maules.com wrote:Some of the stuff I do or have done with a Maule.

Typical flight when bushflying M5-235 in AK years ago.
Leave Fairbanks with myself and 3 hunters and gear for Kogoluktuk River 2.2 hours away, land on a gravel bank which, depending on amount of rain, might allow 350ft or 650ft. Drop the hunters and gear off, load up with 600lbs of meat and nearly 70" antlers so big that the flight back was doors off and depart that gravel bar and fly back to Fairbanks, having enough fuel for reserve and carrying survival gear.
Refuel and take another load in.
A days work.

Put a 55gal barrel in the back and fly via Greenland and Iceland for sightseeing on the way to England.

Two people, two bikes, two chairs, icechest, foldup canoe, food etc for a month long hangout from strip to strip wherever my fancy takes me.

Get the shortest landing (3knot wind) in 86ft at the competitions.

Fly to 10000ft from sealevel in 11mins and drop out 5 jumpers.
Perform emergency drops to downed people, mining supplies, equipment to salvage old aircraft etc etc

Go fishing and diving on floats to miniscule reef islands in the Bahamas.

Crop dust the back 40 faster than a Pawnee. Actually a customer did this and sold his Pawnee.

Four people from Calistoga to Truckee with skis for a day's skiing and back by nightfall.

Been in someone elses Maule who knew what he was doing, in a loop and a roll.

It would take a book to detail all the adventures, but hope this answers some of the original request

Jeremy

Jeremy, you gotta have two dicks! You won't get that stupid playing with just one.

The maule is a darned good airplane.I do not understand why people claim they are not.They do pretty good in the bush as long as they are not freighted.2 to 3 passengers they do really good.I beleive if the wing was a little longer they would be used more extensively.I wonder if the cruise speed would suffer?

Now, I love Maules, I have one. But it's not a 206. No way no how. If you want to compare it to a Cessna, then I think it compares better to a 182 or maybe 185. I don't have experience in a 185, so I'm a little hesitant to make that statement. Point is a 206 it ain't. In my opinion a 206 is a lot more durable, and will tolerate a lot more abuse for a lot longer than a Maule will. But you can take a Maule places you can't take a 206.
As far as to wing length, yes it's cruise speed would suffer, it has. Now if I had limitless money, I think the way to slowing the Maules' approach speed would be with Fowler flaps. I also believe it would require a complete re-design of the entire aircraft, so figure the odds. I think the difference in stall speed to cruise speed as a percentage is higher in a Maule than any other small single engine production airplane.
We Maule guy's talk a lot about the good points of a Maule, most owners of anything don't talk about whats bad about what they have. I'll try to break that habit, because there is no such thing as a perfect airplane.
A Maule is a cheap airplane, it has an ancient interior for example reminiscent of a 1960's Volkswagon to me. No formed slick plastic anywhere. The wings and almost everything riveted on the airplane uses hardware store stainless steel pop rivets. The mechanicals look as though they were designed by a farmer. Example, to remove the tanks you remove the numerous SS screws around a large piece of wing skin, roll it back and there is the metal tank. No B-2 fuel tank sealed wet wing and no rubber bag to be pulled through an inspection hole. Some people like this cheapness because it is easy and cheap to repair or replace components. The wood floor is cheap, but easy to replace as well, and any auto upholstery shop can replace the interior. So if you can get over the cheap look and feel of the airplane and take it for what it is, you'll like it. It's the Chevrolet of airplanes, not the Cadillac.
Why are the insurance rates so high? Because the loss rate is so high. Why is the loss rate so high? Because a Maule will bite you if you don't respect it, and understand your and it's limitations. It is not like a Cessna on short final or touchdown. I mean that as a compliment to Cessna's. The Maule's STOL performance comes at a price. That price is that you are closer to the edge of the envelope in a Maule. You may shoot a quite acceptable final approach and landing at say 48 MPH, but at 45 MPH it's dropping like a rock and will hit so hard that something will be damaged. Riding that fine line is not something every pilot is capable of, and that line is not well defined either.
They are rather light, small and short coupled for the size of the engine pulling on them so if you let it get out of shape on the ground then I imagine it can get ugly quick. In my opinion it was the M4-220 that made Maule, gave them their reputation and direction. It's the time honored big engine / little airplane formula.
Now, let's get real truthful. Can My Maule compare to say a 185? Nope, no way, not even to a 180 in my opinion, whatever my opinion is worth.
But the way to compare a Maule against anything is to say restrict yourself to a monetary amount that you can afford. For me it was what is the best tailwheel airplane that can be had for around $50,000? I think most of us have a limit on the amount of money we can put in an airplane, and that is where a Maule shines, in my opinion they are under valued, so a used one can be had for a good price. I do not have unlimited funds, so to me it's not what is the best airplane, but what is the best airplane that I can afford.

Jr.CubBuilder wrote:

a64pilot wrote: A Maule is a cheap airplane, it has an ancient interior for example reminiscent of a 1960's Volkswagon to me. No formed slick plastic anywhere.

That would actually be a plus to me

It was for me too., But some people consider it cheap, I consider it functional.

There are about 6000 C180/185's out there.
Since Maules first production in 1961, they have never closed the doors though every other light plane manufacturer has, sometimes more than once. Maules have produced 2500 aircraft stretching over 40 models.
They are a family held business and try to build a light plane for as many applications as possible. Maule has always been reknowned for rugged safe taildraggers but GA training changes, customer request and then lawsuites depicted that a trigear version was needed. Maule rose to the occasion building a rugged bush capable trigear and are now selling almost 50/50 trigear v taildragger.
The modern day pilot is different because the training is different and the lifestyle is more hurried, with the pilot less apt to take responsibility for his/her actions thus the planes get blamed and the insurance companies have to pay because the lawyers get hired by the perpetrater of the accident.
In the '70s, the heydays of GA in the US, total light aircraft production and sales, was literally 10 times what it is today.
Just some thoughts.
Jeremy

A64pilot,
Thanks for the information...I think you've just doubled my knowledge about Maule's.

What's a Maule?

Jr.CubBuilder wrote:Do they make a big engine Maule with a round tail? I remember reading a magazine sometime back that they were bringing back the M4(?) with the round tail and a Lyc. 180, but do they make one with a bigger motor?

Go to Jeremy's web site and look around, all the real knowledge is there. What you get from me is innuendo and opinion.
In my opinion the new M-4 is a little awkward, PC for FU. There is no back door, one of the best things about a Maule is gone. My OPINION is that they were trying for an LSA, I know they flew one with a Rotax. I THINK that anybody with any sense expected the C-150 and 152 to be LSA, so if they built a Maule with the same gross as a 152 then they would have an LSA. Well the LSA rules came in lighter than that. Now this is based only on opinion and no actual knowledge, but it would explain why the back door isn't there.
There is also the opinion that they couldn't build the old M-4 or they would have a lighter, faster, better performing aircraft than some of the new ones that cost more. Now this is just me Mon. morning quarterbacking because I don't know, and I could be completely wrong.

ravi wrote:A64pilot,
Thanks for the information...I think you've just doubled my knowledge about Maule's.

Ravi,
You really need to go visit Jeremy, I've only been playing with Maule's for a very short time, whereas Jeremy knew and I'm sure flew with BD.
lowflybye's remark is really right on, and I think most of the reason Maule's are undervalued; and that's most pilots ask what's a Maule?

ravi,

So, now you are suggesting that shopping for Maules is sort of like the aviation equivalent of dumpster diving????

Man, now THAT is COLD!!!!!

MTV

a64pilot wrote: and I think most of the reason Maule's are undervalued; and that's most pilots ask what's a Maule?

I was actually asked by a Center controller what type of aircraft I was flying...I told them a Maule MX7.

The center controller responded: Who makes a Maule? Followed by what does it look like and what kind of performance...needless to say he had no clue.

You would be surprised at how many people come up and want to see a Maule when you go to a fly-in or even just a normal airfield. You would think it was a warbird at times. The questions about them get comical at times as well. Most people have heard of them and heard about their capabilities, but have not actually seen one much less watched it perform.

A lot of the time the people who badmouth them have never even flown one...the are just going by what they have heard.

They are not the perfect airplane for everything and everyone. They can be a handful when not respected, and a bear in crosswinds, but they work best for my wants, needs, and budget.

ravi,

I'd second that you should go visit Jeremy. He is the Maule expert, no doubt.

But, Jeremy--your comment "they have never closed the doors though every other light plane manufacturer has, sometimes more than once"??

I've heard that somewhere else recently, but.....

Beechcraft, Aviat come to mind for two that never stopped production that I'm aware of.

Mooney and Piper have been in and out of bankruptcy, but I think they were still supporting their products, and Cessna never closed its doors, they just built jets and Caravans for a while.

Picking at nits here .

As to why few commercial operators use Maules in the bush: a64 pretty well summarized that, plus the fact that with a decent load of fuel, they generally don't have much left for payload. And they do burn some gas. They work well for a recreational flyer, but for the folks who are hauling big loads into the bush, they just don't have the load capability, especially in Alaska where range is also important. By comparison, I flew a C 185 that you could fill with fuel (84 gallons) and it still had nearly a 1000 pound payload. That is a lot of capability, and most folks would never put that much fuel in one for this type of work.

MTV

I had thought of Beech as well, but I believe the thought was of "small back country" aircraft, not sure the A-36 really is in that spirit. I also believe the point was that you couldn't buy an aircraft, No Cessna didn't go under, just away, but it's the same to Joe pilot that wants an airplane and can't get one.
And for hauling big loads in the bush, well some would say that nothing smaller than a C-46 could be used for serious work, so I guess it's the frame of reference here. To me a Super Cub isn't enough airplane, but for many it is the ultimate bush plane.
I don't think many of us here are 135 operators are we?, So I guess that makes us recreational flyers, is that bad?

Let me preface by saying I have nothing against Cessna's, Husky's, Cub's etc. etc. I have flown them all and owned a 1969 182 and a 1981 T-206. I now have a Maule M4-220C that is paid for (unlike the 206) and if it sits for a couple of weeks I don't feel like I should sell it because it's not "paying for itself" (boy would I like to find that airplane).

Owning and flying a Maule is like owning and driving a hotrod SUV. You can haul the trash, get it dirty, get in and out of places others wouldn't even think of. Then clean it up and take it across town, across the state or across the country and be comfortable while only giving up a bit bit of cruise performance to the slick, pavement bound, alternatives.

I like the simplicity of the design and the way the aircraft is put together. I also like the fact that I can make sense of the airframe and can accomplish a lot of the service and maintenance myself (with the approval of my local A/P-AI). If I am stranded somewhere, I know I can usually figure out the problem and make sense of the solution.

As far as the Franklin goes, I have yet to find a part not available by overnight from somewhere in the U.S. ( I do have to admit I have not needed a lot of parts for my PZL Franklin as it only has 300 hours since factory new) It runs very well, sounds great and pulls even better. I like being able to plan 10gph and always come in better in a plane that'll give you 125kts at cruise with no problem.

Insurance wise, I have a 50k hull on it (mostly a down payment on the next aircraft if the unthinkable should happen) and am paying 1,400 a year for the priviledge.

All in all and bang for your buck, I'm not sure how you beat it...

Ditto on the value of Maules. When I was shopping for a plane I wanted an IFR panel with a center stack of radios, fuel injection, and a tail wheel. Only Maule had it in my price range.

my favorite maule feature is its versatility. a close second is its affordability.

i operate mine on skis as much as possible. i just love being out enjoying the winter. when i bought the maule i put it on straight skis and it was a blast. this spring i installed a set of wheel skis and flew it to alaska. even more fun. when i got here i found some alskan bushwheels and installed those, and had all sorts of fun landing on gravel bars and ridge tops. basically following all the cub guys around. but when it comes time to fly into anchorage on a grocery run- all the cub guys want me to haul them down because i can haul a lot more groceries than a cub- even with 3 onboard. and the IFR stack is nice assurance as well. AND 120 kts beats 85 mph any way you look at it.
next summer i might put her on floats if the right deal pops up. otherwise it'll be back on bushwheels for some cub chasing- by the way my 235 horse burns 9 gph at 100mph compared to my buddies 180hp cub that burns 10 gph at the same speed he doesn't like to be reminded of that.

the point is- if i had bought a 180 or 185, i would still be confined to flying pavement to pavement because i wouldn't have had enough money to outfit it with skis, bushwheels, yada yada...... and if i had a cub/citabria/scout i would have to do solo grocery runs, and the dog would never get to go with me. and that would just be lonely

I think the idea Maule had with the 2-place M4-180 was not to be light sport... after all, it grosses at 2300#. Hell, it's even over the LSA weight empty at 1380# ! I think their idea was to compete with the Cub Crafters TopCub and the Aviat Husky. And I think it was a good idea, and executed well to boot. Lots of people like side-by-side seating over tandem. If only they could have stuck to theit announced pricing of $95/105K (fixed pitch/constant speed).....but I saw an ad in Aviation Hotline last December that quoted it at $129/139K. Too much money, & 1380 empty's a bit heavy for a 2-place also. Otherwise I like it. I'd like to fly one sometime.
Jeremy, are there many of these being sold?

Eric

If it only had a stick! Why is that?

IdahoSupercub

I think it's to make getting in and out easier on a side by side seating airplane. I think there are quite a few people that would pay for an STC for sticks.

zero.one.victor wrote:I think the idea Maule had with the 2-place M4-180 was not to be light sport... after all, it grosses at 2300#. Hell, it's even over the LSA weight empty at 1380# ! I think their idea was to compete with the Cub Crafters TopCub and the Aviat Husky. And I think it was a good idea, and executed well to boot. Lots of people like side-by-side seating over tandem. If only they could have stuck to theit announced pricing of $95/105K (fixed pitch/constant speed).....but I saw an ad in Aviation Hotline last December that quoted it at $129/139K. Too much money, & 1380 empty's a bit heavy for a 2-place also. Otherwise I like it. I'd like to fly one sometime.
Jeremy, are there many of these being sold?

Eric

It is now with a 180 hp Lycoming and a Hartzell prop. I don't know how much lighter it was with a Rotax and some kind of plastic prop. My understanding was that it was tail heavy and underpowered with the Rotax.
Wonder why it's gross is 2300 and not 2500? If it's gross was 2500 and if it had a cargo door then your two place plane would have a 1100 lb useful load.
Even at 2300 it's more useful load than their 5 place, but everything has to go over the seat backs to get into the cargo area.
I don't think they could sell them at 100k and break even, the little plastic LSA's with a Rotax go for more than 100K. By the time you add up all the purchase parts you probably are over 70 k