M9

[ComputerAndPhotoGuy]

Unfortuniately cannot be at Oshkosh this year but will be there next year.

I understand that Maule has two planes at Oshkosh - one at the SMA Tent and one at the Maule Tent.

Would be curious what others think of the new Maules.

It is my understanding that the M9 is close to certification but not yet there.

It is my understanding that all that is remaining is a vibration test (already set up for when the Maule crew returns) and a flight test. Both are expected to take a minimum amount of time.

What we will get will depend on a cost vs benefits analysis and finances.

Right now in information gathering phase until the Maule is certified and better info becomes available.

Would be curious of what others think of the new Maule.

[ComputerAndPhotoGuy]

It looks like there will be M-7, M-7C, and M-9 diesel. FAA:
SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Maule Model M-7- 230, M-7-230C, and M-9-230 airplanes with a Societe de Motorisation
DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is July 2, 2009.

We must receive your comments by August 12, 2009.
Conclusion

Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the

Federal Register; however, as the certification date for the Maule

Model M-7-230, M-7-230C, and M-9-230 airplanes is imminent, the FAA finds that good cause exists to make these special conditions effective upon issuance.

http://regulations.vlex.com/vid/maule-d ... t-60070102

[ComputerAndPhotoGuy]

More:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?cont ... 2caf7289de
Actually I expected more than 137 mph.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-07 ... -16476.htm
The current team seems very dedicated. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[a64pilot]

Actually I expected more than 137 mph.

Have you seen it?

[ComputerAndPhotoGuy]

No, in the article it says, "Brent Maule of Maule Aircraft spoke about his experience with the Maule M9 and the SMA SR305. Brent said that the Maule Factory flies at 137 MPH TAS on 9-9.5 gph. "

I was expecting around 150 mph and 8 to 8.5 gph.

I believe the 235 gets around 11 gph at around 150 mph.

Still researching the best set of compromises for our needs.
Would like about 10 planes but that is not practical.

[a64pilot]

My M6/235 will true out at about 132 to 136 kts between 9 to 11 thousand. I believe it is slightly quicker than the newer airplanes due to it's smaller fuselage etc.
The sweet spot for most normally aisperated aircraft is usually around 7 thousand. I speculate My Maule's is higher because the wing area is larger than the average airplane, and the shape of it's airfoil.
The Diesel has a rather large frontal area. I believe it may be because of it's turbo and where and how it's mounted. Large frontal area = drag.
I believe 137 mph may well be an honest number. I'll give cudos to Brent here, because most all other manufacutrers are "optomistic" in their speed numbers.
Sorry about the spelling.

[ComputerAndPhotoGuy]

I also give cudos to Brent for being honest.

I always appreciate an honest answer even if it is not what I want to hear.

With an honest answer, might be disappointed for a short period but not in the long run.

[maules.com]

You guys are funny.
The quoted speed should have been 137 knots TAS which comes from 2006 numbers. Brent either misquoted (standard fare from the Maule factory) or the news hound misquoted (standard fare from aviation press).
137 knots is 157 mph. The words optimistic and honest can be bandied with.
This number was derived from a gross weight at 2500lbs.
At 5000 msl the engine can produce 200 hp up to 10,000 msl, then it drops off at a similar rate to the Lyc IO540.
Fuel burn is quoted at 1 gph per 20 hp utilized, by SMA.
The IO540 235 has the same power up to 5000+ msl and the 260 closer to about 7500 msl. The SMA has Fadec type single control so one cannot utilize flat pitch for take off, at least when I flew it. The 78" three blade was held at 2200 rpm. The SMA with all it's turbo and coolers is much heavier than the Lyc IO540, and jet A is 12% heavier than Avgas. The fuel availability and lower gph will be the SMA advantage.

[ComputerAndPhotoGuy]

Unless there is significant new information, the diesel is out for us.

The advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages to include the costs.

List, the diesel is $50,000 more than the 235 and $42,000 more than the 260.

One can do much flying for that type of money.

I have always been a fan of the 235. However, currently leaning toward the 260 as a better set of compromisies for what we will do with the plane.

At this point, not for sure if we will go new or used. Will also wait and see what Maule does in the next few months.

I like the M-6 but also like the M-5 and M-7. Not for sure if the 260 was available in the M-5 or the M-6.

All are fun planes.

[ComputerAndPhotoGuy]

Jeremy and others,

Curious, in real world, what are the advantages and disadvantages of Oleo vs Spring gear?

On Oleo, not for sure if I would want to put the gear into some Jeep ruts that I know of.

Oleo I think is lighter than Spring.

Spring has more of a safety margin in reguards to ground looping.

Oleo might be stronger for things like 29" Airhawk.

Not for sure which is better for conversions to skiis and floats.

Is my information correct?

What are other advantages and disadvantages?

Thanks,
Dave

[a64pilot]

I'd have to see it true out at 137 kts at gross to believe it, but I guess it carries a lot more power up at altitude than my 235 does. The thing has a really big face, I should have taken a picture of it when I was at OSH.

[yellowbelly]

Here ya go 64:

Children ran away crying... OSH '06



I agree, that's a BIG face. I believe it's the oil cooler that's massive. Diesels are real fussy about their oil as they use it for a lot more than splashing it around the sump.

[ComputerAndPhotoGuy]

Does the following sound reasonable? How would the 235 and 260 compare?
Am I overlooking anything I should consider?
Info is from Maule.
Flight from Moultrie to AOPA Convention at Palm Springs, CA and return:
Total Flight Time: 33.3 hrs.
Total Flight: 4,053.8 miles
Total fuel used: 274.5 gal
Average speed (from engine start to shut down and includes warm up, taxi, climb, cruise, descent and cool down): 121.7 mph
Average fuel burn (from engine start to shut down and includes warm up, taxi, climb, cruise, descent and cool down): 14.8 mpg
Average fuel burn (from engine start to shut down and includes warm up, taxi, climb, cruise, descent and cool down): 8.2 gph
Aircraft operated at gross weight less fuel burn.
Cruise altitude varied from 1,000 ft msl to 11,500 ft msl.
True airspeed varied between 120 kts (141 mph) and 137 kts (162 mph) depending on power settings.
Does the above sound reasonable? How would the 235 and 260 compare to this?
Am I overlooking anything I should consider?

The following is from a very reliable source but has not been verified.
The diesel is only certified to 12,500 feet. People say they are working on 18,000 ft or higher. However, I do not see any action on this and it is 10 + years.
It appears that, if an engine quits at altitude, the FAA is concerned that the propeller will not windmill and the pilot will not be able to restart the engine.
If the information from a very reliable source is correct, it is doubtful that the diesel will ever be certified above 12,500 feet.
Dave Wapinski
wi4me.com
888-sos-wi4me

[YELLOWMAULE]

Oh God, that's Fugley!
I screamed when the picture opened.
I'm surprised Preseti put their name on it. If you're going to be that ugly, you better have some amazing numbers.

[yellowbelly]

Yellowmaule:
Ugly is a compliment to this cowl. I couldn't find a good angle. Notice the exit lip - it looks like a cargo ramp under the cowl. They must want a whole lot of air moving through that engine compartment. Maybe they could limit operations to Alaska. The air would be cool and not that many people would see it.

YB