Hi all

I have the opportunity to purchase a mid-90s Maule MX-180B or a ‘55 Cessna 180 at the same price. The Maule has a recently overhauled engine whereas the Cessna engine is mid life. Condition wise they appear to be fairly similar, though of course the Maule is a lot newer.

Reading up on the Maule, one of the big benefits people report is low operating cost, whereas the Cessna is reportedly a lot more expensive. Can anyone shed light on that? I’m told there’s never been an AD for the C180 airframe so if that’s anything to go by, I wouldn’t imagine the airframe itself would be too expensive to maintain, so the cost must be in the engine and prop? I also believe replacement parts for the C180 are very expensive, so in the event of a mishap, insurance will be important.

What else am I missing? And what would you do in my shoes? Any input is welcome.

The two airplanes are not very similar, and the years and prices reflect that. The Cessna 180 is a LOT more airplane, which is part of the reason that it costs the same as the Maul, despite being about FORTY years older.

The engine in the Maul will be considerably less expensive per-hour to operate than the engine in the 180, though in cost per-mile it's closer since the 180 will fly faster. The Cessna will also haul a LOT more of a load, if that's important to you.

Maul's are less expensive to repair if you bend them, but short of that they have no inherent financial savings over any other airplane. Insurance on Maul's is often very expensive.

It only stands to reason that a airplane built in the 50's is going to have more worn out components than an airplane built in the 90's. Between the engine and the age of the airframes, the Maul should be considerably cheaper to own and operate. But the Cessna is a hell of a lot more airplane!

Good luck.

Thanks Hammer. I was surprised to see, when I calculated their fuel burn, that they both seem to come out at around 11-12 nautical mile per Gallon. So not really a huge difference there. Of course, the Cessna does it faster, by a good 20 knots plus. On the useful load side, the books show that they have very similar useful loads, both being a shade over 1000lbs. The Maule has a lot more range though (932 nautical miles vs 674 for the Cessna), thanks to those large tanks.

Such different aircraft and yet it’s hard to choose!

One thing I forgot to mention is that there's a couple ways to look at why Cessna 180's cost what they do...

It could be that they're really that fantastic an airplane and their resale value reflects that.

Or it could be that they're a damn good airplane, but the cost is driven up by their cult-like following and doesn't actually reflect the value of the airplane, at least to anyone who's concerned about value.

I tend to lean towards the later argument. I was in the market for a 180 for a while, and I had the money to spend, but I never bought one. I just couldn't see the value in them for what they sell for. Much the same reason I never got into Leica cameras, nice as they are.

Others, obviously, disagree... Strongly.

Owned Maule never C-180. Flew C-180 long time ago and then late summer for flight review on floats. In the between time flew C-185's.

It appears locally that the trend is to up the engine power then add more prop blades and STOL kits to 180's. But fuel capacity is a concern as they get thirsty with power (15+/hr) and upgrading can add weight. Folks in Alaska do more than go fly for a burger so that's why the change to stock platform.

If I had to choose I't be for a stock light C-180 and forget the fabric maintenance with a Maule. But that's just me who still flys a Taylorcraft after all those big rigs.

Gary

I don't have any Cessna 180 experience, but from the Maule side, an MX-7-180B has smaller engine with two fewer cylinders than a Cessna 180. The Lycoming O-360-C1F variant found in the Maule burns about 10.5gph full on, and obviously less than that in cruise (I figure 8gph most days). So that's probably saving some dinero there.

Many of the parts on a Maule are generally the same as what one might source from your local Farm and Fleet. Generally speaking, not exotic by any means. For example, the latest improved interior door handle kits direct from Maule are about $400 a door. Landing light kit to add a second light in the right wing: $217. Patroller door kit: $244. That kind of thing.

Maule exhausts are kinda notoriously weak and can be spendy to repair/replace. I had the left side done on mine last annual for $1100. On the 4-cyl Maules, there are no aftermarket manufacturers like the 6-cyl Maules and the C-180.

There are fewer aftermarket upgrades for Maules than there are for Cessnas, to be sure. Aside from taller gear a la ABW, and maybe a horizontal stab strut kit that adds a second strut to the forward part of the stab, maybe they just do the job well enough that additional upgrades aren't really necessary? Beats me. The short list for me is taller HD landing gear from ABW and little else. Although the horizontal stab update is required if operating off of floats.

Oh hey, there's one. Good luck finding float vendors for a Maule, if that's your bag. The two primary float vendors for the Maule -- Aqua and Baumann -- are no longer. Some of the 235hp Maules can use a couple of Edo models, and Wipaires are certainly available (for more than what you'll pay for the airplane).

Aside from that, I've found my Maule quite economical to acquire and to operate. I pay only $200/mo for T-hangar space. Insurance is $1450/yr for me at $75K hull value. And I expect a "normal" annual to run about $1200/yr.

Edit: An M-7-235 might be a closer comparison, performance-wise, to a Cessna 180 if you're considering like-for-like. It's also a tad larger than an MX-7 on the inside (few inches longer cargo area, few inches taller for back seat passengers). Exterior dimensions are essentially the same between the M-7 and MX-7 without diving too far into semantics. But you do lose a little bit of useful load with the larger engine. And the operating costs go up with that power increase more comparably to Cessna 180 performance levels. But mechanically, the airframe parts are virtually identical between the M-7 and MX-7 (again, without diving too far into semantics).

Even if you cast aside the comparison of power-to-weight ratio, the two aircraft are distinct in how they feel to sit in and fly.

The Maule has its ergonomics, the Cessna has its own.

I realize that's not ownership costs, but costs aren't everything.

Zzz wrote:Even if you cast aside the comparison of power-to-weight ratio, the two aircraft are distinct in how they feel to sit in and fly.

The Maule has its ergonomics, the Cessna has its own.

I realize that's not ownership costs, but costs aren't everything.

True. I actually prefer the upright seating of the Cessnas versus the Maule seating arrangement. But I deal with what I have. Definitely don't let price be your only guide.

I’m sure you’ve sat in both but if not you really need to.
I was really gung ho about Maules til I put my butt in one.
At 6’4” it wouldn’t work me. My knees hit the panel.

I have never owned a Maule but have owned my 58 C180A for 11 years. Airplanes have so many moving parts and old ones have moving parts that need to be replaced. In the last 11 years I have replaced 2 airboxes, 1 tail stinger, one fuel screen, a burned out O-470, and now I need a new engine mount. It hasn't been cheap especially since I am not mechanically inclined and pay an A&P to do all the work. The Maule will be cheaper to operate but I think the decision on what to buy should go in favor of what airplane you would enjoy flying more. In the end it is going cost a lot of money owning either one. I love flying and owning my airplane despite all of the issues I have had and am having. The early C180s fly with a light feel and perform great. The early 55 C180 you are looking at may have had a lot of the maintenance and equipment replaced. You'll need to scour the logs and find an A+P that really knows these planes when doing the pre-buy.



Josh

I see you are located in Cape Town - SA?

Do you guys have SIDs compliance on the Cessna models over there? I am told that costs Cessna owners about $30,000 here in NZ, and it's not a one-off cost, it recurs. This is part of the problem with a very old plane, intrusive maintenance ADs.

On the flip-side you have to redo the fabric on a Maule, which is a similar cost unless you can DIY. However that doesn't recur very often with a modern covering system. Maybe every 30 years depending on how well you care for the plane.

Thanks for the replies, all. Some great feedback there.

Yes, despite what one may assume, South Africa has incredibly strict regulation around aviation. We are over-regulated compared to most other countries. So yes, under SA regulations, every single SB relating to an aircraft is mandatory - not just the ADs. That makes an aircraft like the C180 even more expensive than it needs to be, unfortunately.

It will depend a lot on your intended use.

I’ve owned an Mx7 180b and now a C185. The Maule was about 60% the running cost of the Cessna.... but you get what you pay for. As alluded to the Cessna can do more faster so I found most my costing for “work done” didn’t change much between the two.
Yes the Maule can carry similar weight but you need to be careful of C.G with the lighter engine up front, I could never load mine to MAUW with 4 adults and gear and still stay in c.g like you would with the Cessna. With the trimmable stabilizer on the Cessna it flys a lot nicer with an aft c.g than the Maule. Do some W&B calculations on both aircraft with what you want to use it for and explore the envelope in both.
Mufflers in the 180hp are a pain to continually repair but the Lycoming O 360 is about as bulletproof as they come, I planned on 40 liters/hr fuel burn in mine.
Ergonomics are entirely different in both, I think of the Maule as a go-cart feel compared to the large sedan feel of the Cessna, big difference with family or clients on board. I found the Maule wing seemed a lot harsher in turbulence, a consideration if flying a lot in rough air.

Sounds like I’m bagging the Maule, which is not my intention as if it is used lightly and
as a fun plane not traveling great distances they are great, cheaper to own and easy to maintain. The Mx7 -180b is a well balanced good performer at lighter weights. You will likely get a lot better maintenance run out of the newer Maule than the older Cessna for sure.
Sometimes I miss my Maule for certain tasks.........but not often.

I am going to reiterate the above comment on old vs. new(er) ownership. I am to the point in life where I have much less time working or fixing on old airplanes. I am in the process of selling off most of mine along with projects to enable me to buy something closer to new (can't afford new unless it is a LSA). Every plane I have owned, ever refurbished ones, are old. The metal is fatigued, parts worn and stressed, something seems to always need repair. Unless a rebuilt plane has all new parts, including the fuselage and wings, it is still old and probably not 100% fault free. A plane built with new parts on a data plate would be one of the exceptions.

Case in point, I have looked at several Super Cubs over the past few months. One of them was rebuilt with new parts except for the fuselage. Beautiful plane with an O-360 and a CS prop. Unfortunately the gear mounting points should have been brought up to new specs before the plane was covered and painted. A few other issues that make the plane less desirable to me. The one I am most interested in is a totally new plane (basically) since 99.9% of this one is all new parts. The downside to this one is the owner has only run it 14 hours in the past 14 years!!! He didn't do anything to preserve the engine. An otherwise perfect choice but the inactivity of the engine has me worried.

Unless the 180 is a prime example, I would lean towards the newer airplane. Just my opinion.

My opinion is it's an apples to oranges comparison. It would be a good idea to define your mission and at the very least least plant your backside into the left seat of both and see how they fit. The Maule is much tighter in regards to pilot seating and definitely requires some agility to get in and out of , the Maule is a hell of a lot of fun to fly unless you're regularly traveling long distances. Adding bushwheels,extended gear and the Universal wing makes the 235hp Maule a 125MPH airplane. Maule parts are generally much cheaper than anything with the name Cessna on it and a labor rate is labor rate although it's a bit of a chore to find a Maule familiar mechanic. I'm also thinking that any 63 year old airplane has plenty of hidden gotcha's that you'll eventually have to work through. I am not bashing either plane by any means, I could have bought a Cessna 180 or a Maule when I was looking, that being said I bought a very nice M6-235 and I love it, it fit's my mission. For the record I've owned both a 180hp Maule and a 235hp Maule and I have no time in a Cessna 180. Check out this site for C180 info, http://bushwagoneast.com/wagon/ (Big Renna on this forum) and this one for a working Maule M7, https://www.godscountryaviation.com/ (Isaac on maulepilots.org forum)
Good Luck

I fly a 2000 M7 235 on spring gear.

The M7 Maule and Cessna 180 are different. I have many friends with both. If money is an issue buy a Maule. For any given amount of buy in cost you will get a newer and better condition Maule. If you want to easily load and unload your SWAG, get a Maule. The Maule with spring gear, 235 Lyc, 29 inch AirHawks true out at 150 MPH. 8.50s true out at 156 MPH. 35s True 125 MPH

If you have deep pockets and want to impress all of us poor guys, by all means buy a Cessna 180-185. Make it like new with state of the art avionics, leather, custom paint, Bushwheels, and the rest of us will live vicariously through you.

Cheers...Rob

The two candidates you have listed are VERY different aircraft (HP, airfoil design, cabin ergonomics, etc). I've never owned or flown a C180, but I have had numerous conversations with Cessna owners and A&P's about ownership costs before (and since) buying the Maule.

The Maule is known as a fat Super Cub. It fits right between a Super Cub and the C180, although they can have similar payloads. The Maule is cheaper to keep. Annual costs and parts are cheaper and more than offset the cost of increased insurance premiums (Insurance premium rates are based on fleet size; Maule has about 1400 active aircraft and Cessna has a LOT more). The Maule will out climb a Cessna (HP and weight the same) in high density altitude because of the the airfoil design. That same airfoil difference between Cessna and Maule will allow the Cessna to cruise faster. The Maule family is alive and well and still make and support the same airframe they introduced in 1962. The C180 was discontinued in 1981 and some parts availability can get iffy. The fabric is employed from the windows aft as the rest of the aircraft is aluminum and composite. The fabric used in the early Maules was Razorback (fiberglass cloth) until 1981 when they switched to Ceconite. Although partly fabric, they are very durable, are easily repaired and will last a very long time versus the older covering systems used in the 40's and 50's.

We use the Maule to travel 1500 NM (round trip) regularly and find it a good cruiser. It also gets off the ground in 300' light and 600' heavy. It gets off at less than 800' in 9000' DA at gross. We haven't used the back seat since we bought it as we fly two adults, a 100 lb German Shepherd, luggage and supplies, most of the time at gross. When light, I have a blast with it . Our most recent trip we averaged between high 7 to 8.25 GPH ROP. Since it has 4 doors, I consider it our 1/2 ton crew cab. The cargo door opening is a huge plus to many.

It really depends are how you define what you need your aircraft to do. There are big differences between these aircraft and although the buy in may be similar, the fit is different in some applications. Carefully consider if the extra items the C180 is capable of justify the additional operational costs. And, as has been mentioned here earlier, the Maule is available in 160, 180, 210, 220, 235, 260, and 420 SHP

I own a 69 year old cessna and I know all about part scrounging, the STC game, etc....

My solution is to build my own airplane, and eventually sell the cessna.

The bearhawk should be way cheaper to maintain given that I can make any part I need (or buy them from avipro) and I get to bolt whatever I want to it. If I want to run Desser tires, I bolt them on. Want a skylight, break out the welder, want seaplane doors, yea, it takes a little time, but I can have them without dealing with an STC.

I also like how much room is in the bearhawk, the double swing open doors, the stick vs the yoke, the lycoming engine, etc. I think I'll be happy with it.

That said, you will never hear me knock the 180. It's a fantastic airplane. It's much cleaner than most bush rigs (single strut, no liftstruts on the tail, fantastic trim system, cessna gear is clean in the wind), it's reliable, it performs well, and they aren't going to loose their value.

OregonMaule wrote:I fly a 2000 M7 235 on spring gear.

The M7 Maule and Cessna 180 are different. I have many friends with both. If money is an issue buy a Maule. For any given amount of buy in cost you will get a newer and better condition Maule. If you want to easily load and unload your SWAG, get a Maule. The Maule with spring gear, 235 Lyc, 29 inch AirHawks true out at 150 MPH. 8.50s true out at 156 MPH. 35s True 125 MPH

If you have deep pockets and want to impress all of us poor guys, by all means buy a Cessna 180-185. Make it like new with state of the art avionics, leather, custom paint, Bushwheels, and the rest of us will live vicariously through you.

Cheers...Rob

Plus when you need Maule parts, you call their HQ in Moultrie, GA and talk to a nice lady and tell her what you want. It's easy, it's real, it's friendly.

Zzz wrote:

OregonMaule wrote:I fly a 2000 M7 235 on spring gear.

The M7 Maule and Cessna 180 are different. I have many friends with both. If money is an issue buy a Maule. For any given amount of buy in cost you will get a newer and better condition Maule. If you want to easily load and unload your SWAG, get a Maule. The Maule with spring gear, 235 Lyc, 29 inch AirHawks true out at 150 MPH. 8.50s true out at 156 MPH. 35s True 125 MPH

If you have deep pockets and want to impress all of us poor guys, by all means buy a Cessna 180-185. Make it like new with state of the art avionics, leather, custom paint, Bushwheels, and the rest of us will live vicariously through you.

Cheers...Rob

Plus when you need Maule parts, you call their HQ in Moultrie, GA and talk to a nice lady and tell her what you want. It's easy, it's real, it's friendly.

Yep, and she runs right down to Hardware Hank, picks up the part and ships it out.



MTV