asa wrote:Of the 2 planes you listed I would probably go the M4, only considering what you have listed. New fabric and new engine is hard to beat. Blank panel is great for putting in exactly what you want.

M4 will always be an M4 though. M5 and up allows for many possibilities in terms of conversions and upgrades if you wanted to have a platform that allows you to dump your life savings and the life savings of your entire family into transforming it into another model. In talkeetna lastyear they took an M5-220, put an IO540 on it, converted it to an M6-235, then put M7 long wings on it.

I dislike carburetors on airplanes so the M4 wins there too.

It's like waiting for a stock to go down to buy in that never does. After flying the M5 yesterday I am definitely leaning towards it. I have not flown an M4, but after talking to someone quite experienced all things Maule, they suggested to wait for a good M5. We'll see if I can afford it when it comes by. It seems like even just a few months ago there were several in my price range but the inventory has completely dried up as we transition to summer.

dwill wrote:Well. Flew the M5 235 today...wish I didn't do that haha. Loved it. Might not be able to afford the 235 but I certainly am Leaning on the M5 for the bigger wing/flaps

Square tip M4's have the same wing planform (wing area) as the M5. The difference is in the flaps and ailerons. The original M4's had a tapered tip. When they squared off the wing, they extended the leading and trailing edges to reach the farthest point on the wingtip. This left about 10" of trailing edge outboard of the aileron. With the M5, they pushed the aileron out that 10", and shortened the aileron another 10" or so, and added 20" of span to each flap.

I'm rebuilding my M4 right now with the addition of some M5 wings. It should be all win as far as I'm concerned- no loss in top end or cruise, with a significant boost on the bottom end from the larger flaps. Another thing to take into consideration, is that generally, the empty weight of M5's is generally about 150 lbs. more than the M4. M5 gross weight is, or can be bumped up to 2500 lbs. vs. the M4's 2300, but actual useful load is the key. I have seen M4's for sale in the past with M5 wings on them, but you might drive yourself nuts waiting for one to come on the market, instead of just buying what's available and in budget.

1:1 Scale wrote:

dwill wrote:Well. Flew the M5 235 today...wish I didn't do that haha. Loved it. Might not be able to afford the 235 but I certainly am Leaning on the M5 for the bigger wing/flaps

Square tip M4's have the same wing planform (wing area) as the M5. The difference is in the flaps and ailerons. The original M4's had a tapered tip. When they squared off the wing, they extended the leading and trailing edges to reach the farthest point on the wingtip. This left about 10" of trailing edge outboard of the aileron. With the M5, they pushed the aileron out that 10", and shortened the aileron another 10" or so, and added 20" of span to each flap.

I'm rebuilding my M4 right now with the addition of some M5 wings. It should be all win as far as I'm concerned- no loss in top end or cruise, with a significant boost on the bottom end from the larger flaps. Another thing to take into consideration, is that generally, the empty weight of M5's is generally about 150 lbs. more than the M4. M5 gross weight is, or can be bumped up to 2500 lbs. vs. the M4's 2300, but actual useful load is the key. I have seen M4's for sale in the past with M5 wings on them, but you might drive yourself nuts waiting for one to come on the market, instead of just buying what's available and in budget.

Great info. Someone reached out to me locally with an M5-235 in great shape. Took a look at it. It's pretty well done and it has the up gross. Insurance is really going to be the deciding factor for me and that is not working out very well right now.

Wow - I didn't know the M4 had a smaller wing and flaps than the M5!

The M5-235 is performance limited to begin with, because of the small wing and low AoA, unless you go for the long legs STC + big bushwheels.

Unless you are only looking at places 700ft and longer, then that small wing is no fun. Heck, I would be looking for an M6-235 or M7-180 if you can find them with the setup you want and the price.

And then, of course there's insurance... Try applying with Traffords of London, online. I don't know if they do AK, but wow the pricing is attractive.

Turns out "just buy a Maule" is not such a simple statement

Just buy a Scout

Battson wrote:Wow - I didn't know the M4 had a smaller wing and flaps than the M5!

The M5-235 is performance limited to begin with, because of the small wing and low AoA, unless you go for the long legs STC + big bushwheels.

Unless you are only looking at places 700ft and longer, then that small wing is no fun. Heck, I would be looking for an M6-235 or M7-180 if you can find them with the setup you want and the price.

And then, of course there's insurance... Try applying with Traffords of London, online. I don't know if they do AK, but wow the pricing is attractive.

Turns out "just buy a Maule" is not such a simple statement

Of the two M5-235's I've flown, both had Bushwheels. Both were off the ground in way less than 700ft

The original question is moot now, I know, but the discussion continues to be interesting.

Comparing airplanes for sale, I’d always prefer whichever one had the best panel. I HATE avionics work. It always takes longer than they say, costs more than it was supposed to, and never works without a period — sometimes a very protracted, frustrating period — of gremlin chasing. Avionics shops are like gremlin union halls. A new airplane shows up and the union steward says, “Alright, I need 3 of you for this job. Who’s next?”

I’ve never done fabric, but I’ve done paint, interior, engine overhaul, and avionics. Avionics is the WORST!

dwill wrote:Of the two M5-235's I've flown, both had Bushwheels. Both were off the ground in way less than 700ft

That's not saying much. For example, a Bearhawk can take off in about 100ft every time in a STOL comp, but it's not realistic or practical to go camping at 100ft airstrips. In the real world, you need a generous margin for error, unless you're very well insured.

Of the dozens of times we've flown backcountry with M5-235s in real world conditions (altitude, heat, obstacle clearance, long wet grass, wind etc) with a large load on board, 700ft can be close to the limit for an M5-235 unless you get everything just right. I didn't say it was "the limit", just that airstrips that small are just not fun - unrealistic for normal ops.

I wouldn’t undercut the AP if you like good avionics or are gonna be doing any IMC work in the plane, or long trips.

A nice panel without a good AP doesn’t compute for me, there is a reason the 135 guys need a AP to fly single pilot IFR.