Saw this thread and have been following it. I am supposed to pick up a MXT-7-180A (hopefully in a few weeks). Pretty excited. I've got a fair amount tailwheel time (not Maule), but decided on the Tricycle version for ease of handling and lower insurance cost.

I'm expecting around 105kts low level / 65% power cruise. Does that sound about right?

You wont get 105kts at 65% power at low altitude. maybe at 85%

wasn't sure whether my tractor is really that slow. Surely, I could improve things here and there - currently I'm at stable 100kt with around 75%. Just finalising the EDM830 installation which might enable some cleaner leaning or so.
But biggest 'problem' IMHO is the fixed prop as opposed to the VP prop which I'm sure could give a few kt more in cruise. But I seem not to have an option to change this as my engine is not made for it. There is no STC for an MT electrical VP prop which could improve the situation...

If your fixed pitch prop is metal, they can repitch it for more cruise but at the expense of some take off power.

You might be able to get a 337 Field approval for the MT through Flight Resources as they have developed a good relationship with their FSDO in doing numerous MT installations via 337 on Maules. Flight resources has recently merged with McFarlane Aviation which from all indications is a good transition. John Nielson and Larry Schlasinger.

Thanks for the advice - I'll dig into this as I expect to need a new prop anyway in the next few years..
The 'only' problem might be that my Maule is not N-reg but german registered and hence it is not that straight forward.

Hi Chris,
Call MT in Germany or check their website. Their original STCs for Maules are from EASA - though they may also have some FAA STCs now.

yep - I did half a year ago when they told me that there is no STC and they don't have resources to make one.. I'll check again.
Well - nothing too urgent or important - but on my wish list

I think the main limitation of our FP models is the prop.

Repitching it won't help me much because neither the climb or the cruise performace can afford to take a hit UNLESS you only fly flat country (go larger pitch and longer TO roll and slower ROC) or only backcountry short distances where you can pitch for climb and wait longer to get to where you are going.

On the other hand the FP was many thousands of dollars less than the CS and weighs a lot less and never leaks oil or needs AD's addressed so there are advantages too.

I bought my plane new. If I had to do it all over again I'd have used the same money for a used 235 or 260 the get the full Maule experience.

My plan for now is to enjoy it for what it is and run it out and sell it, or retire from flying whichever comes first. I also have access to a Bonanza which covers my need for speed, so the Maule's camping and backcountry ability works for me for now.

Two quick questions:
1) Reputation of Maule’a fragile nose gear true?
2) Has anyone attempted large tires (inc fork-nose tire) on a Maule trigear ~ MT-7? STC? Suppose better prop clearance for unimproved surfaces, without tailwheel setup.

Thanks!

I don't remember any threads on the forum that mentioned problems with fragile Maule nose gear. I think the opposite is true. Here's a 2021 post from Wup Winn that discusses bigger tires for a Maule MT:

Hottshot wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:52 pm

Ok here is what you will need,

M9 Axels, double puck brakes (199-62 Kit) to clear the gear legs and brakes and the larger fork from Airglas if you want the 8.50 on the nose, if you can use the 7.00 do as Jeremy recommends. I have papers with the double puck 337's and the 8.5's

I favor a tail wheel Maule for landing off-airport to withstand the shock of a rough or soft airstrip. Any nose wheel airplane has the disadvantage of having the weight of the engine directly over the nose wheel and being the first point on the airframe to encounter a rut, bump, rock, stump, soft spot, etc. The other consideration is getting the prop tips high enough off the ground in level attitude to avoid brush. The largest tire that I've heard of on a nose wheel Maule is 7.00 although I know there are mods out there for 8.50 but not STC'd for Maules.

Very helpful. Thank you.

We are in the market for a tricycle gear Maule. I see one advertised that has 180 hp engine converted to a 260 hp engine. Can anyone comment on the pros and cons of this type of conversion?

Look into if the structure was upgraded, Eng mounts, wing attach pts, wings, fuel tank sizes, rear struts and ???
There maybe upgrades needed to comply with the larger HP.
Hopefully if any were needed, they are now complied with.

Other than that, HOLD on, blast off when the throttle goes in, trim trim trim! Oh, also thirstier. Useful load and distance may also be lower.

It’s all about aircraft purpose, will this work for your objective?

Tom

A call to Maule would tell you what the mod to 260 hp requires. I don’t see a service letter for that exact conversion.

I’m not aware of any structural differences aft of the firewall between the small and large engines. Same with fuel tanks, except you sure won’t go far if it is not equipped with the factory aux tanks.

Forward of the firewall of course a lot of changes, engine mount, cowling, accessories and prop. Big thing is how was it documented. I’m betting this was done at the factory or Maule Flight.

As to pros and cons of a 260 hp tri-gear. We have a few members on here that have them. Maybe they could chime in. Loads of power, heavier empty weight and probably a very forward empty weight cg comes to mind.

Kirk

Thanks. Sounds like the 180 hp would more likely fit our needs.