Small Tail Caddy wrote:I posted this thread only for 2 reasons.
1: as kind of a follow up to the stinson/pacer thread....to stir the stink a little.
2: as I was under the influence of coors light.
Still watching the classifieds for a maule, with or without the the 2 girls Pat left..... somewhere?
Or a big bore caddy!

Beer Good

Terry, I about started a Stinson vs. C170 thread.

Well,

At 5' 7" (5' 8 1/2" in cowboy boots) and 160 lbs. I fit into the Maule just fine. Despite the Jane-Fonda-exercise-video manuever I have to perform on entry, I have the seat moved all the way forward. Fortuitously, this is the perfect focal distance to the instrument panel and I don't require quadra-focal lenses to see the GPS. My vote for best Maule feature is the 85 gal. fuel capacity coupled with the Little John from Sporty's and a close second is the cargo door. Camping out of this airplane is a pleasure.

Now, to be honest, I have a real soft spot for the Stinson. In fact, my next airplane might be a Stinson. But here's a question: They (Stinsons) were built around the time when they were trying to eliminate stall/spin accidents by making silly planes like the Ercoupe without full control. Is it true that the Stinsons are set up to stall at a speed high enough to keep the ailerons flying all the way to the ground?? Does this compromise their short field performance? ...and then there's the age factor. Stinsons are the aeronautical equivalent of Joan Collins: they look real good, but how much performance is left in there? Even if the calculations show an infinte fatigue life at these load limits, how do you know that she hasn't gone over the line once or twice during that long history? Keep the T-34 in mind here. If I do end up with a Stinson, I'd plan on a conservative, easy-going life together.

I've popped the windows at 60-70 kts on the Maule and stuck my elbow out into the wind as I dribbled along over the countryside, drinking in the view. I'm sure it's the same in Stinsons. Some things never change.

Here's what you can unload from a Maule after a trip burning 70 of the 85 gallons of fuel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ1B3ELVZks


YB

mountainmatt wrote:Terry, I about started a Stinson vs. C170 thread.

Haha, a few more drinks and you would have.

Yellowbelly, Nifty little 7 second video! I think I watched it a dozen times!

The Stinson definitely does not stall at high speeds. They have a slotted leading edge that gives great aileron authority right into and through the stall. Also, there is some type of limiter that prevents full elevator deflection when flaps are not deployed. You can only get full elevator with flaps down. Again, the theory being you are less likely to get into a stall scenario. the Stinson can and will work very slow on landings and takeoffs. My one bitch on the Maule is the aileron authority. It is poor in a crosswind, and you find yourself doing lots of full left full right turns on the wheel to hold wings level when gusty besides working the rudder. I have a few hundred hours in a -3 Stinson, and the large tail was never a problem in crosswind, even landing on asphalt, rudder authority was not a problem. I think you would be pleased with either the Maule or the Stinson.

Rhyppa has pretty much said it right !Through the last 45+ years I have owned 10 Stinson's and they are a very good plane. The dash- 3 I have now has Cleveland double puck brakes. and I have landed in 30+ mph winds at 90 degrees to the runway many times without difficulty. With the original Good year brakes, that would be an accident looking to happen ! Every one that I have owned , had the Franklin engine. They are a smooth running engine and dependable. Parts are not as easy to come by as Lycoming or Continental, but are available from a source in Texas. Crankshafts are harder to find, but there are some newer Franklin shafts can be utilized with a prop change. As to performance, I have flown mine through the Rockies at 12,000 Ft. many times, landing at airports at 8,500 ft with no trouble. They are one of the few planes you can put 4- 200 lb. passengers and full fuel and be legal. As
to cruising speed, they will be maybe 5 MPH. differance to a Cessna 170. They have a rugged landing gear that I prefer over the C-170 in rough field operation. There is a lot of cabin room, far more comfortable than a Piper Pacer. Four big people in a Pacer is like Sardines in a can. Fuel burn can be leaned in cruise to about 8 GPH. The worst I can recall, was in 95* F. with a load that put me at gross, climbing in the mountains was 10.5 GPH at 2600 rpm. The Franklins love car gas {92 oct.} with NO alcohol and Hate 100 LL. The engine reminds me of the car engines of the late 40's and 50's. You can work on them with ease I personally would pick a Stinson before a Cessna 170, hands down !!!

Mongo wrote:

M6RV6 wrote:Mongo
The trick to slow flight in a Maule is keep the ailerons in the center and fly it with the rudder. Keep the yoke back and use power to maintain a constant elevation.You are in slow flight! You get to slow and move those ailerons to far and you can end up upside down spinning the wrong way! Not good when you are close to the ground. Oh buy the way it is surprising how quick things can got to hell when they decide to!

If the ailerons had more authority you wouldn't have to resort to "Little Tricks".

I am 6'3" and a Svelte 250 I always felt like I had to move my legs out of the way to have full aileron travel.

I have heard that the 180 and up horsepower Maule's perform much better, but most planes do perform much better with more power.

Guess we all have different techniques and experiences....

....with my M5-210-C I routinely manuver around with full flaps, slowed down so that the red stall warning light is flickering on and have little difficulty maintaining postive control using the ailerons and coordinated rudder. The ailerons are sloppy but effective in that configuration. Of course I am carrying lots of power and flying right on the edge....but she is pretty stable and gives plenty of stall warning indication. The warning light comes on at just below 60 mph indicated. Don't know if that is accurate or not.

Ferried a 180 HP M-5 from Missouri to Washington State last year. It had "fences" on the wings and would fly about 10 mph slower than mine with the same stability.

The old Stinsons are the Mercedes of their class. IMHO the Stinson is a far superior "cruiser" as compared to the Maule. But I believe the Maule is the better all around back country flying/camping/roughing it airplane.

Be safe. Have fun.

Bob

Somebody tell me about flying a Maule with the aileron-powered servo tab on the rudder. a friend of mine told me that he liked it, he could fly around and do (gentle) maneuvering with his feet on the floor. Seems like it would make the ailerons heavy though. I recently eyeballed an M6-235 which had the servo tab, I don't now if all of the maule models have that feature, esp the older M4 & M5's. Nice airplane, looked heavy to me but probably no worse than most 180's-- which to me is one of the two benchmark backcountry-type airplanes (with the supercunb being the other, of course).
BTW there's a good breakdown of the specs of the various models at www.mauleflight.com

Eric

Small Tail Caddy wrote:I posted this thread only for 2 reasons.
1: as kind of a follow up to the stinson/pacer thread....to stir the stink a little.
2: as I was under the influence of coors light.

Just stay away from Ebay!! You might bid and win an auction for some land in the waste lands of Neveda (Crescent Valley??) . Gump will tell ya

58Skylane wrote:Just stay away from Ebay!! You might bid and win an auction for some land in the waste lands of Neveda (Crescent Valley??) . Gump will tell ya

I just might have to start bidding if I can't keep Oregon out of my pockets. Heck, if I found the right spot in Nevada, Uncle Sam couldn't find me.

hotrod150 wrote:Somebody tell me about flying a Maule with the aileron-powered servo tab on the rudder. a friend of mine told me that he liked it, he could fly around and do (gentle) maneuvering with his feet on the floor. Seems like it would make the ailerons heavy though. I recently eyeballed an M6-235 which had the servo tab, I don't now if all of the maule models have that feature, esp the older M4 & M5's. Nice airplane, looked heavy to me but probably no worse than most 180's-- which to me is one of the two benchmark backcountry-type airplanes (with the supercunb being the other, of course).
BTW there's a good breakdown of the specs of the various models at http://www.mauleflight.com

Eric

Eric,

I am just a pilot and my knowledge of aerodynamics is that of an "operator" and not one of theoretical knowledge. But I can tell you this. My M5-210-C is a 1976 model. It has the servo-tab as you refered to it. I "think" that all of the newer Maule models have the interconnect. If it were up to me I would prefer not to have it. Also some pilots have been known to disconnect the interconnect. I find that the airplane requires a bit different technique in order to make perfectly coordinated turns....especially steep turns. Also in cross wind landings more effort is required to overcome the servo....as one is using cross controls.

That being said....yes my airplane will make shallow turns, well coordinated, using ailerion only, which is of no particular advantage as far as I am concerned. Takes a bit of getting use to. After that.....it is just another airplane.

Best Wishes,

Bob

I kinda thought it would be of limited utility myself-- after all, that's why God made rudder pedals. If I wanted to fly around with my feet on the floor, I'd buy an Ercoupe. I can see that if you try to throw the airplane into a slip (for crosswinds or for scrubbing off altitude), the more slip you out in the more you'd be fighting that servo. And it's just one more thing to break or go out of adjustment- just what we all need.
As I recall TriPacers have some sort of interconnect betwixt the rudder & ailerons, but it seems to me that Piper used a bungee. Ol' BD Maule seemed somewhat influenced by the Piper Pacer, I wonder if that TriPacer interconnect inspired his rudder servo-tab?

Eric

You can also do the reverse and fly around a point and do coordinated turns with your feet with your hands free, Makes it a lot easier to take pictures or use your bino's
GT

Drinking post

I agree wit the OP 100%. Vick, not so much... whatever...

Drinking post/

mountainmatt wrote:Drinking post

I agree wit the OP 100%. Vick, not so much... whatever...

Drinking post/

WTFO? What'd I do?

Hmmm, I just wrote a whole dissertation on the Maule servo tab, aileron, rudder interaction, hit submit and it disappeared. Any way to retrieve/find it??

Jeremy, I'm very sorry, but it may be lost in cyberspace forever.

Vick... you know what you did.

Hmmm, I just wrote a whole dissertation...... hit submit and it disappeared......

It used to do that to me all the time on long posts (you guys didn't realize how lucky you were). The longer the post the more likely it is to do it. I think the server disconnects you due to it not sensing activity (the typing is just on you computer) and drops you, then when you hit preview or submit it disappears forever.
If you post is very long, take out 'insurance' by copying before you preview or post. That way you have a backup.

I would always be disgusted and just walk away.
Saved you guys several times before I went for 'insurance'

lc

I've had this happen to me & after being baffled many times I think I finally figgered it out. When you get done typing a post & hit "submit", if someone else has posted something in the meantime a page comes up and tells you so. The longer your post and/or the more active a thread, the more likely this is gonna happen. Unfortunately, I'm so used to the page that sez "your post has been submitted" (or whatever), I just automatically hit the back button 3 times to go back to the list of unread posts. Then later it's "hey where did my post go?" After I figgered out the problem, I started making sure the post went through, unfortunately the problem happens so seldom that after a while my vigilence fails & bam! about then it happens again. I'm sure we've lost some good posts that way.