Thanks for the tip I left him a message.

jester wrote:No harm to foul, Good talking to you too.

I did get a clearer picture of how much cargo he needs.

He would like a plane that fits a 3 people and cargo. cargo being camping gear and lots of Vodka! =)

Ok, that's good. So here is how things will break down. A Maule M7 is going to have a useful load of about 800 pounds. The M9 is advertised at 1100.

Let's assume that each of these guys is 200 pounds. That's 600 pounds of meat. Figure 150 pounds of gear for three guys. Vodka is about 3 pounds per bottle, so let's figure 20 pounds for vodka and glasses.

600+150+20 is 770.

That leaves 30 pounds for fuel. 30 minutes of reserve fuel weighs 36 pounds. So with the M7 he can't actually put in enough fuel to take off.

With the M9 he'd have 330 pounds left to work with, so he'd be able to put 55 gallons of fuel. That's about four hours of flying.

So, keeping in mind the ideas that others have mentioned and the lack of availability of anti-icing on any Maule, if he still wants to go this direction then he has to get the M9.

Bottom line though, he should come to the US to do his flight training, fly some different planes and then decide. It's pretty worrying that he doesn't seem to know what he wants, but is buying a plane that's a handful to fly.

He might be able to hire Jeremy to come over to Russia and teach him how to fly his Maule?

If he is a brand new pilot, a Maule may indeed be a handful for him. Do they have insurance requirements in Russia?

Gross weight and useful load paperwork aside, I think it is fair to say that a high powered 182 with a STOL kit will be able to carry three big guys, their luggage, their refreshments, and a decent amount of fuel out of a reasonably short strip.

And it would be much easier for him to learn to fly in, and there is an advantage to the all-metal skins out in harsh weather, and there are more Cessna-familiar mechanics in Europe than Maule-familiar mechanics. So that would favor the 182 for him, however it would boil down to just how off-road and rocky and rutted airstrips he needs to fly from, with his low level of experience.

There is also the Wilga, which was designed specifically to land and take off safely from potato fields... across the ruts! I have no idea about useful load or higher power options on the Wilga.

EZFlap wrote:Gross weight and useful load paperwork aside, I think it is fair to say that a high powered 182 with a STOL kit will be able to carry three big guys, their luggage, their refreshments, and a decent amount of fuel out of a reasonably short strip.

Yeah, I think a 206 is the plane for him. It will be interesting to see what happens with this one!

I wonder if you can get either a 182 or a 206 with a diesel. Unless this dude wants to get out of 1000 foot fields, that would be a great compromise for his part of the world.

rw2 wrote:

EZFlap wrote:Gross weight and useful load paperwork aside, I think it is fair to say that a high powered 182 with a STOL kit will be able to carry three big guys, their luggage, their refreshments, and a decent amount of fuel out of a reasonably short strip.

I wonder if you can get either a 182 or a 206 with a diesel. Unless this dude wants to get out of 1000 foot fields, that would be a great compromise for his part of the world.

You didn't see this yet.
http://www.cessna.com/company-info/newsroom-and-events/2013-cessna-turbo-skylane-jt-a

I can tell - you wouldn't forget the look of this thing.... they arrive here next month I think. Soon anyway...

Battson wrote:You didn't see this yet.

I did see that! That's exactly the release I was thinking of. I just couldn't remember if it was in development of shipping. Very cool, thanks for the link!

The new Turbo Diesel Skylane starts at $515,000.00

I can't decide whether it's an inovative powerplant and features new 'edgey' good looks; or whether they just put an ugly nose bowl and funny sounding engine onto a perfectly good Skylane.

No, that's what his commission is based on. But some people do have a lot more money than sense.

rw2 wrote:When we spoke on the phone I also suggested that there are less expensive options than buying new, but that seems to be what his customers heart is set on.

soyAnarchisto wrote:No, that's what his commission is based on. But some people do have a lot more money than sense.

I really didn't get that sense. I mean if that were the deal he'd be all over the opportunity to up-sell to the 206 that I suggested.

Gentlemen... and critics..., Jester and I are in communication, thankyou for that.
International brokers who can speak the language and understand the cultural/business differences among countries are a great asset.
There is only one USA but there are 192 other sovereign countries and all are equally valid trade points.
I believe the USA imports more at present than it exports or the trade deficit would indicate such.
Another export will be an asset too, plus the benefit of having yet another happy Maule owner overseas.

You know how there's always some guy at a flyin that brings some weird Russian plane?
This guys client is the same guy just in Russia.

Wow, holy necropost, Batman!

I was pretty much this Russian guy a couple years ago when I joined this site. Not a pilot but keen to figure it out and very keen on accessing the back country on my own or with friends. Difference is I live here so I didn't need a broker/exporter to act for me. I asked my share of dumb questions and made a few mistakes.

For what its worth, I ended up with an amphib 182 with a set of big wheels for the land gear. It wasn't much different than the 172s I learned on and I'd call the journey of learning to fly it on wheels/airports to wheels/grass/gravel to floats/airports to floats/lakes a manageable challenge.

Not sure how much money this guy has but I made a tradeoff where I reduced my useful load in exchange for manageable maintenance and operating costs. A Beaver would haul a lot more stuff, but it costs a LOT more to operate and maintain than my 182. On amphibs, my plane is about perfect for 2 people.

So, to the OP, I think a fully restored Kenmore Beaver is the ticket. I bet you could even find mechanics in Russia that can work on it. Tell him just to up the budget. Quite a bit.

And get him to clarify why he wants a solution for icing. I bet he is equating cold weather flying with icing but the truth is many of us fly in cold temps without icing issues. Over-simplified, icing is more a problem flying through clouds using instruments to navigate than it is flying in cold weather using your eyes to navigate.

Troy Hamon wrote:Wow, holy necropost, Batman!

Heh heh.

I think it should be a rule that if you bump a thread this old, you have to include at the beginning of your post:

ALL POSTS PRIOR TO THIS ARE FROM 2013

I find it difficult to find the OP serious when calling an aircraft a "plain"

Zzz wrote:

Troy Hamon wrote:Wow, holy necropost, Batman!

Heh heh.

I think it should be a rule that if you bump a thread this old, you have to include at the beginning of your post:

ALL POSTS PRIOR TO THIS ARE FROM 2013

Damn, Zane. When you're my age 2013 looks a lot like 2018.