bat443 wrote:gbflyer are you talking all 180's or just the early ones? The 3 window 180's (1964 thru 1981), and possibly the 1960 thru 1963's, I didn't check, use the same muffler and heater shroud as the 185, so I really don't understand how the heater output is different. I am willing to learn if you want to explain it.

Tim

Newest one we had was a ‘57. Froze in every one of them. The 206 was the best one, it would melt you out of the cabin.

In my limited experience with Maules (M-6-235 and M-7-235) you can either carry full long range fuel OR cabin load, but not both, on floats.

My H model 180 was a solid 3 seat airplane with full fuel, but not much else.

Frankly, any aircraft in this size range isn’t going to be much better.....they’re all good two place airplanes with gas and cabin load.

Cessnas have the advantage in the north of lots of used parts available, and lots of mechanics who understand the airplanes and engines.

The 185 only gets you some better performance with a comparable load in a decent light late model 180.

I know zero about Bearhawk.

MTV

Mapleflt wrote:The posting doesn't give a specific engine model number only that its a 180 HP Lycoming, swinging a CS prop shoot the seller an email "inquiring minds" want/need to know. They have identified it as "unmolested" but the list of extras goes way beyond the original config !!

Usually those conversions have a 76" Harzell constant speed--
the "Hartzell vari-prop" listed has me scratching my head.

There are several "interesting" 170s in Barnstormers right now--and some I wouldn't touch with a 10' pole.

I am so glad I'm not a newbie looking to buy my first airplane!

Cary

mtv wrote:In my limited experience with Maules (M-6-235 and M-7-235) you can either carry full long range fuel OR cabin load, but not both, on floats.

Your experience rings true to me.

With regards to this ^ comment, do the Maule get an up-gross on floats? We don't have many (any?) on floats around here.

For the land plane, we were quite happy filling all 4 tanks and loading it up to the brim with people and gear. More gear than people... But the plane needed to have the wing-spar mod to increase the max gross.

Battson wrote:

mtv wrote:In my limited experience with Maules (M-6-235 and M-7-235) you can either carry full long range fuel OR cabin load, but not both, on floats.

Your experience rings true to me.

With regards to this ^ comment, do the Maule get an up-gross on floats? We don't have many (any?) on floats around here.

For the land plane, we were quite happy filling all 4 tanks and loading it up to the brim with people and gear. More gear than people... But the plane needed to have the wing-spar mod to increase the max gross.

Some easy math. That fancy new grey M7 that went to Alaska had about 900lbs useful from what Brent told me. Fill it with 73 gallons gas an you're down to 418 lbs useful. That's not very much... the one I work on is set up very similar to the grey one and it's only 860 useful. My 180 had 900 useful as well. WingX would have given me a quick 150 more. The later ones that can get the Kenmore will get more yet. Is there a mod to get a M7 more GW? I haven't hard of any. What is the wing spar mod? And no upgross on floats that I know of. My 172 has more useful lod then both of those. Although the Maule or 180 will perform better overloaded.
Another thing to consider is mods. There is some mods for Maules, but not a lot. Things like upgraded exhaust, props, and such aren't approved on Maules. In Canada that has us going the LSTC route, which adds a fair bit of cost and time to a mod.

A1Skinner wrote:

Battson wrote:

mtv wrote:In my limited experience with Maules (M-6-235 and M-7-235) you can either carry full long range fuel OR cabin load, but not both, on floats.

Your experience rings true to me.

With regards to this ^ comment, do the Maule get an up-gross on floats? We don't have many (any?) on floats around here.

For the land plane, we were quite happy filling all 4 tanks and loading it up to the brim with people and gear. More gear than people... But the plane needed to have the wing-spar mod to increase the max gross.

Some easy math. That fancy new grey M7 that went to Alaska had about 900lbs useful from what Brent told me. Fill it with 73 gallons gas an you're down to 418 lbs useful. That's not very much... the one I work on is set up very similar to the grey one and it's only 860 useful. My 180 had 900 useful as well. WingX would have given me a quick 150 more. The later ones that can get the Kenmore will get more yet. Is there a mod to get a M7 more GW? I haven't hard of any. What is the wing spar mod? And no upgross on floats that I know of. My 172 has more useful lod then both of those. Although the Maule or 180 will perform better overloaded.
Another thing to consider is mods. There is some mods for Maules, but not a lot. Things like upgraded exhaust, props, and such aren't approved on Maules. In Canada that has us going the LSTC route, which adds a fair bit of cost and time to a mod.

I think the M7 comes from the factory with the spar mod already included, it applies to earlier models. I am no Maule expert though.

I thought they were more like 1,100 lbs useful? I suppose it depends on the model number.

Battson wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:

Battson wrote:

mtv wrote:In my limited experience with Maules (M-6-235 and M-7-235) you can either carry full long range fuel OR cabin load, but not both, on floats.

Your experience rings true to me.

With regards to this ^ comment, do the Maule get an up-gross on floats? We don't have many (any?) on floats around here.

For the land plane, we were quite happy filling all 4 tanks and loading it up to the brim with people and gear. More gear than people... But the plane needed to have the wing-spar mod to increase the max gross.

Some easy math. That fancy new grey M7 that went to Alaska had about 900lbs useful from what Brent told me. Fill it with 73 gallons gas an you're down to 418 lbs useful. That's not very much... the one I work on is set up very similar to the grey one and it's only 860 useful. My 180 had 900 useful as well. WingX would have given me a quick 150 more. The later ones that can get the Kenmore will get more yet. Is there a mod to get a M7 more GW? I haven't hard of any. What is the wing spar mod? And no upgross on floats that I know of. My 172 has more useful lod then both of those. Although the Maule or 180 will perform better overloaded.
Another thing to consider is mods. There is some mods for Maules, but not a lot. Things like upgraded exhaust, props, and such aren't approved on Maules. In Canada that has us going the LSTC route, which adds a fair bit of cost and time to a mod.

I think the M7 comes from the factory with the spar mod already included, it applies to earlier models. I am no Maule expert though.

I thought they were more like 1,100 lbs useful? I suppose it depends on the model number.

These are both M7s with extended gear and 35s. They are setup for the back country, but it sure takes a licking on the useful old.

"And no upgross on floats that I know of."

The Maules can increase their gross weight by 10% when on floats.

DeltaRomeo wrote:"And no upgross on floats that I know of."

The Maules can increase their gross weight by 10% when on floats.

Good to know!

DeltaRomeo wrote:"And no upgross on floats that I know of."
The Maules can increase their gross weight by 10% when on floats.

This is true, kinda.
I checked the Maule TCDS (that's right, Maule has only one TCDS that covers all models).

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... Rev_32.pdf

Some Maule models list the same max weight on wheels or floats.
Some list higher weight on floats, providing some SB or whatever has been complied with.
Some list a higher gross wt with a particular set of floats.
Some just list a higher gross wt on floats, period.
So no blanket weight increase that apples to all models, near as I can tell.

Over the years since 1963 there have been over 40 Maule derivatives M4, M5, M6, MX7, M7, M8, M9, MXT7, MT7.
Horsepower from 145hp, 160, 180, 200, 210, 220, 235, 260, to 420hp piston, carburetor and injected and turbine.
There are 2 seat, 4 seat and 5 seat. 2 door, 4 door.
Rear seats remove in 2 minutes. Can be carried flat or left behind.
All but the M4-180V, and early M4-145 have the large double cargo door system.
Fuel systems from 40, 43, 63, 66, 73, 85, gallons.
There are four wingspan lengths and a number of aileron, flap, rudder size combinations, two flap mechanisms, three rudder types. VGs.
Various flap deflections from -7, 15, 20, 35, 40, 48 degrees depending on model.
Reflex flaps aid shortfield ops and increase cruise speed.
Landing gear; Trigear, oleo and extended oleo, and wide aluminium gear.
Some models do get a 10% gross weight increase on floats from 2300 to 2530lbs and 2500 to 2750lbs.
Useful loads on wheels on some Maules are over 1000 lbs and on Floats can be 1000 lbs
Maules can accommodate Tundra type gear, fixed and retract skis, straight and amphib floats.
There have been wet and dry crop control tanks and booms. There are two banner or glider tow kits.
Props range from fixed pitch, constant speed, 2 and three blade plus the reversible on the turbine. Sensenich, Hartzell, McCauley, and MT, can be used.
Wings are all metal except for first 9 in 1963/4.
Cowlings are composite, fiberglass or carbon fiber as are wingtips. Some early M4 had metal cowl.
Fuselage is 4130 trussed steel tube.
Doors are full plexiglass or aluminium. And can be removed for flight.
Windows swing up to the wing. 16" or 32" skylights can be had.
There are droop or squared wngtips.
Piston stall speeds from 42mph to cruise speeds of 169 mph TAS.
Turbine is faster.
So, for what its worth here are some facts to dispel the mythologies. Hope it helps.

maules.com wrote:Over the years since 1963 there have been over 40 Maule derivatives M4, M5, M6, MX7, M7, M8, M9, MXT7, MT7.
Horsepower from 145hp, 160, 180, 200, 210, 220, 235, 260, to 420hp piston, carburetor and injected and turbine.
There are 2 seat, 4 seat and 5 seat. 2 door, 4 door.
Rear seats remove in 2 minutes. Can be carried flat or left behind.
All but the M4-180V, and early M4-145 have the large double cargo door system.
Fuel systems from 40, 43, 63, 66, 73, 85, gallons.
There are four wingspan lengths and a number of aileron, flap, rudder size combinations, two flap mechanisms, three rudder types. VGs.
Various flap deflections from -7, 15, 20, 35, 40, 48 degrees depending on model.
Reflex flaps aid shortfield ops and increase cruise speed.
Landing gear; Trigear, oleo and extended oleo, and wide aluminium gear.
Some models do get a 10% gross weight increase on floats from 2300 to 2530lbs and 2500 to 2750lbs.
Maules can accommodate Tundra type gear, fixed and retract skis, straight and amphib floats.
There have been wet and dry crop control tanks and booms. There are two banner or glider tow kits.
Props range from fixed pitch, constant speed, 2 and three blade plus the reversible on the turbine. Senescing, Hartzell, McCauley, and MT.
Wings are all metal except for first 9 in 1963/4.
Cowlings are composite, fiberglass or carbon fiber as are wingtips. Some early M4 had metal cowl.
Fuselage is 4130 trussed steel tube.
Doors are full plexiglass or aluminium. And can be removed for flight.
Windows swing up to the wing. 16" or 32" skylights can be had.
There are droop or squared wngtips.
Piston stall speeds from 42mph to cruise speeds of 169 mph TAS.
Turbine is faster.
So, for what its worth here are some facts to dispel the mythologies. Hope it helps.

Since when is the MT approved? I talked to flight resources and they say is not. Only fold approved...

MT is approved on the 180hp and is field approved on the 235hp by Flight Resource and is fitted on a few Maules now. The Valdez M7 is one example.

maules.com wrote:MT is approved on the 180hp and is field approved on the 235hp by Flight Resource and is fitted on a few Maules now. The Valdez M7 is one example.

Right. In Canada field approvals aren't a thing. LSTCs are doable, but add a lot of cost and time. I had said this in a previous already...

A1, the M5 is the model that gets the upgross kit to wing root attach taking it from 2300lb to 2500lb for not much cost in parts but 25-33hr labour.
The 2500lb gwt becomes 2750lb gwt when on floats as with M6, MX7, M7. Take the 100lb gear off, add the 350lb of floats and useful load is aprox the same. The M5 is a tad lighter than the M6 and the M7. My M7-235 has 1000lbs useful on stock tyres.
The 'C' wide aluminium gear is wider like a C180/185 so won't fit on pickup truck trails and is 55lbs heavier than stock oleo gear.
The M9 begins life as 2800lb gwt on wheels.

All good info. What I gather maule or 180 are gonna do about full fuel and 2 guys plus gear which is good. Just gotta decide if a newer maule or a 180. Metal body in the elements will be better than skin on frame and mechanics for a 180 are likely easier to find than a maule in a pinch up here. But cheaper parts for maule is also nice.

I think I will have to ask what guys here can fix and it will likely come down to how much weight either can take. But I gather they are similar. Thanks for info, even if it sent me back to the drawing board.

I like a lot of things about Maules and all the options, most of which are factory approved. I wanted the gross weight and 5th seat of an M6 and the tail of an M4...so I’m building a Bearhawk.

maules.com wrote: "Over the years since 1963..."

Thanks, Jeremy! I think I'll copy and paste that into the Maule knowledge base article

BTW, I fly an MT on this M5 via field approval from Flight Resources ( a sponsor to this site...). It's lots of fun reporting to the tower you're at 2000' AGL by the end of the runway and ready for your departure vector clearance.

The big question is who is going to be doing the maintenance on the plane?? If you intend to hire it done I would consult with whoever you plan on using for maintenance before you even start looking!! If you get a plane that the local wrench turner is not comfortable or has little experience with it could cost a lot in the long run. If you want to do the maintenance yourself then a bear hawk type would be fine, although if you do not have a hanger I think a all metal plane would be the easiest to care for.
DENNY