The Murphy Moose is sure slick with the dual stick set up. Lots of panel space.

IdahoSupercub

Jr.CubBuilder wrote:I got curious so I looked it up, they are still listed at $95K and $105K.

He's right, But I don't see how they can do it. the link is here http://www.mauleairinc.com/Our_Planes/M-4_180V_info.pdf

I purchased 24U about 5 years ago and have about 650 hours on the tach since. I have been up and down the West Coast a number of times and now mess around up here. Last weekend was a good example of how I have been using the plane. 2ea, 9' Catarafts, hunting and camping gear for 2, not heavy but bulky. Full main and Aux. tanks. Wasilla to Northpole in a little under 2 hours @ 140 mph /9.3 gph at 24/24. Flew about 1.7 scouting the day before the rafting trip and flew home by way of the cabin. Decanted 15 gallons there and picked up a 20hp outboard, weed eater and some other tools and flew home. Total time this weekend is about 7.5 +/- and a little under 70 gal of gas.
The field at the cabin averages about 800' with a good approach. I was no where near gross anywhere on the trip (Everyone relax, there's no bragging of bravado here), I burned relatively little gas and got my butt all over the place. The finish is like that of a farm truck but I liken it to that of my Toyota Truck. It goes anywhere I need to with relative comfort, safety & thrift and frankly, their pretty tough too. It's not a Cub, it's not a 180/185 nor do I expect it to be one. It's paid for, it's simple and it fills the mission. Parts are a fraction of what some other A/C have to pay (i.e. fuel selector valve; Maule $92 Cessna $680 for a 182) and a few years ago I called the factory to speak to Bruce Harlow, he was gone for the day and I had a very pleasant conversation with the CEO who answered the phone, Mrs. Maule. Try that with any Corporation these days. These planes are not for everyone, they have idiosyncrasies that must be adhered to. If you are an infrequent flyer, they are not forgiving. If I don't fly in a week or so, I don't feel like I'm current but that's just me. I wouldn't hesitate to recomend one for someone who is willing to put in some time and thought to flying one, they are a lot of fun and with a very broad operating envelope.
One guy's opinion FWIW

We miss seeing you around PT, Kurt, but it sounds like you're having a ball up there in Alaska. Good on ya!
We had a gal in a Stinson 108 ball it up pretty bad here saturday, planes's pretty well totalled but she's OK. I heard somebody balled up an Avid at Apex a few weeks ago.

Eric

We have heard how the Maule can get kinda squirrelly on the ground. The other day a twin turbo prop took out a taxi way sign at TTD. Messed up the prop real good. Those signs are tough! I think the problem is the runway is only 150' wide. "I ain't scared of no freekin Maule. Mr. Squirrl"

Never have flown a Maule, but I would like to.

And for the C170 pilot check the beer thread. Rob posted a picture of one there This guy looked like a Thrush driver to me

See ya, Bub

jmtgt wrote:

Skylane wrote:Never have flown a Maule, but I would like to.

Next time you make it down Reno way there is a flight for ya Bub!

Your on, should be in October sometime, another wedding shin dig. First weekend I think. I didn't make the wedding over Labor day, went Elk hunting instead. I do have priorities

Are you burning them steaks out at Stead? How are the races going? Heard on the news someone was KIA on an engine failure on take off?

If not a flight, I at least want to check out your shop

Thanks, Bub

Good to get some scoop from a pilot. Though most of us could be accused of being full of bull -sh - loney.

Last time I went down was 2003 I think. I know a guy who flys out of Stead. He heads out during this week. The year I went down he gave us wrist bands for an owner pass? Anyway was able to get in everywhere we wanted to go. Love getting in the pits.

Thanks for the report.

See ya, Bub

Couple of things to clear up here.
The only pop-rivets in a Maule wing are 8 which are non structural and merely support the carriers for wireing.
There are pop-rivets at the closure joints on the flaps and ailerons which makes for easy access for repairing.
The M4V (V for vintage, as in the retro mini etc) was originally aimed at LSA using a 100hp Rotax. Remember the hope was that LSA's would get a gross wt of 1450lbs but eventually got ruled to be 1323lbs (a multiplyer of kilograms). At 1450lbs with a little shaving of the airframe it could have been close. At 1323, no way. Maule was hoping to utilize proven and pre-engineered drawings and jigs to keep developement costs down.
So the M4-180V was an extension of the original idea.
My request was for a basic low hp trainer (maybe 125hp) at low cost to get into the flight schools and earn Maule a better insurance rate, but my idea was unheeded and the 180hp sportsplane resulted.
A number have been sold.
Jeremy

Mtv, sorry I forgot your question.
You are right, Beech did keep producing the Bonanza, barely, and I am referring to single engine piston craft.
Husky did not get into the game until very recently, manufacturing wise.
My reference is aimed at the earlier days to the commercial collapse in 1985 and the 10 year hiatus of new production which was rekindled by the 18 year production liability laws and resurgence in 1995 and of course to the present.
By closed their doors , I mean ceased turning aircraft out their doors and many did in fact go bankrupt.
Jeremy

Jeremy,

Aviat began production on the Husky, and continued production on the Pitts, starting in 1986 or 87, and have been in constant production since. Mooney continued to build aircraft throughout that time period as well, as did Maule, of course. American Champion did as well through that entire period. As you note, however, I doubt any of them, Maule included made a LOT of aircraft during that time period.

I think the key factor in all these was that they were all at the time (with the exception of Beech) self insured. I always had to laugh at the notion that the product liability laws "fixed" all these issues with aircraft manufacturers. There were, in fact, several manufacturers who continued to build aircraft throughout the "dark days", but there is little doubt the new law did re-invigorate the industry.

It is really too bad the SLSA rule was set so restrictive. I think a 1500 pound max weight would have been more realistic. Now, we're just going to see a lot of people operating these things at well over max weight.

MTV

The biplane guy at reno was from Gillespie here where I am. He tore up the skies here a day or two before and trucked the plane up there after some work, or so I'm told. I didn't know him but saw him in the air many times...

Jeremy,
My pop rivet statement is a little tongue in cheek, because I hear about it a lot. My point of referencing things like the pop rivets, Mig welding of the fuselage, fuel tanks etc. and saying the mechanicals look like they came off of the farm are I believe strong points. They point out the KISS way the aircraft is built and the relative simple procedures of repair, because every airplane will eventually need some repair. I do not mean to offend. The fact they are "cheap" airplanes is I believe their strongest virtue. Yes there are and have been "better" airplanes, but they are much more expensive to purchase and maintain.
To me to not include the Cessna C-152 in LSA was dumb, If I understand what LSA is, the 150/152 would I thought have been the model.

Well, we I finally made it over to Angry Parrot and talked to Jeremy. It was a very informative visit, and Jeremy even took us for a ride. I feel a little bad for him, as upon landing he missed the runway, but in all fairness it was windy. Better luck next time.

Maule's look like a real good plane, if you get the right one...It'll be interesting to see what my wife decides we should have.

ravi wrote:Well, we I finally made it over to Angry Parrot and talked to Jeremy. It was a very informative visit, and Jeremy even took us for a ride. I feel a little bad for him, as upon landing he missed the runway, but in all fairness it was windy. Better luck next time.

Maule's look like a real good plane, if you get the right one...It'll be interesting to see what my wife decides we should have.

You know you are going to have to explain that missed runway remark. I ain't buying "missed"

Ravi...

It's true...I was going to display the common decency of not pointing it out, but from the back seat Jen promptly said "Nice landing, but I think you missed the runway." With a little more practice I'm sure he can reach the paved part before the airplane stops. The worst part was I think he forgot to do a pre-landing check...just as we landed he reached down and release the parking brake!

Jeremy, I hate to throw you under the bus like this, but it's all about professionalism. Set a goal and work towards it! That's the only way any of us will improve. Before long you'll be able to land on the pavement like a pro!

Best of luck in your flight training,
ravi

ravi......

ravi wrote: With a little more practice I'm sure he can reach the paved part before the airplane stops. The worst part was I think he forgot to do a pre-landing check...just as we landed he reached down and release the parking brake!

That is the sign of a true Maule pilot...use the parking brake handle and the dirt prior to the pavement to aid in a short stopping distance. Measure your landing distance from the beginning of the pavement to your complete stopping point. Your landing distances are incredibly short that way.

Just be sure that the real parking brake is not actually set when you land...it ends up in a nose down attitude when you do...don't ask how I know this.

By the way, anyone out there got a good prop and spinner they want to sell cheap?