What brought the Maules into this?

a64pilot wrote:What brought the Maules into this?

Read the thread

Student Pilot wrote:

Lets hear some structuered well thought out defence of what seems to be standard Maule/SC "I'm betterer than you folks cause I got big wheels" type of mentality. Any takers?

Heres one for you all...



IT WAS A JOKE THIS CRAP WAS GETTING TO SERIOUS THEY ARE ALL COOL MACHINES GO FLYIN AND ENJOY!!!!

Hottshot wrote:Heres one for you all...
IT WAS A JOKE THIS CRAP WAS GETTING TO SERIOUS THEY ARE ALL COOL MACHINES GO FLYIN AND ENJOY!!!!

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gump

Right On!!!!

I agree with coyote ugly.. the new quote should be. It's not what you fly, it's if you fly

Mike reed 1990

Coyote Ugly wrote:Right On!!!!

Is that a Jackson 5 quote? If so it should be more "Rart owwn"

Sorry if I misread things folks, the personal insult emails sort of pointed more to a pissing contest rather than some friendly banter. I agree with the last few comments, if your flying that's great, doesn't matter what.

I am with student pilot, coyote ugly, and for that fact anyone else that loves to fly. I know fluffy, he has an axe to grind with a local aiplane dealer that has done more for aviation in our valley for the positive than anyone. with great equ, teck support, r & d and that would be with scouts ,cubs,or for that matter,any thing that flys. so lets get back to the real issue. WILL A SCOUT TAKE OFF IN 700 ft. come on over fluffy and lets go flying and try to be a little open minded. You of all people should be able to see the truth!!!!

Matt, I bought a Scout new in 2006. I've had it some tight places in the west and Mexico, always bought me home in style. I'd would watch the floats, though......if you go amphibs it starts being a one person aircraft.

Backcountry Pilot


Joined: 07 Jun 2007
Posts: 33
Location: boise id

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 8:53 pm

Airline pilots are all the same. Talk the talk but let the autopilot do the flying.

**************

JoCub,

This airline pilot retired last year with over 30,000 hours in his logbook and executed EXACTLY ONE autocoupled approach or autoland during his 35+ year career. It was to my great disappointment that the weather that day made a CAT-III/autoland approach the only option. I lamented the fact in my logbook as it had been my goal to retire without ever having used the autopilot even once for the approach or landing. With thousands of hand flown VFR approaches: hundreds of hand flown CAT-I and dozens of CAT- II approaches under my belt....I made it almost 29,000 hours before I was left with no choice. (I am not counting the line checking and checkrides where I was required to demonstrate my auto pilot/autoland proficiency.)

Yes.... 90% of the enroute cruise time the autopilot was on. Not much to prove at 43,000 ft. But in low altitude cruise: decent below 20,000 ft. and all the way to cruise during the climb...I was nearly 100% manual. Why? Because when I began my airline career in 1972....the old WW-2 captains would crack your knuckles if you turned on the autopilot. Beyond that because.... just like you I love to fly.

You are right....."many" indeed "most" airline pilots deserve your comment. I flew with hundreds who matched your description. But not ALL of us.

Like others have said. It is not what you fly....but that you fly. And ....."Backcountry flying" is the most fun that I have ever had in an airplane. (Well maybe the 2nd most. I was flying this Twin Beech and she was ......)

Bob

My uncle is a former Air America pilot and then on to Alaska Airline Pilot (actually Wein first , the old Alaska airlines) and FedX and now spends his time out of Lake Hood flying everything he owns.

He has thousands upon thousands of hours flying everything!

In my short 38 years of trying to absorb as much as humanly possible from him and his own experiences flying I have never even kind of heard the word "I" from him, except when he says this is what "I" would like to see you do.

It amazes me how much "I" read the word "I" in the forum subject.

Nodoubt you guys with the large egos and 20 plus thousand hours are VERY good pilots. Nodoubt at all.

Just leave the damn egos at home and dont bring em here to this site.

Maybe try and educate instead of the reminders about I have done this, I have done that...and so on.....

It only makes you sound as though you were wishing you had 20,000 plus hours.

No offense, thats just how it comes across.....

Its how you fly not what you fly....

Here is the"why not a scout" fact sheet:

http://www.supercub.org/NewHolstein/8d12008.html

...now I own two scouts and like them, but see the numbers above. I am John in the 4th row, and I was almost beat by John in the 3rd row. He was flying a 65 hp champ. (my skill level probably is not the best, but I was pretty sure I couldn't beat my first numbers, so I didn't try a 3rd time. They added the total landing and take-off distance for the score. The supercubs all beat me by 150 feet or more.

still a scout loving guy, John

patrol guy wrote:Here is the"why not a scout" fact sheet:

I hear what you are saying and I don't dissagree, but I'd like to add one thing. If i read the spread sheet right, you had 300 in TO and 300 in landing. To me, I've been very few places that needed any shorter than that. I've got time in both the scout and the SC and they are birds of a differnt feather for sure. My contention is that for 99.9% of the backcountry flying public a scout makes a good compromise. Add the extra leg room, speed and fuel and it's icing on the cake.

BTW, to those that have never been to one of the S.C. fly ins....don't let all that chest beating fool you. Many of those guys with $150K super cubs couldn't and more importantly wouldn't attempt anything near that short outside of a competition.

Squawk1200 wrote:

patrol guy wrote:Here is the"why not a scout" fact sheet:

BTW, to those that have never been to one of the S.C. fly ins....don't let all that chest beating fool you. Many of those guys with $150K super cubs couldn't and more importantly wouldn't attempt anything near that short outside of a competition.

Really??

Squawk1200 wrote:My contention is that for 99.9% of the backcountry flying public a scout makes a good compromise.

Aw heck. For 98.2% of the flying in the lower 48, a good strait tail 182 will do just fine. And you can haul a bunch of stuff. A 182 is more than adaquat to do Mile High.

Does anybody know a pilot that can land in 300 ft accually land at a 300ft strip.

Tim

qmdv wrote:
Does anybody know a pilot that can land in 300 ft accually land at a 300ft strip.

Tim

I know some guys at Caldwell that probably can or will at least try.

...not that it would have made much difference, but I was hauling around 40 gallons of fuel durring that contest. jg

patrol guy wrote:...not that it would have made much difference, but I was hauling around 40 gallons of fuel durring that contest. jg

Good job PatrolGuy.....

Holy Guacamole, BatMan---140 posts on this thread!!

Let's talk about Huskys now, okay That should take it to over a thousand posts.....

MTV

This is a cool thread

I just got back from from practicing wheel landings in my M-5. The wind was directly across the dirt I practice on and AWOS was reporting 12kts gusting to 19kts. Being directly across I was getting two landings per pattern (one landing on downwind). It was awesome practice to get one landing with the wind on the left then one with the wind on the right. All were wheel landings and tons of fun. It's a shame no one else was out practicing, in my opinion it was one of the best days we've had for good practice in quite a while.

I thoroughly enjoy my Maule.
I loved every hour I have in a Super Cub.
I wish I had Scout and Husky time.

At least they all have the little wheel in the correct place