back 6 years ago when I ground looped mine a whole bunch of fuselage tubes bent in front of the seat when the gear went... Maule made up the entire fuselage from the front crossmember under the seat to the firewall .. total cost... $1500 bucks... shipping was over 700 bucks.. and they made it stronger than they did in 1966 by putting doublers in the cross member... First flight at Brown field here cut the old front off, lined everything up perfectly and welded it all on.. Damn thing flies straighter than before the accident...

hotrod150 wrote:...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.

That is exactly what I found when I stepped up to the Maule from my tailwheel Colt.

WHAT!! I have a M-5 and i'm pretty sure you have to be superman to fly it!!

cropduster13 wrote:WHAT!! I have a M-5 and i'm pretty sure you have to be superman to fly it!!

At least that's what i keep telling my wife.

OregonMaule wrote:

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

I went from a 110hr Cessna 152/172 pilot right into a Maule M7 235HP.

Haven't ground looped it yet. KNOCKING ON WOOD!!!

G'Day

rjb wrote: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.

Hi.
Sorry to dig up this thread, but I'm thinking hard about a Maule. For cross-country, I estimate it's possible for an MX7 to get 125kts true at full-throttle IF flying at 10,000+ feet. At that altitude, the o-360 engine won't have engine detonation even at peak EGT. This way oversquare I'll get maximum TAS and highest MPG, I've done this in a simulator anyway,
If this is true, then my search for an airplane may be over. I'll also try to reduce drag but keep 8.50 x6 tires.
thanks (just thinking),

enewmen wrote:….I estimate it's possible for an MX7 to get 125kts true at full-throttle IF flying at 10,000+ feet. At that altitude, the o-360 engine won't have engine detonation even at peak EGT. This way oversquare I'll get maximum TAS and highest MPG, ….

I don't think you'll be able to run "oversquare" at that altitude unless your rpm's are pretty low.
Or you have a turbo.

hotrod180 wrote:

enewmen wrote:….I estimate it's possible for an MX7 to get 125kts true at full-throttle IF flying at 10,000+ feet. At that altitude, the o-360 engine won't have engine detonation even at peak EGT. This way oversquare I'll get maximum TAS and highest MPG, ….

I don't think you'll be able to run "oversquare" at that altitude unless your rpm's are pretty low.
Or you have a turbo.

Ok. Is there any advantage at going above 10000' if I'm trying to get high MPG, less drag, and less engine detonation risk? I'm not a pilot, but from the charts, lt looks like improved MPG at that altitude is possible with a little less maximum TAS. I don't think adding a turbo and flying with oxygen at 17,500' is what the Maule is about.

On another related topic. While I was looking at the Maule a lot, I wonder if the Maule taildragger is any more difficult to handle on landings than a much smaller light-sport taildragger such as a Kolb? I think if I start with taildraggers from the beginning, a Kolb "trainer" won't be necessary.

Thanks again!

I'll admit to weakness in FAA regulations, I live north of the 49th parallel. Your northern cousins are required to remain below 12500 for VFR flight, an IFR clearance is required above that unless you go a lot further north into the NDA regions. Therefore planning to operate regularly above 12500 adds a whole new layer to your flying endeavors.

Adding O2 also adds some cost for the equipment, it’s maintenance/repairs/refill/etc. I don’t have any experience with that on the private side, so I can’t talk about that.

In my experience, flights above 14k net little additional gains unless you have a turbo/turbine.

If I’m in “get somewhere” mode and the winds aloft support, I’ll cruise up to 11.5k, but usually around 4-7k for long hops and 2-4K for short ones. Don’t discount the fuel burn to climb up that high. I have Atlee 30.5 gallon tanks and once I get to altitude I can hang out for a while. I think that’s where the good savings are, bypassing fuel stops and the need to climb again.

Here’s an interesting article: https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewconten ... text=jaaer

I haven’t finished reading it yet, but the premise looks interesting.

There is a point of diminishing returns with altitude. Flying an O-360 powered Maule I have found that the 75% power threshold occurs at about 4500' msl. You can't make 75% power above that altitude (the Maule intake system is rather inefficient). Power continues to decline with further climb. But, yes, TAS increases with altitude as the air gets thinner. So, at about 7000' MSL the peak in speed gain crosses the diminishing power curve. Any higher than this and the plane begins to fly slower than the TAS altitude gain.

An O-360 powered Maule is not going to true out to 125 knots unless you've done considerable reduction in drag with aerodynamic mods and rolling on 6.00's. It's just too optimistic. With 8.50's I get 112.

I fly a lot at 11,500' because it starts out at 1000' off the deck initially. I just stay there because its convenient and in the summer allows me to fly above the turbulence headed eastward. Smooth air allows for a poor man's auto pilot.

You can wreck ANY plane if you're not proficient and paying attention. Fly it to the tie down or hangar and be ready for anything the wind throws at you when on the ground.

In a subsequent post you state that you are not a pilot yet. Shopping for an airplane before you have flown is like buying a car before you have driven. It can be done (...I did it, so I know...), but you honestly will have a hard time understanding how the theoretical book numbers you are looking at compare to real world operations until you go and operate an aircraft. Maules are great. The way you are going to fly any aircraft will be based on how that individual aircraft performs, and while those book numbers might represent a version of reality, they might not represent the current engine condition, prop condition or selection, landing gear installed, etc. on a real airplane.

So by all means dig through the performance charts. But go learn to fly.

I have limited experience in Maules. I own an M4 with a an O-300.Not quite the typical variety you find out there. In about 110 hours over the last year my observations are this:

I have limited tailwheel time and hadn't flown for about 6 years when I go this airplane. Did a lot of dual (maybe ten hours) with high speed taxying etc. After that I went off on my own and found it not hard to land at all and I'm not a naturally gifted pilot by any means. I have vortex generators on mine that were there when I bought it so I can't compare them with a standard wing. My elevators were rigged wrong and barely had 20 degrees of deflection which helped with the innocuous stall. But even after I fixed that, it's barely stallable unless you're very aggressive and the nose high attitude is ridiculous.

It is extremely stable in cruise which surprised me.

I have 8.00 tires and I cruise between 105 and 115mph at 8,000 feet, which is a common run I make. I burn less than 7 gallons at 105mph and about 8 at 115mph.

My insurance is so low I won't tell anyone where I got it, in case they mess it up for me! $30k hull coverage and me with zero Maule time at the beginning and about 50 hours tailwheel time. I got considerable change out of a grand.

I have only flown one other Maule, an M7 with 26" tires and something big on the front. I liked the take-off performance, but I felt mine flew nicer; less control force required and less trimming

One interesting thing I discovered is how it will sink like a brick below 55mph, but in a predictable manner. With a normal approach at 70mph on final, it lands like any other taildragger, but at 55, you run out of elevator and will simply plonk down hard. With a bit of power to control the descent, it's better. I've come to the conclusion that you can't really land this Maule short without power, probably something Maule pilots already know.

I threw out the back seat early on. It's not a four seater, but I knew that.

I love this thing! Not much headroom (I'm 6'2" , but I fit). I like the big rear door (now a baggage door). The one thing that would improve this as an all-round airplane is the Lycoming 180hp, for which there is a factory conversion available now. It's on my list as soon as I find a suitable engine. And longer landing gear; the ground attitude is simply too flat to take full advantage of the wing for short landings,

Your Maule sounds like it flies just like my Pacer

Aerco, you will find that if if you exchange some of that trim input for a little muscle input, you will have more control for the landings.
This is especially so in the 540 cu in models.

andy wrote: A metal skin Cessna can be sandblasted and repainted for a lot less.