M-7-235 to M-7-235A

[Damiens]

Hi all,

Just want to make sure I understand this correctly.

In the Maule modification kit index it states.

"3 M-7-235 modified to an M-7-235Aby replacing existing Ailerons and Flaps with larger 5' Ailerons and shorter Flaps"

Does this mean that I can take an original older long wing aircraft and via an STC, overcome the either perceived or real problem of running out of aileron at a low speed (I really can't determine what the facts are here)?

Therefore making it the same as a m-7-235A.

Is this a big change? Expensive? Worth doing? or am I better off to just learn to fly the original wing and land without flaps in a stronger crosswind.

The proposed mission includes a one way 900ft mild downhill (on landing) which can have a 10knot crosswind and occasional quartering tailwind. It's proven very doable in a Cub, usually with a stalled 3 pointer.

Thanks in advance.

[TxAgfisher]

Should be easily doable without modifying the airplane. If you have a long wing and want something different there’s many people who would be interested in the long wing 7 (including me).

[Duane]

MK 3 involves removing present aileron and replacing it with a 60" one and either modifying your flap by cutting 7" off of it or replace with a new shorter one. Also, if your rudder does not have the interconect aka trim tab, you would have to install a new rudder. As far as aileron control at high AOA, do you have vortex generators installed? Best bang for the buck IMHO.

[Andy Young]

I have what I believe is the wing design with shortest aileron and longest flap that Maule produced, the original M-6. This wing is longer than that of an M-5, and slightly shorter than than of an M-7; it had the shortest ailerons (and longest flaps) of all of them.

While I do notice that the flaps are less effective at low speed than other planes I fly, I have not found this to be limiting in terms of what I can do with the airplane, at least in the sorts of operations I do. I regularly fly into places that are 500’-600’ long, and occasionally as short as 300’ (though those are steeply uphill). This often requires approach speeds in the low 50s (mph). Touchdown is, I suspect, in the 40s, though I’m always too busy to look at the airspeed indicator at that point. In another sort of operation, I often fly into normal, paved airports in strong, gusty crosswinds (frequently 25 gusting 35, up to 45 degrees off runway heading). Those ailerons have also worked fine there.

I’m not an exceptional pilot, so this isn’t about my ability, rather the acceptable functionality of the shorter ailerons. Yes, the longer ones would improve roll control some, but I prefer to have as much flap as I can get.

YMMV

[TimB]

The wing that Duane is talking about is the 33' 5" wing, not the 32" 11" wing that can be converted and become the M7-235A

[Flybrian1950]

I believe both the early M7 33" wing and the M6 32' wing had the short ailerons, and Maule has kits for both to go to a version of the 60" ailerons.
It requires a change from the droop to the upswept tips of the "universal" wings, and cutting back the flap length.

I would think a M7 wing modified to a M7A long wing would be one of the best out there.

I fly the original M6 wing with short ailerons and VGs.
I have collected all the components for the Kit and the paperwork from Maule, but she flies Ok as is.

I will need to install the aileron kit to go from 2400# to 2500# and convert her from an M6-180C to a Mx7-180B to put her on floats.

[Andy Young]

I fly the original M6 wing with short ailerons and VGs.

I will need to install the aileron kit to go from 2400# to 2500# and convert her from an M6-180C to a Mx7-180B to put her on floats.

Interesting; I didn’t know there were any M-6s with a 2400 pound gross; I thought they were all 2500. Was that just the 180s?

I’m also confused as to how the aileron effects this. I have an M-6-235 with the original wing (short ailerons) and it’s 2500 pound gross.

[Flybrian1950]

The half dozen or so M6-180's had 2400# gross, with the 32' 11"wing, short 51" ailerons, small droop tip, and original 13.5" chord rudder. I think all the 180 hp were in this "early" M6 configuration.

I think some M5-180C's were still being built with the 30' wing, ? 2300# gross at the same time.

Maule tried a "late" M6 change to a slightly longer aileron (?51" to 54"?) with the current up-swept tip and the longer ?15" chord rudder. it kept the 120" flaps. I believe it was also a Mod Kit.

After the universal wing was adopted, with the 60" aileron, up-swept tips, shorter flaps and the longer chord rudder, The M6-180 was reborn as the
MX7-180B with a 2500# gross, according to Shirley at Maule Engineering.

It appears these were a number of running type changes to adjust to issues the M6-235 had in barely passing its float plane certification tests. My M6-180 had the floatplane reinforcements, as the original experimental test platform, but was never certified on floats like the M5-180, because of concerns the m6-235 passed largely due to the extra horsepower.

So the end result over several years of changes was the Universal 32'11" wing with 60" ailerons, 9'6" flaps, and the 15" rudder for every model after the early Mx7's 30' wing, and the M7-235A long wing.

Had to learn this the hard way, no floats until I do the 60" aileron upgrade.
Maule did finally get the float plane designation approved for the M6-180.

[Flybrian1950]

The float plane approval as well as the land plane goes to 2500# with the aileron, flap, tip, and rudder change.

[Andy Young]

The float plane approval as well as the land plane goes to 2500# with the aileron, flap, tip, and rudder change.

So how is it that my M-6, with original aileron, flap, tip, and rudder has a 2500# gross? Sorry; still confused.

[gbarrier]

All M-6 2500#. Ours was an early converted to late.

[Flybrian1950]

The M6-180 is 2400 gross, the 235 has alway been 2500 land and 2750 on floata.

[gbarrier]

thanks

[DeltaRomeo]

Just a guess here, but the M6 180 gross may be limited because of the lightweight O-360 upfront causing CG issues that the heavier 235 overcomes.

[Hottshot]

Just a guess here, but the M6 180 gross may be limited because of the lightweight O-360 upfront causing CG issues that the heavier 235 overcomes.

You are correct, also for whatever reason the C/S Prop plays in that equation too