Johnson Creek Fly In Videos, Photos, Reports Etc.

ComputerAndPhotoGuy · Post by **ComputerAndPhotoGuy** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:34 pm

In Ancient Greece it was written that people are happiest when they are growing. After one passes the survival level, I think this is true.
As such I constantly try to learn and grow.
On flying, I try to become one with the plane so I can feel what the plane is doing and what the plane will do. The plane almost becomes an extension of me and I almost become an extension of the plane.
I was good at this, but Ansel Adams refined it in me. He always said that a person has to become one with a landscape and/or with nature.
I used to track and photograph animals like lions in Africa. Besides cameras, I did have a Swiss Army knife. I did not feel in danger since I almost became one with the lions.
I have not been flying for the last several years first due to a multi-year very nasty divorce.
Then a fight with cancer – now cancer free. On my recent medical, there were 30 to 40 pages of attachments. Doctor issued medical in his office. About a month later, FAA sent me a letter accepting the medical. AOPA was very helpful.
Brent Maule’s assistant thinks the Maule M9 will be certified by Oshkosh (both she and Brent are very helpful). There seems to be an urgency at Maule that I have never seen before.
I like to study with the best so was thinking of Ray Maule or Jeremy. Insurance requires a one hour check out but I want much more.
If not the M9, I like the M6 that Jeremy recently sold.
Other options would be the M5 or M7.
Dave

iceman · Post by **iceman** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:36 pm

M5 m6 M7 all are good airplanes... I personally favor the MX 7 and almost purchased one when I was shopping.... It was for sale in the Phoenix area by a pilot who frequented this site often as well as BCP... I asked him if it was still for sale and if so could I come over to Phoenix to see the aircraft... He said sure come on over... The aircraft was not spoken for and that he would show it that next weekend... After flying over in my buddies 182, for which I paid gas and a meal which I feel and so did he was appropriate, I was informed that someone from Minnesota had called first and had a tentative agreement with the owner... I even offered more than the owner was asking and was summarily turned down...even though the Minnesota buyer was not sending his mechanic to look at the aircraft for 3 months...after which he would make a decision...I don't know what the owners problem was but I feel it was definitely a lousy way to treat someone... He's still around,still listed here, although hasn't got one post and the MX7 is still his avatar pix........I'll never forget it and keep a eye on his activity should he desire to screw someone else in the future...

a64pilot · Post by **a64pilot** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 7:25 pm

Good to hear that on the 9. Who did you hear that from?

I like the 6, mostly probably because I have one. I like the smaller, lighter fuselage with the long wing.
If I could afford a new one and the 9 existed, then that would definately be the way to go

ComputerAndPhotoGuy · Post by **ComputerAndPhotoGuy** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:12 am

Talked to Brent in the Spring. He thought it would be Sun & Fun or Oshkosh.
Had a technical question talked to Engineering – believe it was Shirley Maule. She also though it would be Oshkosh due to the speed that Maule is now moving.
Talked to 3 dealers. Opinions were that Maule now thinks it is critical to their survival so it will finally be done.
Last week talked to the nice lady who answers the phone at Maule Sales – cannot think of her name at the moment, have not had second cup of coffee.
She thought Maule would make it by Oshkosh or very soon after that. Due to past delays, I asked what needed to be done and possible issues. She described to me what still needed to be done. It sounded doable by Oshkosh as long as there are no problems at the FAA. There is now one lady at the FAA who is handling the M9 Certification. So delays should be minor.
For me, if some deals we are working on come through as expected, we can afford it this year. If not, might be next year. One factor is M9 pricing which has not been finalized.
Dave Wapinski, wi4me.com

ComputerAndPhotoGuy · Post by **ComputerAndPhotoGuy** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:07 am

We are installing a new phone system, but I can be contacted to talk about Maules and/or flying at
Toll free: 1-888-sos-wi4me which is 1-888-767-9446
Dave

ComputerAndPhotoGuy · Post by **ComputerAndPhotoGuy** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:26 pm

Although I think having the M9 by Oshkosh is nice, I think it is most important to have it soon - sometime within the next couple of months if Oshkosh is not possible.
It is my understanding that the cowl has been redone.
It is also my understanding that the M9 brochures have been printed. Although brochures are relatively inexpensive, I think this is a very positive sign.
Have fun,
Dave Wapinski
http://www.wi4me.com
888-sos-wi4me

maules.com · Post by **maules.com** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:52 pm

Brochures were also printed years ago. I have some.
The project has been going on for M9 years it seems.
I flew the Diesel a year or three ago and have some observations.
The FADEC type control system did not give the pilot authority over prop pitch at that time and with the three blade prop being used, the plane did not take off as quickly as the 235 Lyc. based on 2500lb gross and/or with just Ray and I aboard.
There is a savings in fuel consumption, however the JetA fuel weighs 12% more than gasoline which affects useful load. Consider the 85 gal system will be 581lbs. 73 gal 499.3lbs.
The gross weight is to be 300lbs more which get's a much better useful than at present but one must remember that this 300lbs will severely decrease performance in takeoff, climb and cruise, as the same wing profile is being used, thus the Maule STOL advantage over other planes will be lost when at gross wt.
I do not yet know the latest empty weight but expect it will be heavier than the M7-260C.
The Tri-gear MT has not been addressed. With the present configuration of coolers etc it would take a magician to fit it all in.
You too could be the first on your block with a Diesel.

ComputerAndPhotoGuy · Post by **ComputerAndPhotoGuy** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:07 am

Thanks for the information. I appreciate it.
My interest in the M9 stems from the fact that the Maule is a plane that many love to over-gross and it is easy to do.
For many reasons it is good to be legal to include living in today’s sue happy world. Beefing up also increases safety. At the same weight, it would seem both beefed up M9 and non-beefed up M7 would get off in the same distance. Something like an M6 might be even better. Am I overlooking anything?
You can answer one question for me: 235 vs 260. The Maule web site says the injected 235 uses 11 gph and cruises at 160 mph while the 260 uses 15 gph and cruises at 164. An extra gallon of fuel per hour for each mph increase in speed seems high to me.
The 260 is heavier so not for sure how it really affects take off distance.
For real world bush flying and general flying, which is better (260 vs 235) and why?
The diesel is an unknown and do not like to buy totally new products until the bugs are worked out.
The diesel manufacturer recently lowered the diesel engine price but cost is still a factor (just rich in spirit).
High altitude performance is a factor with me. Have taken off from Big Bear Lake in CA in August with the density altitude around 9,000 ft. With a rented Hawk XP, ½ fuel, two people and little luggage, I still used up much runway and the plane climbed like a fat pig. Taught me respect for density altitude.
In this situation, which do you think is best and why?
Dave Wapinski
http://www.wi4me.com
888-sos-wi4me

ComputerAndPhotoGuy · Post by **ComputerAndPhotoGuy** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:21 am

I had just gotten my pilots license a few months before the Bear Lake trip and also before flights in the Sierra Nevadas.

maules.com · Post by **maules.com** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:26 pm

Lyc IO540 uses .44 lbs fuel/hp/hour.
Gph depends on how much hp is dialled in with Rpm and "MP
The greater the available hp the higher the power can be produced so the 260 out performs the 235 at altitude but at sea level you could'nt measure the takeoff difference. Same wing.
Because it has the greater hp the 260 can go faster utilizing altitude to keep the fuel burn down.
Drag is increased at a square of the speed increase, so speed of a 260 over a 235 is not linear.
Maule's spec figures from advertising 'blurb' are just that, and not comparable from one model to another as the performance sheets are inaccurate.
The final outcome in performance comes not only from hp but from thrust which is a combination of the engine and prop and thus a poorly matched prop on a large hp can produce less thrust than a well matched prop on less hp.
In optimum conditions with no tundra tyre/vg/ifr antenna drag items I have achieved 160mph tas with the 235 and 169mph tas with the 260 but not all aircraft are perfectly rigged and up to 5mph can be lost in this alone. Then there is the pilot and his/her various ways of handling the plane.
Aviation is a compromise.

Green Hornet · Post by **Green Hornet** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:47 pm

maules.com wrote: Aviation is a compromise.

AMEN! My Brother in more ways than one.

ComputerAndPhotoGuy · Post by **ComputerAndPhotoGuy** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:47 am

Yes, aviation and all of life is a compromise.
I assume optimum conditions is around 6,000 to 8,000 feet. Is this correct?
Big tires probably knock off 5 to 8 mph.
VG and antenna probably another 3 mph.
So we are probably talking about 150 tas for the 235 and 160 for the 260 in normal conditions. Is this correct?
I assume this is max power. What was the fuel burn? There would seem to be other factors influencing the .44.
As one goes up, do the 235 and 260 lose power at the same rate?
At high mountain strips with a density altitude of 8,000 to 10,000 ft, what have you found to be the difference in take off distance between the 235 and 260?
For an educated guess, how do you think the 230 diesel would perform under these conditions (assuming the 230 happens)?
Thanks in advance for the info.

MauleWacko · Post by **MauleWacko** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:31 pm

a64pilot · Post by **a64pilot** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:00 pm

On an average day, I really could get 160 mph/140 kts indicated at 1,000 msl out of my M6, before I started "improving" it. It's no where near as fast now

a64pilot · Post by **a64pilot** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:05 pm

Diesel is heavy, I believe any of the high power Diesels live off of the turbo, so they would have to have a "spool" time just like a turbine.
I think the only REAL advantage of a Diesel will be in those places where Avgas just simply isn't available. There are more of those places than you might think, just not in North America.
I don't think the additional expense of the Diesel will ever be offset by the cheaper fuel, unless there is no gas, then the Diesel will shine.
Just to hazard a guess, I would think the 9 would have to come first in order to haul the Diesel around. Just a guess.
I can tell you from first hand experience the certifying anything now is nothing at all like what it used to be. It seems the FAA will not be happy until there is no longer any general aviation. Then they can sit back and congragulate them selves

Johnson Creek Fly In Videos, Photos, Reports Etc.

Who is online