Crzyivan13 wrote:A question to any Maule guy who can answer this: Are the takeoff roll numbers accurate for 1 person 1/2 fuel in this performance spec sheet? Seems impossible!!!! (Not saying it is, but if it is true that's impressive. 150ft!!!)

http://www.mauleflight.com//M5.html

Stock, no wind, M5, I'll bet no.

Modified, stripped, 10 gallons gas, big flat prop, 180lb pilot, I'll bet yes.

My big fat M7 B4B5 O-540 1687lbs plus 25 gallons gas plus 180 lb me, sea level, 20mph head wind I have got it off the ground in under 100'

2 weeks ago at 2500MSL same plane with 38 gallons gas, 5MPH head wind got it airborne in 200' with witnesses, measured with a measuring wheel.

Same plane at Leadville, Co. 9927msl 60* full gross 2500lbs, take off roll was 1000-1200'

G'Day...Rob

OregonMaule wrote:

Crzyivan13 wrote:A question to any Maule guy who can answer this: Are the takeoff roll numbers accurate for 1 person 1/2 fuel in this performance spec sheet? Seems impossible!!!! (Not saying it is, but if it is true that's impressive. 150ft!!!)

http://www.mauleflight.com//M5.html

Stock, no wind, M5, I'll bet no.

Modified, stripped, 10 gallons gas, big flat prop, 180lb pilot, I'll bet yes.

My big fat M7 B4B5 O-540 1687lbs plus 25 gallons gas plus 180 lb me, sea level, 20mph head wind I have got it off the ground in under 100'

2 weeks ago at 2500MSL same plane with 38 gallons gas, 5MPH head wind got it airborne in 200' with witnesses, measured with a measuring wheel.

Same plane at Leadville, Co. 9927msl 60* full gross 2500lbs, take off roll was 1000-1200'

G'Day...Rob

Seemed optimistic to me too. Thanks for the feedback. The more I research Maule aircraft the more I like about them.

Performed a "flight following" on you yesterday on your SPOT page. That's a sweet piece of gear. Seems like a great investment.

Ran my cell phone out of minutes talking Maules Gonna have to wait a couple days before I make more calls then I'll post some updates. Lots of good info from members here. Thanks

c170pete wrote:

iceman wrote:no auto gas STC for the Cont IO 360...

anybody know why no autofuel STC for this engine? (I have this one on my 170B)

also high compression engine..

Posted some updates.

I'm leaning heavily toward a M6-180 for its greater useful load and more economical engine (MX wise). A guy I talked to at Maule said if I was happy with a Luscombe at gross weight then I'll be even happier with a 180hp Maule at gross weight. Going to try to stop by the Portland area on my home home from Seattle at the end of February to see if I can hitch a ride in a 180hp maule and a 235hp maule.

whee wrote:Posted some updates.

I'm leaning heavily toward a M6-180 for its greater useful load and more economical engine (MX wise). A guy I talked to at Maule said if I was happy with a Luscombe at gross weight then I'll be even happier with a 180hp Maule at gross weight. Going to try to stop by the Portland area on my home home from Seattle at the end of February to see if I can hitch a ride in a 180hp maule and a 235hp maule.

Hello Wee,
How about a ride in a 210 HP Maule? IO-360, no carb ice (injected) and 10 gph all day long.

James

whee wrote:A guy I talked to at Maule said if I was happy with a Luscombe at gross weight then I'll be even happier with a 180hp Maule at gross weight.

I can't help but think, if that's true then you'd be even happier with a 210 hp, 235 hp, or 260 hp Maule in that order.
Just saying

Edit for spelling

Hey Whee, I'd really throw my vote in with Battson. I have 250 hours in an M4 210 with stock wings and something more than 50 hours in an M5 180 with VG's. I would take the M4 in a heart beat. The M5 would land shorter but the take off was just dissapointing. No substitute for power and the injected 360 would run a lower fuel burn the the carb version. 30 HP, much shorter take off (~50%) and lower fuel burn. The ONLY advantage to the 180 is the MoGas option and, if you really want the performance, not worth it in my mind. Good luck!

flyingzebra wrote:Hey Whee, I'd really throw my vote in with Battson. I have 250 hours in an M4 210 with stock wings and something more than 50 hours in an M5 180 with VG's. I would take the M4 in a heart beat. The M5 would land shorter but the take off was just dissapointing. No substitute for power and the injected 360 would run a lower fuel burn the the carb version. 30 HP, much shorter take off (~50%) and lower fuel burn. The ONLY advantage to the 180 is the MoGas option and, if you really want the performance, not worth it in my mind. Good luck!

Whee,
Mo gas is great until you get a vapor lock climbing out of somewhere henious on a hot day. Then that av gas seems priceless. As far as take-off distance goes, I think my 210 hp M4 can beat a 235 hp off the ground because the thrust to weight ratio is better. Landing distance is a mater of technique for the most part. VGs and elevator gap seals really help too.

Rob's 235hp M-7 can outclimb me at altitude however, but he is burning a lot more gas = $$$. Anyway good luck on the airplane search.

James

Oh yeah, I'll bet he'd be even happier with a Pilatus Porter or at very least a Helio Courier maybe with the TIO-540. Yeah there you go....

I hear you Whee. What you need is a good airplane at a fair price that you can afford to feed and house. As far as money goes, for me personally, I've always figured that a guy ought to have just a little more than he can spend. But that's it.

EB

When I first go my license there was a rotting M4 sitting on the ramp in IDA and I spent several years lusting after it's round tail and droop tips...even called the owner a couple times to see if he wanted to sell it. IMO the M4 is the best looking maule but I need more useful load and I want a 5th seat.

As I said in my original post running mogas is a must, if the plane can't burn it I'm not interested. I've been running mogas in my Luscombe for a couple years and while I miss the wonderful smell of 100LL I don't miss it enough to spend the extra $$$.

While an O-540 would be great I'm not convinced I need it. But I do know that a 235hp maule only has about 900lbs useful which eliminates it from my shopping list. Both Maule and Jeremy said I can forget getting anywhere near 1100lbs useful out of a 235hp maule but that 1000 or maybe 1050 is doable with a 180hp.

whee wrote:. IMO the M4 is the best looking maule but I need more useful load and I want a 5th seat.

As I said in my original post running mogas is a must, if the plane can't burn it I'm not interested.

While an O-540 would be great I'm not convinced I need it. But I do know that a 235hp maule only has about 900lbs useful which eliminates it from my shopping list. Both Maule and Jeremy said I can forget getting anywhere near 1100lbs useful out of a 235hp maule but that 1000 or maybe 1050 is doable with a 180hp.

The 0-540 will do 1100 useful all day. I wouldn't slam it on the ground at 2800lbs. They take off and fly wonderful at 2800........errrrrr so I have been told

B4B5 low compression mogas STC
0-540 on mogas on 35s at 100MPH 8500MSL or higher 9.0 GPH, 8.50s 9.0 GPH will get you 120MPH, want to go for it fire walled 8.50s 8500 MSL or higher 155MPH 12.5 GPH MOGAS Model B4B5

G'Day

Hey Whee, have a think about how many times you really need to get out of tight or high DA strips and see how that fits the 180hp mission. I have no problems at gross (1080lbs useful) with a Mx7 180b on MOST family orientated missions. If its tight there is usually somewhere handy to do a couple of loads. The rest of the time you're cruising around in a nicely balanced aircraft with a couple of cylinders less to maintain.
Also get some weight and balance examples with the 5th seat to check it's really going to fit your mission - I have a feeling with 180hp and a 5th person way back there you won't have much of an envelope to play with. That said the 180hp Maule does well in just about every situation I want for most of the time.

The 5th seat changes insurance cost, if you use it. I took mine out.

haven't had my back seat in since I've owned the plane... that area is for camping gear...

Whee,
I would advise the 235 Lyc. I run an 86 MX-7 with the 0-540 J1A5D with 120 hrs SMOH. Had the cylinders flow-matched and balanced at Lycon in CA and the performance is remarkable. I use Trick Air wheel-penetration skis in the winter and have gotten off in 8-10" of snow with me (240lb) and 3 adult males (approx 180lb each) in 1200-1500 ft. It is my belief that there is no replacement for displacement. The only negative is Lycs like to be run hard and fuel burn is around 15 gph plus, however cruise is around 150mph without skis and 140 with. Just my 2 cents...

I owned an M-5/235 (N9196E) for several years. To be honest, I prefer the handling of the 180 ( better balance) but there is nothing that beats HP. You can always throttle back, but you can't get more than 100%.

Agreed. Some Maules get really mushy at slow/high AOA situations. I put VG's on and it cleared that issue up completely. C180 is a great aircraft, but far more expensive to operate on an hourly basis. I also own a C172-XP and cringe when its time for annual or need to order a part vs the Maule as its operating costs are 1.5 to 2x that of the Maule (really glad I don't own a Beech!). I did extensive research before I bought the Maule and found that it was a much bigger bang for the buck-it is like a cross between a Super cub and C182. You can even buy a new M7 or M9 with 235-260hp for half of what a new C182 costs and get better overall performance, versatility and way lower operating costs.

OregonMaule wrote:

whee wrote:. IMO the M4 is the best looking maule but I need more useful load and I want a 5th seat.

As I said in my original post running mogas is a must, if the plane can't burn it I'm not interested.

While an O-540 would be great I'm not convinced I need it. But I do know that a 235hp maule only has about 900lbs useful which eliminates it from my shopping list. Both Maule and Jeremy said I can forget getting anywhere near 1100lbs useful out of a 235hp maule but that 1000 or maybe 1050 is doable with a 180hp.

The 0-540 will do 1100 useful all day. I wouldn't slam it on the ground at 2800lbs. They take off and fly wonderful at 2800........errrrrr so I have been told

B4B5 low compression mogas STC
0-540 on mogas on 35s at 100MPH 8500MSL or higher 9.0 GPH, 8.50s 9.0 GPH will get you 120MPH, want to go for it fire walled 8.50s 8500 MSL or higher 155MPH 12.5 GPH MOGAS Model B4B5

G'Day

I can vouch for the above. I haled home two bull elk(deboned and frozen) with a 160 lb passenger plus all our gear that fit in the aft from Santa Fe, NM to central Wisconsin with two stops. Take off roll was longer that expected and landings were hot as the tail would sink as I reduced power. At my home airport (W23) I blew out the tailwheel without incident...

NZMaule wrote:Hey Whee, have a think about how many times you really need to get out of tight or high DA strips and see how that fits the 180hp mission. I have no problems at gross (1080lbs useful) with a Mx7 180b on MOST family orientated missions. If its tight there is usually somewhere handy to do a couple of loads. The rest of the time you're cruising around in a nicely balanced aircraft with a couple of cylinders less to maintain.
Also get some weight and balance examples with the 5th seat to check it's really going to fit your mission - I have a feeling with 180hp and a 5th person way back there you won't have much of an envelope to play with. That said the 180hp Maule does well in just about every situation I want for most of the time.

Whee - I have to say, at the recent STOL competition NZMaule bettered the 235 Maules in both takeoff and landing with his 180, and he has the heavier gear & bigger wheels to carry around. But good technique comes into play too. I have been meaning to post some video.
And likewise, Bushwacker, the smaller engine in there too (albeit sooped-up).

FWIW, if you're going to look seriously at the heavier engine block, IMHO it may as well be developing 260hp. Why give up power for no weight savings.