Hey guys,

First post here on BCP. I was hoping I could get some advice. I recently sold a Kitfox 5 and am looking to upgrade to a larger aircraft. I'm primarily interested in backcountry flying .. pavement is for cars

So here's the skinny on the plane I'm looking at. It's a '66 M4 210C, 1370 TTA&E, 50 STOH. Compressions at or over 78/80. Recently re-covered and a new interior. The thing looks NICE. I saw this plane and my jaw dropped. VFR instruments only, a little over 1300# empty. Upgross kit to 2300#. No sealed struts. 6 cylinder EGT monitor.

It flies like a dream. Of course, the rub is the IO 360 and the 1500 TBO. I've read a ton about this engine, and it's seems like the whole Ford vs Chevy thing. Some guys hate them, some guys love them. The owner is a sharp guy who takes good care of his toys.

He's asking $43k. I ask myself: how much time does this engine realistically have on it before I have to do a major overhaul (or just replace with a factory 0 timed engine)?? Who knows ... what's your take on this guys? Am I realistically looking at an overhaul in the next few years? That will cost probably $35k I'm betting. OUCH!

The mechanic inspected the crankshaft, cams, and lifters and could not find any evidence of wear when performing the top end overhaul. The oil was changed every 25 hours before the overhaul and now every 5 hours after the overhaul.

I'm also looking at a tricked out backcountry PA22/20 pacer in AZ. I flew down there, but it was too windy to fly it. Metallized, 150hp, leading edge exhaust (160hp+), new instruments, new panel, new interior .. a really nice pacer for $27k. It has a useful payload of 760# which is a little on the low side. Anyway, I'm torn between an economical backcountry pacer and a cadillac M4 with a questionable engine. Any opinions on a PA22/20 vs an M4?

Decisions, decisions ...

Thanks!
Carl

Depends on what you need out of the airplane. If you will frequently be using the extra useful load and filling the seats with mom, dad, the teenagers, and everyone's baggage then the extra cost of the Maule will be earning its keep. If it will primarily be you, your girl and the dog (meaning 800 pounds useful is almost always enough), then the lower purchase and operating costs of the Pacer may become very attractive.

I cannot speak from experience with either of those airplanes. But common sense should be the biggest factor in almost any aircraft decision. IMHO DO NOT make a major airplane purchase based on using all of its capability a couple of times a year and using 60 or 75% of its capability the rest of the time.

ALL of the monetary factors point to the Pacer. The difference in purchase cost alone will pay for a lot of flying. Even if the purchase price was equal, I think the fuel burn would have you flying the Pacer 15% more. Overhauling the O-320 will likewise be a lot less.

I believe the Maule likely has more maximum capability and maximum performance. If you are going to be using that extra ability more than 1/3 or 40% of the time, then the Pacer will be holding you back, and all that extra money will be worth spending.

Again, I have no direct personal experience with either. I know for an absolute fact that both airplanes make excellent and much-loved back country aircraft.

If you choose the Pacer, you are going to want VG's and better wingtips, to get the most out of that short wing and mitigate the losses caused by the round tip. After you put on the better wingtips and the VG's, then you will be able to make further unofficial improvements in back country performance by un-twisting the wing a little (this extra lift and reduced drag comes with a price of a few knots reduction in Va and Vne to keep the same safe structural margin).

I sure wouldn't bet on that IO 360 going much if any past TBO. They're good engines, but not well known for long life. So, if you plan to fly 20 hours a year, you'll be good for a few years. By then, the overhaul price on the IO 360 should REALLY be outrageous.

It seems you're pretty enamored of the Maule, for whatever reason. Do some poking around with engine shops and try to get a handle on what a GOOD field overhaul of that engine would cost, assuming the rotating assy is good. You may find that it's not as ugly as you think.

On the other hand, even if a field overhaul costs $15 K, you'll now have a lot of money in an airplane that wouldn't sell for that much.

I'd keep looking, if twas me.

MTV

I sure wouldn't bet on that IO 360 going much if any past TBO. They're good engines, but not well known for long life. So, if you plan to fly 20 hours a year, you'll be good for a few years. By then, the overhaul price on the IO 360 should REALLY be outrageous.

It seems you're pretty enamored of the Maule, for whatever reason. Do some poking around with engine shops and try to get a handle on what a GOOD field overhaul of that engine would cost, assuming the rotating assy is good. You may find that it's not as ugly as you think.

On the other hand, even if a field overhaul costs $15 K, you'll now have a lot of money in an airplane that wouldn't sell for that much.

I'd keep looking, if twas me.

MTV

As stated prior, consider the mission! $16000 will buy a lot of gas!
But also do not even consider them equal as aircraft.
The pacer is a fun airplane, BUT it is not a Maule, the M4 your looking at is more expensive to fly, burns more gas and has a Constant speed prop that will need rebuilt sometime! The M4 is one of the only cert. planes that packs as much as it weighs!
The M4 might have started out as a Pacer rebuild by Mr. Maule, but they are not the same aircraft by far.
160 fixed pitch compared to 210 and constant speed.
Doors on each side and a really big cargo door on one and the pilots door is on the wrong side on the pacer with not much room or a very big door in the back, and the cargo door on the pacer is tiny. If you order a set of 31" BW's you can haul them home in the back of the M4, you'll have to put them on the Pacer to get them home!!
I just about wore out a M6 so have a little time in them.
Both are great 2 place aircraft, you can haul a bunch in the Maule. The pacer will have to have a climb prop to make a good performer and then you fly at 100 mph or you have a cruise prop to get 125, the M4 will beat it off the ground anytime and get there faster even with the pacer having a cruise prop.
I just flew a Super pacer from Grand Junction to NW AK, was just me and my dog and survival gear, not a hell of a lot of extra! Now I'm really big, 6'3" and 300lbs
Can take everything including the kitchen sink in the Maule.
Back to MISSION< MISSION!
James on the site has one and he could give you some Ideas of cost to fly as he fly's the heck out of his.
What ever you get Fly it and be Happy with it! It's yours!! That's the best part!
They are both damn good airplanes, but completely different aircraft!
Good luck, hope it all works out for you!
GT

I would buy the biggest most powerful STOL plane you can afford and afford to insure and maintain. AFFORD! If you can't afford to fly it get something less expensive. Bigger is always better IMO.

If I could afford one I would be in a Caravan, Palatus Porter, Twin Otter, Kodiak, Beaver or a DC-3. But I can't so I fly a Maule.

Cheers...Rob

I love my Pacer......but the M4 Maule stock is almost everything that I wish my Pacer was, even after a bunch of mods on the Pacer. Put a long flat prop on the Pacer and it will get off short, but the cruise will suffer. I wish I had the large double doors, more flap and more hp. 160hp and short wings are not a good combo at altitude.
So, if you can afford it, I would go with the maule. If it makes sense to spend less/fly more, the Pacer will serve you very well.

Rob

Awesome picture!!
Thanks.
GT

Of all the airplanes I've flown or owned, the '68 M4 210C that we had was the funnest! The power to weight is just a kick in the pants. Sold it because it was at TBO and the overhaul, with a VAR crank and new cylinders, really is $35K. If I had it do due again, I'd spring for the overhaul. It's the only motor I've run that will easily run below 9GPH and still put out that kind of power with the money knob pushed in. $43K, even with new fabric, seems a little high though. I personally know of two M4 210Cs that sold for under $30K in the last few years (both had original Razorback fabric). It's a buyers market, negotiate hard and be willing to walk away and wait for the M5 210C with the extended tanks and bigger flaps. Good luck!

As stated for that money you can do alot of m5 shopping. I would take an m5 180 over a m4 210 and sacrefice some performance for a more dependible engine and a better wing.

ccurrie wrote:As stated for that money you can do alot of m5 shopping. I would take an m5 180 over a m4 210 and sacrefice some performance for a more dependible engine and a better wing.

You just have to accept that swept tail...

I think Super-Maule here on BCP has the best looking Maule of them all (round tail, bare gear legs.) No offense, M5-M8 owners.

Engine SMOH is a major portion of the resale value of the aircraft, and if it's close to TBO, the price needs to reflect that.

I would go with the Maul for it is a better plane for what you want to do. The time to up grad is now before you buy something and wish you had the other. Climb in side the planes and see what one fits you and your budget. What one will be better suited for the flying you want to accomplish. The Maul will use more fuel ,but time + speed = distance.
So the Maul is not all that bad. Good luck and be safe flying..

Ken in Alaska

CCURIE
Why do you think the 180 Maule has a better wing than the 210 M4?
What does the 180 Maule weigh and what is the Max weight? Useful load?
Thanks, I flew a 180 hp Maule with a fixed pitch prop and was not impressed at all. But was only in it for about 4 trips around the patch.
Thanks again.
GT

'm also looking at a tricked out backcountry PA22/20 pacer

Ok... you've told us all about the M4,now please tell us more about the tricked out PA22/20.

I have flown in Maules with 180 and 235. If you start looking at M5 I would do the 235, huge difference. I can get my O-540 235HP fuel burn down to 10 GPH if I fly at 90MPH or 18GPH at 150 MPH Speed cost money.

If you don't mind experimental look at the Bearhawk with the O-540. Does everything my Maule does but better. Even has the big barn door like a Maule.


Happy hunting...Rob

M6RV6 the m5 has a better wing im told,then the m4 (longer flaps or somthing) and that 210c is a great performer but has a 12000 dollar crank AD and a poor reliability reputation. If you are not afraid of orphan engines get one with a 220 franklin they really perform.
I am a fan of the 0-360 myself

Throttle Pusher wrote:

'm also looking at a tricked out backcountry PA22/20 pacer

Ok... you've told us all about the M4,now please tell us more about the tricked out PA22/20.

My pleasure!

It's got an O320 with a leading edge exhaust system (claims 16 HP increase at SL), VGs, metallized skin, new airtex interior, reinforced landing gear, double puck clevelands, madras tips, a brand new gorgeous instrument panel with new instruments, Garmin 250XL GPS/COMM, GTX320A transponder, 340 audio panel, KX-125 NAC/COM, 4 place intercom, two 4-point harness, autogas STC, 8.5 tires, sealed struts .. like I said .. tricked out. Downside is it is 1241# .. all the mods come at a price! One of a kind plane, and it's going for $26-27k, plus he'll deliver it. Also have 87 mogas at my airport (only one of two airports to carry it in WA).

I'm a bit scared of the plane's reputation. Even the owner says his personal comfort limit is 7kts crosswind. Granted, he doesn't fly it that much anymore, but it does make me wonder how often I'll be grounded or dirverting due to winds. I flew down to check the plane out in AZ but it's monsoon season and the winds were 25knots+ .. got to taxi around a bit, which was a real PITA with the winds. Definitely not an ideal scenario for showcasing a plane.

Here's what I'm also finding out .. it is really hard for a guy with 70TT, 25TW time to get M4 insurance. Like, nearly impossible. The pacer insurance quote came in at $1418, which I think is decent considering my almost blank logbook. I'm afraid that whatever quotes I get for the M4 will be rediculously high. Might just learn on the Pacer and upgrade to a Maule later.

Really appreciate the advice, guys .. keep it comin.

Carl

Schmokey wrote:Also have 87 mogas at my airport (only one of two airports to carry it in WA)

Just got a string of emails on the Stinson groups saying our governor just passed law to rid our state of gas without ethanol, so we won't have it much longer.

Tadpole wrote:

Schmokey wrote:Also have 87 mogas at my airport (only one of two airports to carry it in WA)

Just got a string of emails on the Stinson groups saying our governor just passed law to rid our state of gas without ethanol, so we won't have it much longer.

WTF Well then there are going to be a lot of PO'd farmers over here on the East side. The Busch stations around here just started carrying no-E 91 again. I swear, it seems like the gov't does everything in its power to kill this hobby.

Jason: Can you provide a link to this? I can't find any evidence of this on google yet.

Schmokey wrote:

Throttle Pusher wrote:

'm also looking at a tricked out backcountry PA22/20 pacer

Ok... you've told us all about the M4,now please tell us more about the tricked out PA22/20.

My pleasure!

It's got an O320 with a leading edge exhaust system (claims 16 HP increase at SL), VGs, metallized skin, new airtex interior, reinforced landing gear, double puck clevelands, madras tips, a brand new gorgeous instrument panel with new instruments, Garmin 250XL GPS/COMM, GTX320A transponder, 340 audio panel, KX-125 NAC/COM, 4 place intercom, two 4-point harness, autogas STC, 8.5 tires, sealed struts .. like I said .. tricked out. Downside is it is 1241# .. all the mods come at a price! One of a kind plane, and it's going for $26-27k, plus he'll deliver it. Also have 87 mogas at my airport (only one of two airports to carry it in WA).

I'm a bit scared of the plane's reputation. Even the owner says his personal comfort limit is 7kts crosswind. Granted, he doesn't fly it that much anymore, but it does make me wonder how often I'll be grounded or dirverting due to winds. I flew down to check the plane out in AZ but it's monsoon season and the winds were 25knots+ .. got to taxi around a bit, which was a real PITA with the winds. Definitely not an ideal scenario for showcasing a plane.

Here's what I'm also finding out .. it is really hard for a guy with 70TT, 25TW time to get M4 insurance. Like, nearly impossible. The pacer insurance quote came in at $1418, which I think is decent considering my almost blank logbook. I'm afraid that whatever quotes I get for the M4 will be rediculously high. Might just learn on the Pacer and upgrade to a Maule later.

Really appreciate the advice, guys .. keep it comin.

Carl

Carl,

You didn't mention the time on the O-320 in the Pacer, a fairly critical point of comparison. Instrument panels don't make planes fly any better, but they are nice to look at, and you're hoping to be looking at it for a while. Don't get too tangled up with the "bling". Worry more about the condition.

I don't care for metalized airplanes myself. Few of them look "right" to me, and they add weight. Actually, though, the weight you list isn't that heavy for a Pacer.

Now, as to challenging in crosswinds, guess what? The Pacer and the Maule will BOTH give you a workout in a crosswind. In fact, their handling characteristics are very similar in my experience. So, you'll need to get a GOOD, THOROUGH checkout in either of these airplanes in any case.

Insurance? You're probably right about Maule insurance. A lot of folks with little to no tailwheel time have managed to increase Maule insurance costs, mostly cause they have always been fairly inexpensive, relatively speaking, and generally they are quite high performance. If you're worried about crosswinds, I'd take BOTH the Maule and the Pacer off your list. Or, as I noted, just learn to fly the one you choose, from a QUALIFIED and experienced instructor in the type.

Both these airplanes will demand that you "do some of that pilot shit" on occasion, but both are good reliable steeds.

If I were you, however, I'd continue looking for a while and see what else turns up.

MTV