Geez, what self respecting Maule driver uses Knots????? The damn things are the Jeep of Aircraft and fly slow enough without lowering the speed to 105 KTs... Mine cruises at 130 MPH with my 800's which I took off in favor of my new 29 11 10 Air hawks... Now I cruise at a blazing 120 MPH , which is of course faster than 110 knots...knots are for boats so of course it's slower....

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

This gives me an idea - maybe I should go get checked out and write up my experience for the "Maule curious" here. I found it interesting that Maule doesn't recommend wheel landings. OK by me since I never really got the hang of them, but it seems limiting in strong, gusty winds - doesn't conventional (gear) wisdom suggest that wheel landings, because of the higher speeds possible, provide a greater margin in gusty cross winds?

Best,
O-2

Time down with Ray Maule at Maule Flight is definitely time well spent. I got my tailwheel sign-off from him and it was way worth the time and effort. He taught me how to wheel land for the purposes of the sign-off, but as has been mentioned here, only 3-points are recommended. During my solo time I dutifully practiced both methods. Of course, once you put bushwheels on, the game changes and I firmly believe that wheel landings are the way to go in that configuration.

I have the spring gear...the oleo may weigh less, and you have the option of extended and heavy duty gear, however, don't think that spring gear = lightweight. it is definitely heavy duty and will take a fair amount of abuse. As for landing in jeep tracks, the spring gear may fall on the outer edges of it, but that is definitely not a show stopper...of course this may be case dependent. The only reason I wish I had oleo's is for the extended ground clearance Wup's gear offers. That said, I haven't had any ground clearance issues on my 29" ABW's, yet.

Hi 0-2, I read all the stories about landings in Maules and they certainly made me nervous and jittery. I only have six hrs in my M5 235, and it is a handful at this phase of my learning curve. I come from a gliding background with no experience in GA aircraft at all, except for around 10hrs in the initial PPL training in a 172 & 150 over 6 months. Even with only 6 hrs in her I'm starting to feel more and more at home, I had an intro to TGs in a Citabria, a few hours, before jumping in the Maule. I found the biggest problem so far is getting used to a yolk control and not a stick, and it all happens a bit quicker. I think any TG requires a higher degree of concentration wether its a Maule, Cub, Citabria or whatever, and being switched on in any plane is a requirement not an option, so if a particular aircraft requires more concentration all the better in my book, complacency kills. In the States you have lots of aircraft models to try out and choose from, give as many as you can a go, I am finishing my PPl in the Maule it is a bit of a pick up truck but I like pickup trucks, and this old dog is learning new tricks, I love it.

Sorry about thread creep.... but this has me interested.

Can anyone concisely explain why Maules are such a handfull on landing, esp. wheelies?

Is it simply the short fuse / lack of rudder surface combo?
Or something 'more complicated', like the distance between the centre of gravity and the mains?

Battson wrote:Sorry about thread creep.... but this has me interested.

Can anyone concisely explain why Maules are such a handfull on landing, esp. wheelies?

Is it simply the short fuse / lack of rudder surface combo?
Or something 'more complicated', like the distance between the centre of gravity and the mains?

pilot not the plane

g'day

OscarDeuce wrote: 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. .........

I don't know if being down in the ruts is a good idea or not. In my experience, if you're stuck in the ruts, you go where the ruts go-- which may or may not be where you want to go.

OscarDeuce wrote:.... 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." .....

I don't have any Maule time, but I'd bet that "it's just another airplane" is closer to the truth. They all have thjeir little quirks but they are just airplanes not bucking broncs or pogo sticks. Pacers have a bad rep but I have a little Pacer time & while quick handling you don't have to be superman to stay on top of them. I'm guessing that a Maule is probably pretty similar.

I had a total of 107 hours over 4 years split between Taylorcraft, C150 when I picked up my first Maule M5-235 at the factory.
Dan Spader gave me three landings and I departed Moultrie for AK. Made it no problem and have not looked back since.
There is nothing any harder about flying/landing a Maule than any other taildragger.
They are All different.
It is up to the Pilot who gets his/her info from the Instructor.

Re wide gear and roads. Many farm/ranch type roads are bladed with an 8 ft blade. These are no problem for oleo gear but there is zero leeway with the wide gear. Many roads/tracks are bladed 10 ft and these are no problem.
Deep ruts are to be avoided.
Maule wide gear is approximately the same as C180/185 when on the ground.
Oleo gear is similar to S/Cub width. There is 22" difference in width and 55lbs weight.

hotrod150 wrote: In my experience, if you're stuck in the ruts, you go where the ruts go-- which may or may not be where you want to go.

Great point...both with respect to landing and life in general!

maules.com wrote:There is 22" difference in width and 55lbs weight.

55 lbs is significant when thinking along the lines of 180HP. Thanks for the insight!

Best,
O-2

ozy wrote: I am finishing my PPl in the Maule it is a bit of a pick up truck but I like pickup trucks, and this old dog is learning new tricks, I love it.

Ozy:

I get it. I also like pickup trucks and vehicles that are utilitarian and functional. Heck, I special ordered my last truck with rubber floor mats instead of carpet, vinyl seats, and hand crank windows. Only modern convenience was air conditioning (a must where I live). I wanted an interior I could hose out! Also, hand crank windows are a lot more functional if you ever have to escape from a vehicle under water...ok, not a concern for most but I've been there, done that...twice. (Talk about thread creep)

Best,
O-2

Maule spring gear is wider track & maybe tougher, while the oleo gear is narrower but maybe has more options (extended gear etc). Which is better for landing on the rough stuff? I have lots of time in spring gear Cessna's & while tough, they can sometimes be unforgiving as far as descent rate at touch-down goes (boing, boing, boing). Bungee gear ala Supercub or bungee/oleo gear ala Pacer both seem better (more forgiving) in that regard. I don't know if Maule uses bungees in conjunction with the oleo(s), but I wonder how forgiving is the Maule oleo gear vs Maule spring gear? Seems like whichever one does a better job of soaking up the bumps might be the smarter choice, at least for typical BCP use.

hotrod150 wrote:Maule spring gear is wider track & maybe tougher, while the oleo gear is narrower but maybe has more options (extended gear etc). Which is better for landing on the rough stuff? I have lots of time in spring gear Cessna's & while tough, they can sometimes be unforgiving as far as descent rate at touch-down goes (boing, boing, boing). Bungee gear ala Supercub or bungee/oleo gear ala Pacer both seem better (more forgiving) in that regard. I don't know if Maule uses bungees in conjunction with the oleo(s), but I wonder how forgiving is the Maule oleo gear vs Maule spring gear? Seems like whichever one does a better job of soaking up the bumps might be the smarter choice, at least for typical BCP use.

I like to blame my landings on the spring gear...but I have to agree with Rob that at the end of the day it has to do more with the PILOT than the plane/gear type (for most of us mere mortals at least)

Getting no mention in the comparison of spring and oleo/bungee gear beyond width and normal shock absorption ability is the manner by which each system delivers stress to the airframe. Notice that with the spring gear it is very narrow at the attach point to the fuselage compared to the spread out multiple attach points of the oleo gear. In my opinion no piloting skill can make up the engineering advantage of spreading that twisting force to multiple points if you have to jump on the brakes or stub your wheel in a hole or mound. In this situation, the spring gear "system" is at a disadvantage in strength by using a narrower portion of the fuselage over which it must deliver and spread that twisting force. Narrowing the delivery area at the fuselage is the same as having greater leverage force applied rearward to the outer end of the gear leg. I'll stop here before I start going in to quantum physics as it applies to farm equipment.

dirtstrip wrote:Getting no mention in the comparison of spring and oleo/bungee gear beyond width and normal shock absorption ability is the manner by which each system delivers stress to the airframe. Notice that with the spring gear it is very narrow at the attach point to the fuselage compared to the spread out multiple attach points of the oleo gear. In my opinion no piloting skill can make up the engineering advantage of spreading that twisting force to multiple points if you have to jump on the brakes or stub your wheel in a hole or mound. In this situation, the spring gear "system" is at a disadvantage in strength by using a narrower portion of the fuselage over which it must deliver and spread that twisting force. Narrowing the delivery area at the fuselage is the same as having greater leverage force applied rearward to the outer end of the gear leg. I'll stop here before I start going in to quantum physics as it applies to farm equipment.

Good points, DS...I had not given much thought to that before.

I'd be curious to see a stress analysis ala AUTOCAD on the two systems (although I doubt one exists)

Maule's oleo gear uses a coil spring absorbing under compression and the piston moves through a cylinder of oil for damping.
If wrong oil is too thick or thin relative to 100 deg AZ or -40 deg AK the oleo will act accordingly.
The early type coil springs became 'tired' and then don't do their job thus allowing shock loads to break bolts and blow oring seals. New type springs and NAS fasteners are important.

The wide gear is made of aluminium and does not spring like Cessna steel gear. The movement is minimal, allowing the wheels to stay down on uneven ground. The attach point spread is less than oleo however there is extra steel reinforcement in the airframe to compensate. It is important to upgrade the attach fittings to the later stronger style, plus re check the bolt torques every now and again. Definitely at the annual but adviseably after alot of hard landings rather than calender time.

dirtstrip wrote:....In my opinion no piloting skill can make up the engineering advantage of spreading that twisting force to multiple points if you have to jump on the brakes or stub your wheel in a hole or mound. ....

Damage control is an issue I hadn't even thought about. I've seen quite a few Cessna's where the gear leg held up pretty good in a wreck.... however, usually it ended up being partially or completely ripped out of the fuselage causing plenty of damage in that department. The Cubs Maules etc I've seen that suffered similar wrecks usually had the gear all bent up, but the fuselage appeared to be relatively unscathed. Seems easier to repair/replace landing gear than fix a forcibly de-legged fuselage.

hotrod150 wrote:

dirtstrip wrote:....In my opinion no piloting skill can make up the engineering advantage of spreading that twisting force to multiple points if you have to jump on the brakes or stub your wheel in a hole or mound. ....

Damage control is an issue I hadn't even thought about. I've seen quite a few Cessna's where the gear leg held up pretty good in a wreck.... however, usually it ended up being partially or completely ripped out of the fuselage causing plenty of damage in that department. The Cubs Maules etc I've seen that suffered similar wrecks usually had the gear all bent up, but the fuselage appeared to be relatively unscathed. Seems easier to repair/replace landing gear than fix a forcibly de-legged fuselage.

That was BD's origonal thought, now it is less $ to fix a fuse than rebuild an engine wing prop.... you can replace the bent section of fuse for $2500.00 in parts and a couple thousand in labor as apposed to a Min 8K teardown on the engine, 8 to 15K for a new prop wing, struts etc.....