OK looking at Jeremys site and noticed, as I was looking at chronology, that some of the Maules have a -7, 0, ?,?, 48 degrees of flap. 5 notches, so what's up with the -7, and the 48 must be like hanging out a barn door.

Do you cruise with the -7, or 0?

Which gear do you like, oleo or spring?

Thanks, fly safe, Bub

All Maules after the M5, have -7, 0, 24, 40 degrees, and the taildraggers have 48 deg as well.
-7 is used for increased cruise speeds under 'some' configuerations.
It depends on load/cg position, temp, and altitude. The idea is to eliminate some lift in cruise when not needed. Lift developes drag the faster we go.
Another use is for descent , you can come down faster minimising some shock cooling potential.
Primarily, it is most advantageously used for landing. You can go instantly from 48 deg down to -7 deg up, thus eliminating the possibility of a gust on the nose from lifting the plane. Stall speed rises by 20mph. You can place the mains exactly where you want at minimum speed and put max weight on the mains for braking PLUS, airflow across the wing helps hold the tail down rather than downflap which tends to pitch the plane forward.
You can land with the brakes on, on gravel or grass and even wet runway and the plane can be held with full aft elevator and judicious blips of air from the fan up front preventing the tail from coming up.
At speeds below 45mph there is no drag advantage in keeping the flaps down.
Jeremy

Skylane wrote:OK looking at Jeremys site and noticed, as I was looking at chronology, that some of the Maules have a -7, 0, ?,?, 48 degrees of flap. 5 notches, so what's up with the -7, and the 48 must be like hanging out a barn door.

Do you cruise with the -7, or 0?

Which gear do you like, oleo or spring?

Thanks, fly safe, Bub

Bub-

To add to what Jeremy said.... Yes when you go full flaps on the M6-M7 spesificlally the "long wing" you do have a Barn Door hanging out there and you are doin' some serous slowage. As is normal in aviation keeping things light works to your advantage so the weights diff between the Spring and Oleo Gear is a pretty hard pill to choke down, the stability you get from the "Wide" gear is nice as it is a foot or so wider than the Oleo gear but with that you have to deal with being out side the wheel tracks of some landing spots, kinda like driving down the interstate in a Geo and getting bounced around in the ruts of the 18 wheelers. I have been lucky enuff to have the chance to fly the M4,5,7 and MX7 with the "Universal Wing" The 4' sand 5's are much sporty'er feel than the Longer wing'ed M's having the shorter wings and larger Ailerons that give you a snappyer roll rate





Now the M6,7, MX7's with the 32'11'' (UNIVERSAL) and 33'10'' wings are very cool and you can slow these bad boys down and still have a pretty friendly sight picture over the nose.





I have had the pleasure of watching a M5 in the very skilled hands a proficient Maule driver Spank some long wingers at STOL fun so I know in the right hands the full line of Maules can perform very well loaded and light. There is more I could type but my fingers are about ready to fall off now as it is, I'm sure that Jeremy can correct anything that I have screwed up in this little run on sentence.

Well that is interesting. I'm going to have to hang around some Maule folks and start checking out what the features are.

I keep watching for what Tim is going to do? Get the 182B or get out of it.

I know that there is no replacement for displacement, but I like the looks of the MX-7-180B.

I'm getting close to TBO so I keep thinking, change engines or change planes

Hotshot, I like the Alvord pictures. Rode the heck out of the dirt bikes down there last weekend.

Fly safe, Bub

I admit I don't use Full flaps all the time but when I do you know it!!

The pictures are from the Black Rock and Here at 4s3, anytime you want a closer look give me a shout and we will have to meet up somewhere.

Hottshot wrote:I admit I don't use Full flaps all the time but when I do you know it!!

The pictures are from the Black Rock and Here at 4s3, anytime you want a closer look give me a shout and we will have to meet up somewhere.

Wow, looking at the background it looks like Serano Point and the South end of the Steens where the Wild Horse ranch is. Had me fooled. Fun regardless though.

Ground is white here in Burns this am. We need the moisture, plus I have Elk tags for the first hunt this year. So light snow is good.

See ya, Bub

We were just at the Maule plant for a flyin last weekend. Ray was doing some demonstrations in a 180 hp. They are certifying both a tuned exhaust and a longer Hartzell prop for the 180hp. I'm pretty sold on a 235 myself, but from what I could tell with the increased hp of the tuned exhaust, greater static thrust from the longer prop and lighter weight of the 4 cyl motor, the performance advantage of the 235 just isn't there anymore.
The BIG problem with Maule is that they are a little family owned airplane company down in the woods of Georgia and nobody ever hears about them. Think about it, they are right in the middle of increasing their gross weight from 2500 to 2800 lbs, certifying a Diesel engine aircraft and continual product improvements like the tuned exhaust and longer prop on the 180 and you never hear anything about them. Let Cessna or Cirrus change their paint job and it's all over the mags, Maule increases their useful load something like 33% and it isn't even noticed.
This is one of the reasons that in my opinion the Maule is undervalued. The usual response to the question of what aircraft do I fly is, What's a Maule?

Can you do the same stuff wtih an M6-180 if you can find one?

Tim

Quick, get the Maule anti-venom Tims been bit.

a64pilot wrote:

I'm pretty sold on a 235 myself, but from what I could tell with the increased hp of the tuned exhaust, greater static thrust from the longer prop and lighter weight of the 4 cyl motor, the performance advantage of the 235 just isn't there anymore.

A64: sounds like a few very good points, and if you're flying at lower elevations the performance might be very similiar.
The issue may come in higher altitudes. My BCP buddy and i landed OFF-Airport the other day in this dude's front yard at an altitude around 6500 with a density altitude near 9000'. we had about 1500' to work with and the lawn was about ankle high. I'll be honest i used a full 1000' to get airborn, so needless to say i was happy to be sitting in the M-7 235 horsepower. i have no time in a 180hp version but my friend in Michigan bought a brand new one and she never got off i quick as i did.

I better example may be about a month ago. My friend and i flew to Telluride airport for some breakfast with two full size mountain bikes in the back, well when we were ready to take off a few hours later the density altitude was 11,600' and field elevation is 9100'. So, once again i was happy i choose the 235 instead of the 180. I with you, i'm pretty sold on the 235 esp. for cruizing in the Rockies, but if i was back in MI. those new improvement sound awesome for the 180. Peter

hey Bub, I almost always use the -7 flap setting while in cruise. I have never had it not give me at least 2 extra knots and at times i've seen it increase my ground speed on the gps a full 5 knots. But like Jeremy was saying it depends on your cg and weight and other stuff, i guess the way i fly i am in the proper configurations, but i fly solo, with 2, 3 and 4 people, never mind with the fire wood and the -7 always gives me alittle extra.

oh yea, the 48 setting is just plane old fun to use, though i usually just use 40 but i am starting to love the 48. i can finally wheel land with the 48 pulled. In the airplane the handle is set like a stick shift on a car when in 48, that feels pretty cool.

i must admit, i have not heard of using the -7 for decending but what Jeremy is say makes sense, i'll try it next time i go up. Peter

I'd be interested to hear more on the 180 vs 235 performance. I only been a passenger in a 235, but I do have some non-flatland experience in the fixed-pitch 180.

I bought my plane last Oct and flew it home from California. Before heading back, we visited South Lake Tahoe (6264 MSL). I was able to maintain a good climb even at the 10k required to clear the mountains coming in from the west with a full-size CFI. Later, leaving Flagstaff, the LED sign that displays DA read 7700 feet and we had a comfortable departure at probably 2250 lbs.

I've noticed that there are some configurations where I'd be in gross, but out of envelope aft on the CG. I'd think that with additional weight up front and higher gross, the 235 might be balanced such that it could really take 4 regular adults, unlike the 180.

atlryan wrote:I'd be interested to hear more on the 180 vs 235 performance. .

Haveing both here there is no replacement for the HP The 180 ie a real performer Light but the 235 is a monster light and loaded...

I have no regrets withthe 180 other than when Hot and Heavy..... I am waiting for Maule to put the IO-360 Lyc 210HP in and then You will have a real perormer!! But for now I am Very happy!

I fly the East coast and the majority of that is light to medium weight. Rarely do I fly heavy. I see as low as 7 gph with my 180C. For my type of flying the 180 has turned out to be a good choice.

Once the new exhaust and longer prop are certified, it will not be too difficult to put on your M6-180 apart from $$$$$$$ of course.
There will also be optional exhausts with better flow, heat, and power for the 540 engines.
By the way, a 260hp Maule owner visiting me this week has 820 hours on his Maule built exhausts and they are not worn out. It is all in the fitting and maintainance knowledge.
Jeremy

maules.com wrote:Once the new exhaust and longer prop are certified, it will not be too difficult to put on your M6-180 apart from $$$$$$$ of course.
Jeremy

More info !!! need input input input!!!

Hottshot wrote:

maules.com wrote:Once the new exhaust and longer prop are certified, it will not be too difficult to put on your M6-180 apart from $$$$$$$ of course.
Jeremy

More info !!! need input input input!!!

Luckily, it seems like Jeremy has good typing stamina.

On my airplane the break even point for the -7 flaps is around 12,000 ft. Above that the -7 flap slows me down. Average load for me, 4 ppl and baggage. The heavier airplanes with more drag, M7 should have a lower altitude at which the neg flap is detrimental.
The 180 performance that I speak of doesn't exist yet because it isn't yet certified, so you cannot compare an older 180. Some of the new found performance may go away if for example they have to turn the RPM down for noise, but prop govenors are adjustable It was no where near as loud as a 185 for example. The new exhaust has a definate lower "big block" sound to it, I hope the new exhaust for the 235 soinds as good.

a64pilot wrote: I hope the new exhaust for the 235 soinds as good.

AND Has lost about 15#'s When we had a set here they weighed 16# more than the current pipes....

Hottshot wrote:

a64pilot wrote: I hope the new exhaust for the 235 soinds as good.

AND Has lost about 15#'s When we had a set here they weighed 16# more than the current pipes....

Wup,
That's my no free lunch theory. You make an improvement in one area and lose in another. How heavy are bushwheels, and how do they affect cruise speed and range?
Oh you could make the exhausts as light as the originals I'm sure,but your wallet would hurt. Titanium for instance, which is unobtanium for me
BTW, my three blade prop is 16 lbs heavier than my two blade was Sometimes improvements are really a step backwards