I have opined before that the AOPA Medical Exemption proposal is lame, as it doesn't go far enough. Nevertheless, it does open up some possibilities, and I've been doing a bit of thinking about the options if would afford me. The conclusion I have come to when I consider the mix of "go anywhere ability," cruise speed, range, acceptability to the wife, cost vs. age, and plain (plane?) looks, is I should "just get a Maule." In my case, a 180 HP Maule.

I know there are a lot of Maule lovers and haters on this site. There have been the numerous discussions of why insurance is so high, are Maules hard to land, etc. I suspect most of the folks here have the higher horsepower variants. Anyone with real world experience in the 180 HP varieties.

A company I flew for back in the late 70s had a Maule but I never got checked out in it. I rode in the back seat once, on a turbulent, windy day where the idiot flying wouldn't climb over 1,500 feet to get out of the worst of it. Four hours of moderate to severe turbulence - the experience was kind of like going over Niagara Falls in a clothes hamper. Not, to say the least, a great first impression, but more a function of the conditions and the pilot, I should think.

So, what's the straight skinny on these airplanes - They seem bargain priced and while that's great from an affordability standpoint, I'm well aware you get what you pay for. Any thoughts or words of wisdom from either the love 'em or hate 'em camp is appreciated.

Best,
O-2

I own an IFR 2006 MX7-180C with skylight and 8.5 tires. I brought it back from Georgia to California, have taken it to Mulege, Baha California, and Ennis Montana, and am about to embark on a trip to Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories.

I wanted a side by side tail dragger, I thought the cargo door super sexy, and I thought it would be important for traveling with my dog. That turned out not to be the case, I just attach her in a harness to the rear seat selt belt.

I can't remember more than 2 times in the 6 years that I have had the plane that I had 3 passengers. One person sideways is quite comfortable, but I can't see how 4 would fit with the front seats all the way back.

I started out 6' 2" and the Maule seemed to be right at my limits. I've lost 2" over the last 6 years but I don't notice a surplus of headroom but neither do I find it uncomfortable.

Most of my flights are day trips to lunch with the destination under two hours away for me. My friend, who flies his plane to the same lunch place, has an RV-9A that he bought from a United airline mechanic. His plane climbs like a rocket, doesn't take much runway to land, and cruises easily at 140 knots where I push to get 105 knots.

My plane isn't particularly easy to get into, but friends we take along seem to be more comfortable in the Maule than the RV. (The Oregon Aero seats are probably the reason and the heavier weight smooths out some of the bumps.)

After 6 years, my insurance is now $1700 per year with $120,000 hull insurance. In the beginning, it was over $4000. I guess it was 4 years before I stopped going quickly through tailwheels (shimmy). The cost of Maule parts are generally not outrageous but an experimental will be cheaper.

What I would do differently is get the oleo gear rather than the spring gear and save the weight.

rjb:

Thanks for the information. Is your cruise speed of 105 kts at 75%? The Maule website claims 120kts at 75% for the MX 180 B and C. Are they being unreasonable optimistic? I've already been advised to get the oleo gear to save weight. I wonder if the narrower track makes landings more challenging?

Best,
O-2

Full throttle 5500/6500 msl, I am generally at 105 kts. I believe the website claims are based on the small tires not the 8.5s. I have VGs too but I believe that only costs a couple of knots for what I have been told is a tremendous gain in control at low speeds. The -7 flaps shows a GPS ground increase in the neighborhood of 2 kts.

I went with the spring gear thinking that it might make landings less challenging. I got my PPL in a Citabria with steel spring gear and rented a Husky for a while with oleo gear while working towards my instrument rating in 172s and 182s by Cessna. I don't think the wider stance matters much; on the ground, keep the nose pointed where you want to go however you need to do it. Taxiing in strong winds is not pleasant but I believe that's common to all tail draggers.

If I had to do it over, I would definitely go with the oleo. 73 gallons of gas, this heavyweight, and a reasonable weight person eats up the 932 payload very quickly. At gross, the 180 hp is not what I consider a short takeoff machine - it's certainly not long but you are not going to climb out stress free on a hot day in interesting terrain, but get it down to 2000 and it's a whole new ball of fun.

I can't believe anyone would not love the patroller doors/windows. I generally keep the skylight covered unless looking for traffic but the skylight gives more headroom and exposed struts to hang a camcorder.

Wow! a 15 kt. penalty with 8.5s. With 31 Bushwheels it'll be flying backwards! Actually I'm a bit surprised the 8.5s make so much difference but more frontal area equals more drag.

Best,
O-2

8.50's will not slow a plane down 15kts. I went from 8.00s to 26'' alaskan bushwheels plus bigger tailwheel and the change in speed was hardley noticeable.

on my plane is was 1 or 2 mph could hardly tell with the 8.5

Is that 105 indicated or actual? I owned an M5-235 and put about 400 hrs on it. I also flew one with a 220 cont in it. The 220 seemed to be a better balance of power and handling. Not so nose heavy. I assume the 180 would be the same. My airspeed was close to book at 6500ft after correcting for alt.

If you're not operating at high altitude or hot and heavy the 180hp Maule is a good choice with a better useful load. Go with the longer wing (mx7) for better take off performance but some cruise speed loss. Oleo gear has better options for upgrading to heavy duty or extended gear. I may be biased as all my time is in the 180hp model but I'm told it flies much nicer than the nose heavy 235hp model from those that have flown both. You should be able to get 105 kts with 31" bushwheels at 24/24.

Slip of the finger. 210 cont.

The 105 knots is indicated.

I went back and looked at my instrument flying cheat sheet and enroute cruise is
enroute cruise: 125 mph, 2450 rpm, 25 mp, 0 attitude indicator, 1st notch flaps - 0
which is actually 109 knots. I think I was probably around 3000 feet when I was constructing my cheat sheet which would give a TAS of about 116 knots.

After owning my 1986 Maule MX-7-180 (re-built in 2010) for about 14 years, here's my advice.

Get the fuel injected 235 (IO-540) if you can afford it. You lose some useful load but you gain a lot of short takeoff capability and it will perform better at high density altitude. Fuel burn is somewhat more than the 180 at the same airspeed (11-13 vs. 8-10), drag being equal.

Airspeed specifications go out the window when you modify a Maule. Drag with bigger tires and heavy duty landing gear, vortex generators, etc. can have a bigger effect than the 235 vs. 180 hp. A less draggy 235 might get the the same airspeed as a draggy 180 at the same fuel burn.

Get the universal wing (32'9"), not the short wing that I have (30'10"), on either the 180 or 235. You get better takeoff performance and it doesn't significantly reduce cruise speed. If you ever put it on floats you'll need the additional lift to get off the water quickly.

Get oleo struts rather than spring aluminum gear for the weight savings. The oleo gear is a little narrower than the spring aluminum but ground handling performance is very similar and the 6 foot width is the same as car/truck tracks for landing on rutted paths.

Get dual puck brakes. The rotors and pads will last a lot longer and you'll need them with bigger tires.

Make sure you have the high strength main gear leg bolts. Bad things happen if the bolts bend and shear on a hard landing.

Elevator gap seals are a must.

I like my vortex generators and think they significantly improve low speed handling and make for easier landings by delaying the sudden stall.

Get an ABW 3200 or (better yet) an ABW 3224A tailwheel. With the Maule tailwheel you'll lose the circlip and hubcap if it's not installed properly during a hard landing or excessive tailwheel shimmying. There is less chance of shimmy with the ABW (Scott) and no hubcap.

The observer doors, pneumatic window struts and newer style door latches are big improvements.

Insurance is higher for Maules because of the accident rate. We lucky devils are in a pool of our own. My insurance with $85,000 hull value is $1500 a year but you'll need over 1000 hours in make model and no claims to get there. Maybe the higher accident rate is because Maule pilots are tempted to do things they shouldn't without more training. I don't think it's because the airplane is more difficult to land than other high performance taildraggers. I fly a C-185F at work and it's more challenging to land than the Maule on pavement, but I would take the Maule into shorter, rougher back country airstrips that I wouldn't try with the C-185 for a variety of reasons.

Maule parts are way less expensive than a lot of other manufacturers, especially Cessna.

With any fabric skin airplane you'll have to think about replacing the fabric after about 25 years. That will cost you $25,000 and up, including new paint. A metal skin Cessna can be sandblasted and repainted for a lot less. I'm not saying that's better - just something to plan for.

Hope that helps you make a decision.

andy wrote:.....The oleo gear is a little narrower than the spring aluminum but ground handling performance is very similar and the 6 foot width is the same as car/truck tracks for landing on rutted paths......

Hopefully it'll never be an issue for you, but too wide a stance on the gear is a bummer if you ever have to pull the wings off & trailer the airplane home after a mishap. had to do that with my olld 170 & while the mains fit on the trailer (barely), the airplane was so long that the t/w hung off the back-- had to block up the tailcone which made it iffy to secure without crushing something.. My current airplane (C150TD) or a Pacer would fit all three wheels right on the same trailer & so would be easy to lash down good & tight for transport.

robw56 wrote:8.50's will not slow a plane down 15kts. I went from 8.00s to 26'' alaskan bushwheels plus bigger tailwheel and the change in speed was hardley noticeable.

It might be that with more drag you may have cruised at the same airspeed & maybe even at the same rpm, but I'm betting that the manifold pressure & fuel burn were both higher, the relationship between thrust & drag being what it is. More drag + same thrust = lower speed. More drag + more thrust = same speed. No free lunches there.

I have been looking at Stinsons, but a Maule M4 220C has caught just caught my eye. I was hoping to get eyes on it this weekend, but unfortunately the owner was not available. Admittedly I know very little about them, but like you I have similar concerns, particularly the landing characteristics of the M4. Also, I don't have a complex sign-off and really don't know that much operating a constant speed prop. Nevertheless this is great information that everyone is providing!

andy wrote:After owning my 1986 Maule MX-7-180 (re-built in 2010) for about 14 years, here's my advice.

Get the fuel injected 235 (IO-540) if you can afford it. You lose some useful load but you gain a lot of short takeoff capability and it will perform better at high density altitude. Fuel burn is somewhat more than the 180 at the same airspeed (11-13 vs. 8-10), drag being equal.

Andy:

I appreciate the input! I like all your suggestions. I don't really care about fuel burn and would opt for the 260 if I could- I've always be a believer in the more cubic inches the better. Unfortunately, the lame AOPA medical self certification proposal capped the HP at 180 so if it passes and I want to fly under it, I'm stuck with the 180. Under those circumstances I'd personally opt for a 180 hp Scout or Husky, but the boss doesn't like tandem seating.

Best, O-2

vapilot wrote:I have been looking at Stinsons, but a Maule M4 220C has caught just caught my eye. I was hoping to get eyes on it this weekend, but unfortunately the owner was not available. Admittedly I know very little about them, but like you I have similar concerns, particularly the landing characteristics of the M4. Also, I don't have a complex sign-off and really don't know that much operating a constant speed prop. Nevertheless this is great information that everyone is providing!

VA Pilot:

I have to admit the Maule landing stories have me a bit spooked. I don't want an airplane I sweat every landing in. I found a Maule pilots forum and there is a lot of discussion about this on there. Opinion seems to range from "if you can grease a Pitts on every time, you might be able to land a Maule and live through it, to "it's just another airplane." More comments seem to favor the former attitude but perhaps its a bit of self aggrandizement.

I have lot's of time in everything from Cessna 150s to high performance singles, to medium twins, to some fast and exotic stuff with unusual handling characteristics but only a few hours of tail wheel time in Cessna 180s and 140s, and I landed a Decathalon once! I'd really like to get some time in a Maule and see if I could get comfortable in it before plunking down the cold hard cash!

Best,
O-2

hotrod150 wrote:

andy wrote:.....The oleo gear is a little narrower than the spring aluminum but ground handling performance is very similar and the 6 foot width is the same as car/truck tracks for landing on rutted paths......

Hopefully it'll never be an issue for you, but too wide a stance on the gear is a bummer if you ever have to pull the wings off & trailer the airplane home after a mishap. had to do that with my olld 170 & while the mains fit on the trailer (barely), the airplane was so long that the t/w hung off the back-- had to block up the tailcone which made it iffy to secure without crushing something.. My current airplane (C150TD) or a Pacer would fit all three wheels right on the same trailer & so would be easy to lash down good & tight for transport.

Hotrod:

I was told the advantage to the oleo strut gear, aside from less weight, is it fits in the ruts left by cars and trucks if you want to land on a dirt road. Of course where I live that would probably earn you free room and board at the county jail!

Best,
O-2

About 10 hrs of dual and I was reasonably comfortable to solo on a good day. The more practice the better.

VA Pilot:

I have to admit the Maule landing stories have me a bit spooked. I don't want an airplane I sweat every landing in. I found a Maule pilots forum and there is a lot of discussion about this on there. Opinion seems to range from "if you can grease a Pitts on every time, you might be able to land a Maule and live through it, to "it's just another airplane." More comments seem to favor the former attitude but perhaps its a bit of self aggrandizement.

I have lot's of time in everything from Cessna 150s to high performance singles, to medium twins, to some fast and exotic stuff with unusual handling characteristics but only a few hours of tail wheel time in Cessna 180s and 140s, and I landed a Decathalon once!

I'd really like to get some time in a Maule and see if I could get comfortable in it before plunking down the cold hard cash!

If you have the time, you could go down to Moultrie, GA to Maule Flight (http://www.mauleflight.com/Services/) and get checked out.