise, people have always said it’s just fine in the rear seats, even for extended legs. Keep in mind that I have the smaller cabin; it should be even better in the M-7. That said, I’m mostly flying people who have never seen the insides of a private jet or even a Bonanza; concepts of what constitutes “comfortbleâ€￾ can vary.

I will say that carrying four adults and camping gear for four is probably unrealistic. Carrying four adults and four check bags is probably unrealistic, never mind the carry-ons. Carrying four adults and four carry-on-sized bags seems do-able.

Yep, Andy our airplanes should be essentially the same size from a cabin standpoint.

I think it’s important to work with apples to apples and thus we should think in terms of the basic airplane regarding what one can carry.
Big tyres and loads of superfluous avionics if we don’t fly hard IFR or operate on 8â€￾ aggregate rock are luxurious choices versus more people, luggage or fuel.
Maule gave us main tanks which are adequate over 150 miles round trip and the option to fill or partially fill auxiliary tanks rather than carrying Jerry cans for extra fuel or longer distances with less people or load.
I once read that the national average light aircraft trip is 150 miles with 1.6 people. The option to carry five people in legal seats is wonderful for an airplane this size and the ability to remove those seats in 2 minuted and leave behind Or carry with us is remarkable too.
Then there is ‘the rear doors’ ! And the ability to fly doors off.

MauleWacko wrote:I had a M-4-220 I also had a M-7-235 so called long wing. I had a couple others that did not fly. They are the same size fuselage outside. Inside you have about 3 inches aft and 3 inches up more. It then has the funky hump as I saw it. I had more useful load in the M-4 at 2300 gross then the M-7. No mater what you only have 2500 gross to work with. I thought I was moving up going to a M-7. I would take my M-4 back any day for this type of aircraft.

I'm glad someone else shares my thought- from a straight useful load standpoint, it doesn't seem that the newer models (except ma serve the M9) really gain much, if anything over the M4 210/220. For example, you get a 2500 lb. gross with an M5 235, but they seem to weigh around 150 lbs more empty....

Of course, there are other refinements like longer wings, bigger flaps, etc.

Not overly concerned with useful, I have a 1000lb useful and can’t put that much in the airplane. What I can’t do, is put two young kids in the back and have enough room for camping gear.

Two airplanes are better than 1 TJ!! Maybe you should look at a family wagon. I have heard the Cessna 201 is a sweet family wagon ride.

M7-235 975lb useful.
2x 170lb men + 2x 120lb women or kids +100lb gear =680 lbs and 300b fuel (I burn 11.5gph) will take you a bladder distance (3+ hrs) especially catering to four bladders and have an hour reserve. Yes, the M7-235 will work for a lot of missions very well.

What is a Cessna 201 ?