MXT Mods? Tires and Prop

[Mountain Doctor]

Thats very thoughtful and I appreciate it but I think I will keep it stock for now. I don't find myself going places I'd need it and my plane is slow enough as it is and I suspect the mod would cost me at least 5 knots.

Wup, thanks for the clarification, and all your work in the past helping get bigger tires approved for all our planes.

Mountain Doctor, If you want to give the 8:00-6 on the nose and 8:00-6 on the mains a try, I will supply the Piper style airglas fork Wup says will fit.
(if you decide to keep the installation after approval, then replace the fork, if it doesn't get approved, simply return the fork).
With a copy of the field approvals from Wup on the mains and the airglas data for the 172/182/206, and the FAA bush wheel letter protocol, maybe it is possible.

With 8:00 on the mains, my thought is the stock Maule single puck brakes should be adequate, and avoids the expense of bigger brakes for this effort.

I thought I saw a drawing that 8:50-6's need double pucks for tw maules.

This airglas fork is only approved for 8:00 on the nose of the cherokee six, however the Cessna version now allows a smaller nose wheel size than the mains, so a 8:00 nose and 8:50 mains may be workable for some one with the bigger brakes on their MXT.

I'm thinking a 8:00-6 approach would make a better soft field airplane at a reasonable price. Hopefully a field approval will surface for the 7:00-6 we have all heard about.

An outfit in Idaho called Hitchcock Aviation seems to be knowledgeable on this topic in regards to the Cessna HD Gear upgrades for the 172/182/206.

[Flybrian1950]

Anyone else ?
If not, we'll put it on the Mexican Airforce Maule.
Headed to pick it up, and visit the Maule factory in a week or so.

[Flybrian1950]

I personally extended the offer of the Airglas nose fork to the Maule folks at the factory.

Apparently some one in an unnamed location over in the sandbox is having difficulty keeping tailwheel airplanes in one piece, and the suggestion was made to send them tri-gears instead to improve the landing success stats.

I suggested an MXT7-180 with 8.00's on all three corners would be a great approach and perhaps uncle sam could help with the extra expense to get an FAA approval thru the system. Someone is paying for bent airplanes already.

The response was as expected, too much red tape to get it done for a low production airplane. So it looks like a STC is the only hope for the future fellas.

[BradleyP]

I’m in. Just need to work out some details with my IA and a neighboring FSDO who seems to be willing to go with it.

Hat tip to Wup for some 337 help and everyone for their input. Holidays out things on hold, but I have a few weeks to start putting things together.

Is the fork still available?

[Flybrian1950]

Yes, offer is still on.
You do the install, get the field approval, and share the information, then purchase a replacement fork from airglas and return it to me.

Pm me with your contact information

Merry Christmas!