mountainwagon wrote:.... the good stories are the calls. Imagine the amount of call's I have had with sixty airplanes sold. I logged over 55 calls on one airplane this year........." I had a call on the plane today, man this guy was cool we talked for over an hour"

I'll always remember seeing an ad in T-A-P that said "no BS phone buddies please". I thought that was pretty funny until I'd advertised a couple airplanes for sale myself, then I knew what the guy was talking about. A friend of mine recently advertised & sold his C180-- one guy called several times to gab about the airplane until my buddy finally figured out he wasn't ever gonna step up and make the purchase. He got it right away when I told him about the BS phone buddies ad.

Hotrod180 quote " Later on, he told me he couldn't believe how much re-working it took to make that aileron fit on the airplane. So maybe the moral of this story is that sometimes you get what you pay for,"

I find that odd, though the aileron might not be on the shelf when ordered, I have found they always fit provided the correct one was ordered.There are about 8 different ones for different models and if the order is sent in per aircraft model without designating which wing it could cause a problem.
Last I got was $880 painted and bolted right on.
Horizontal stabilizers can be a bit different as correct attach point measurements must be sent with the order. Again about $850 covered and primed, you can't re-cover one for that price. Prices could be up a tad from last year, not sure.

I tried to resist posting a reply since it seemed like so many people are anti-Maule on this thread, but a lot of them seem like they don't know enough to comment, either. I've owned a 1986 Maule MX-7-180 for 17 years. I did my commercial land and sea certificate in a C180 and I fly a Cessna A185F for work as a forestry pilot. I haven't flown a 235hp Maule so I can't make a comparison with that. Hopefully, this will give the original poster some more accurate information for a purchase decision.

They are different aircraft with different pros and cons. None of them is "better" than the other. It depends on your mission and budget.

The Maule is cheaper to own and maintain by far than the C180 or C185. 1970s-vintage C180s and C185s are going for over $120,000 on Trade-a-Plane. My Maule was around $52,000. Maule parts are a lot less expensive than Cessna parts, although most of the Cessna parts are available from a wider selection of sources than Maule parts. I can't comment on insurance since I've never owned a C180 or C185 but hull value is most of the insurance premium so I'd guess that Maule insurance is lower.

My Maule will land shorter than either the C180 or C185 due to weight differences, but the 300hp C185 with the 3-blade McCauley prop is king when it comes to short takeoff with a heavy load at high density altitude. At normal load and density altitude they take off in about the same distance, surprisingly, but that's due to the weight difference. Climb out in the C185 is awesome at more than 1,200 fpm - can't say the same for the Maule 180 where I count myself lucky to get 800 fpm. Most of the performance differences are due to my Maule's 180hp carbureted O-360-C1F vs. the 300hp fuel-injected A185F Continental IO-520-D or the C180K's Continental O-470-U. The performance of the Maule M7-235 and C180K with the Lycoming O-540-B4B5 and Continental O-470-U engines and McCauley 3-blade props should be similar.

I know that the C180 and C185 spring steel main gear are rugged but I don't like their flexibility, which I think makes them easier to bounce on landing. I'd also hesitate to put large bushwheels on the C180 or C185 even though I know lots of owners have them. The Maule's oleo struts limit the flexing of the main gear on landing or in-flight flutter caused by heavy tires with large surface areas.

The Maule has a chrome-moly welded steel tubing frame while the C180 and C185 are aluminum semi-monocoque construction. For that reason I feel more comfortable landing the Maule on a rough airstrip than the Cessnas. On the other hand, the Maule has a 3M Ceconite 101 fabric skin (except for the aluminum skinned wings) which after about 25 years has to be replaced and repainted at a steep cost of about $25,000. It's very difficult to spot-repair a fabric paint job if the paint cracks. Not so difficult on aluminum skin. Repainting aluminum skin isn't cheap but it's much less expensive than replacing fabric. On the other repair of fabric damage is easy compared to aluminum.

As far as landing difficulty, my Maule is more stable on landing than either of the Cessnas. I think that's partly because of my Maule's ABI 3224A tailwheel and loose tailwheel spring tension. The angled ABI tailspring puts the tailwheel in a more vertical orientation than the Cessna Scott 3400 tailwheel which seems to make the tail more stable on landing. Both the C180 and C185 have more tailwheel response to rudder pedal input than the Maule when steering on the ground. This comparison depends very much on what kind of tailwheel and spring a Maule is equipped with.

The Maule's baggage door is way better than either of the Cessnas. The Cessnas both have slightly larger cabins than the Maule and are more comfortable for large passengers. The Cessnas also have more seat adjustments than the Maule and are more comfortable for long flights. I can't imagine being in the Maule for 5 hours flying over a fire with the limited seat adjustments like I do in the C185.

I prefer the Cessnas' 4-point seat/shoulder belt harnesses to the Maule's 2-point inertial reel setup but you can get better seatbelts for the Maule. I dislike the Maule's rear seat inertial reel mounting position on the headliner right next to the passengers' heads, but the quick release rear sling seat is great for stowing a lot of baggage.

I like the Maule's vernier throttle and prop controls better than the non-vernier controls on the Cessnas.

The Maule has very light controls compared to the heavy controls on the Cessnas.

The C185 is way faster than the Maule but that's to be expected with the difference in engine power and drag. The C180 is also faster than my Maule due to engine power. My Maule is a draggy airplane that is much more at home low and slow than the Cessnas. The main gear on my Maule is ABI HD gear with no fairings and the 8.50x6.00 tires have a larger frontal surface area that creates more drag than the smaller tires on the C185 that I fly. The C185 that I fly and the C180 that I flew don't have vortex generators, which the Maule does. A worthwhile option on any of these airplanes in my opinion. The Maule's landing configuration stall speed is below 40 mph (35 kts) while the C185's stall speed is 64 mph (56 kts) and the C180's 55 mph (48 kts). All that said, I'm much more comfortable flying the Maule at low airspeed and altitude than either of the Cessnas.

I have pilot and copilot observer doors on the Maule, which are outstanding in terms of visibility. The C185 that I fly for work has bubble windows that don't work as well. The C180 didn't have either. The gas struts on the Maule's windows make opening and closing the windows in flight very easy below 120 mph. I don't like opening a bubble window on the C185 in flight due to the stress on the hinge due to the drag caused by the larger frontal surface area. The Maule windows are flat and have minimal drag.

If you are planning to carry four people, full fuel, take off on short airstrips at high density altitude and can afford the purchase and parts cost, then the C185 is the right choice. The C180 is a good choice if you don't need to carry as much weight or don't need as much takeoff and climb performance and can afford the purchase and parts cost. Although I haven't flown a 235 hp Maule, the performance specs are similar to the C180 but the purchase and parts cost is quite a bit lower. With similar performance, hopefully the comparison above will help you make a purchase decision between a Maule and C180.

.

.
@ Andy

I really enjoyed reading your Maule to Cessna 180/185 comparison. It was quite comprehensive. I am not sure how closely your Maule MX7 compares to a M7. Here is a short table and link to an article on the Maule M7-235C by Bud Davisson from 1999. It compares the Maule M7 to a Cessna 182. Interesting information. Your MX7 of course has the 180 power plant vs the larger 235 in the M7 reviewed in the article

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepMauleM-7-235C.html





Finally I have read that some people do find the Maule seating not bad, but not ideal. Why do you feel it is less comfortable than the Cessna 180/185? Is it a more cramped cabin feeling, or are the seats just lower quality? If so, can the seats be upgraded and made more comfortable for those >5 + hour trips?

Maules have always been somewhat of a mystery to me, no matter how much I read about them or study the specs. The M7 235 carb with Oleo gear seems to be the Back Country ticket, but that's strictly my opinion from reading. I've never been in one.

andy wrote: I tried to resist posting a reply since it seemed like so many people are anti-Maule on this thread........ I can't comment on insurance since I've never owned a C180 or C185 but hull value is most of the insurance premium so I'd guess that Maule insurance is lower.....

I think it's not that anyone is anti-Maule, it's just that many of us are gung-ho about 180's.
As far as insurance goes, there was a thread about this a while back. I was surprised that Maules seemed to be much more expensive to insure, for a given hull value. Insurance rates are all about statistics, so I'd guess either Maules cost more to fix or more of them are getting piled up.

Denali, I think if you buy a new Maule, you can get more seat adjustment options and make it more comfortable. Mine only has one adjustment - slide forward at a slight up-angle or slide backward at a slight down angle. The perforated metal bar that allows you to unlock the seat and slide can get bent and fail to secure the seat on the slide. It happened several times on the copilot side until Maule Flight rebuilt my MX-7-180 in 2010. The biggest complaint I have is that there is no seat height or seat back adjustment on the pilot seat. After a while, I need to stretch my back out. I have a separate seat cushion but with my legs up higher, the yoke is close enough to hit my legs sometimes since the front edge of the seat is higher than the rear edge. I ended up flipping an Oregon Aero seat cushion so that the narrow part of the seat cushion back was under my knees to avoid hitting the yoke with the thicker side at the rear of the seat. The C180 and C185 seats both have height and back adjustments, which makes long flights much more comfortable.

I haven't compared the cabin width of the three airplanes, but the Maule's pilot and copilot seats don't have any gap between them so it feels more crowded with someone sitting in the copilot seat than the C180 or C185 which have wider gaps between them.

Hotrod180, based on conversations with my insurance agent, I think the reason that tailwheel Maule insurance rates are higher is because they are in a relatively small pool compared to C180 and C185. Any claims paid by the insurance companies raise the rates for everyone in this small pool more than they would in a larger pool. That doesn't necessarily mean that the claim rate is higher for Maule taildraggers than Cessna taildraggers but there are fewer Maule taildragger owners. I don't know why the insurance companies put them in different pools. Maybe it's something simple like the company names being different. What I was getting at in the insurance premium comparison is the difference in hull values, which I think is much more significant as a cost driver than the rates. Owners who are looking to insure their airplanes closer to replacement cost often see a $50,000 or more difference in hull value between the Maule and Cessna.

I can't say that I prefer any one of these aircraft over the others for all missions, but I couldn't afford a decent C180 or C185 with comparable mission capability when I bought my MX-7-180 in 1998. I think that's still true.

I wish all of them had a stick instead of a yoke, though. Must be something about side-by-side seating that makes it more difficult to design for a stick. Or maybe its because it's harder to mount an iPad when you don't have a yoke. Or maybe the manufacturers were trying to lure purchasers by trying to convince them that taildraggers with yokes were easier to fly.

andy wrote:...The C180 and C185 seats both have height and back adjustments, which makes long flights much more comfortable.....

The early C180 seats don't adjust other than fore and aft on the rails. Any adjustment must be made with cushions or by tweaking the seat frame.
I kinda like yokes vs sticks-- much easier to climb aboard under them than fighting your leg over a stick.

I like Andy's input here, fair and accurate in my opinion.
Each to his own, be happy with what you got!

One thing no one has mentioned about a Maule:



Having helped wrestle a full 35 gallon drum into the back of a C-180 I can really appreciate the whole right side opening up for loading/unloading.

Again, depends on your mission.

TD

TomD wrote:One thing no one has mentioned about a Maule:



Having helped wrestle a full 35 gallon drum into the back of a C-180 I can really appreciate the whole right side opening up for loading/unloading.

Again, depends on your mission.

TD

Having wrestled 55 gallon Barrels in and out of the back of both, there is no comparison!! Just make sure you have a short piece of alum angle for both to put on the door sill. 206, not so bad!!

Actually, two 55gal barrels will go into the Maule but must be vertical, so put in empty then add contents.
Regarding the doors, parachute or supply drops are a breeze (dble entendre) and wide sweep video work is unobstructed too.

TomD wrote:One thing no one has mentioned about a Maule:

Ahem... I think I mentioned it.

It's a huge attraction to the Bearhawk, too.

andy wrote:I tried to resist posting a reply since it seemed like so many people are anti-Maule on this thread, but a lot of them seem like they don't know enough to comment, either.

I think some of the perceived coolness towards Maule’s comes from a time in the past when a vocal few insisted that anything other than a Maule was just a poor decision. For them it might have been, but their enthusiasm got to be exhausting. It was a bit like trying to have an open discussion about religion with a couple Branch Davidians in the room.

Although my wife and I were looking at the 180hp variants, we did the Maule vs Cessna comparison when we bought our C170…obviously the Cessna won out, but I think we’d have been happy with either. Both have pros and cons.

It’s the insurance that was the decider for me more than anything else. I just couldn’t get over the (much) higher Maule rates. The peanut gallery yelled “Maule parts are cheap so just don’t get hull insurance and fix things out of pocket”, which is fine for some, but for me that really nullified any of the Maule’s off-field advantages. Landing on gravel bars without hull insurance is a financial risk outside of my comfort level. Maule tail feathers might be comparatively inexpensive, but helicopter extractions or prop strikes don’t cost ten cents less on a Maule vs a Cessna.

And if someone could have proven to me that over 10 years it was going to cost the exact same amount to own either, I’d still go with the Cessna, simply because I’d rather buy expensive parts than pay higher insurance rates. Just how my brain is wired. And to date, cheaper airframe parts would’t have saved me a dime, so the Maule would have cost a lot more than my Cessna.

Also, even with the 180hp conversion and total restoration, I found that the Cessna’s were generally quite a bit less expensive than the equivalent Maule’s, because they were so much older. I could never see an advantage to owning a 1980’s airframe vs a 1950’s airframe if they were both in good shape, so that was another strike against the Maule.

I sometimes think (usually while polishing aluminum or crawling into the extended baggage area) that a Maule would have been a better choice for the money, and in ways I’m sure it would have been, but I just won't pay those insurance premiums. I think it really comes down to what works for YOU.

This thread is kind of like asking which one would I sleep with.



Answer, all of them

well played sir!