Hopefully this isn’t a contentious topic, but I’ve been looking at the eventual airplane upgrade and have sort of settled on three possibilities.

The two I’m most interested in are a Cessna 170 with a 180hp Lycomimg engine, or a Maule M?? with the same engine. I’m trying to stick to a 4 cylinder Lycoming for reasons of economy.

I want a airplane I can go cross country in with a bit more comfort and range than my 140, but what I really want to be able to do is land off airport…gravel bars, dirt roads in the Owyhee’s, etc.. This might be more of a pipe dream than reality, but the assorted backcountry air strips are also appealing.

When I’ve mentioned these two planes to people I tend to get very polarized opinions. Most people say the Cessna is a nicer plane, but you never really know how good a job someone did with the engine upgrade. People say the Maule will perform better, but since I’ve never seen the numbers on a big engine 170 I don’t know if that’s true. A number of people have said the Cessna just flys better, but on questioning they admitted they haven't been in a Maule for quite a while.

Others say a Maule is a much better short field plane, but I'm starting to wonder if what makes a Maule a good short field plane is the big engine most of them come with.

Will the Maule really do a better job on unimproved strips than a 170?

Anyone else out there made a choice between these two planes, and if so, why?

I have a 145-horse 170. That said, here goes:
All 170's are at least 51 years old. Straight-tail 172 TD's are just about as old. I get tired of fixing 50-60 year old junk.
180-horse 170's are spendy. Doing the conversion is even spendier.
I've seen fairly new (80's/90's) 160 and 180 horse Maules advertised at pretty reasonable prices.
I'd fly both before deciding, but the newness aspect of a Maule appeals to me. A good 180-horse 170 is a fine airplane though.
There is a new version of an old Maule available brand new, the M4-180. Costs around $125K, but sure sounds nice.

Eric

We looked at the same thing before we bought the Maule, ......




well need I say more?? Just kiddin' Give me a call and I will try to explain why we went the route.

If cruise speed isnt critical a stock engined 170 with a climb prop might work. The climb prop makes a huge difference. Most of them have about a 850 lb useful load. Eric is right about the age thing, stuff wears out. My B model is the most overall fun plane Ive flown, power is just adequate however. I have the standard prop. I used to own a 140 also.

Especially an updated re-engined Stinson 108-2. I think you'll find way more bang for your buck. Not to mention the ramp appeal and strong nature of the airframe! Oh, did i mention the cost to acquire is less as well?

Its another very viable option....IMHO

all right another stinson guy!

Hottshot wrote:We looked at the same thing before we bought the Maule, ...... .

Wup, what year/model Maule do you have?
And more importantly, what size BW's?

Thanks for all the good input. I was in the Maule camp for a while, then I got discouraged with all the negative things I heard about their craftsmanship. Granted it all came from people who don't own Maules...

Then I moved over to the Cessna 170 camp, as nobody seems to have anything really negative to say about them, and I like my 140 plenty well except the lack of space. But the 170 stock engine doesn't excite me, and the big engine conversion has financial issues.

For reasons I don't understand 180hp Maules are somewhat hard to find on the used market. I keep hearing about people who bought a Maule in perfect condition for a great price, but I never seem to see those planes for sale. Maules may give you a lot for the dollar, but they are not inexpensive!

I've yet to address the insurance issue. By the time I make any sort of decision I'll have 500 hours of tail wheel time so maybe I won't get completely ed by the insurance company.

Maybe I should just get a super cub, but that's a different thread.

On the financial aspect of the choice, I believe what Eric said to be true. The M(x)-180 would be less expensive initially.

I know you are looking at the 180hp airplanes, but I offer this as an "apples to apples comparison" of the airframes. The 180 hp versions of both would probably compare similarly...

On the performance side, I have flown the M7-235 and my 220hp 170B. My 170 with 5 less horsepower performs better short field takeoffs and landings than the Maule with me at the controls. This may be somewhat biased, as I have tons more time in the 170 than the Maule.

On the airborne handling and ramp-appeal aspects, I am stuck on the 170. However I do believe the M7-235 handles better in a crosswind. The Maule is also slightly faster in cruise, but not much. The Maule's higher wing loading helps a bit in both those categories. However, the Maule doesn't glide very well - for the same reason.

M

Hi Ravi,

I have a 1980 M5 180C. I found it on Barnstormers and bought it for 62K a little over a year ago. It had been completely overhauled in 2002 and looked brand new. My numbers are very close to Jr.CubBuilder with his 180 hp and CS prop. Cruise is 125 to 135 mph at 7.5 to 8.5 gph.

My friend has a 170 with the 145 hp. I find the 170 floats better than the my Maule and consequently is a bit smoother to land. Longer wingspan makes a difference in ground effect. Not that the Maule is bad, just different (something I hear often about Maules). Both handle very crisply in the air and are light on the controls. I think my Maule is a bit bigger on the inside and it will take three hefty guys off the ground easily.

The tubular frame of the Maule is going to provide more protection in case of a bad accident. And, as the other guys have pointed out, will be easier to maintain in the long run.

At 500 plus TW hours you should get reasonable insurance rates. However, they will probably always be higher than a 170.

Good luck!

Yup, it's a 2A34C201.

M

If you think a cessna or maule is crisp on the controls you are going to love the Stinson!

And it is not only the most responsive but also the easiest to land and a great way to earn the tailwheel endorsment. Parts are supported through Univair and there is a new franklin manuf. getting ready to support the franklins again.

It is easily the best aircraft out of the three with the proper powerplant and although i am a little bias the only negative i have found is the slightly smaller baggage capacity. (compared to Maule) with 4 passengers. The rear seats can be removed with ease in the 108.

why are you so set on maules and cessna's? They are not the only capable STOL aircrafts on the market.

One more vote for the Stinson, I fly with a guy using a 180 hp C170 and can do anything he can do and I don't bounce the landings. I too like the idea of having a full steel cage around me.

After a particularly nasty crosswind landing at Northway several years ago just as I turned off the runway I saw what looked like a stepped on beer can just off the runway. The gas man said it was a C170 that had rolled up into a ball just that morning. I am pretty sure that at least my Stinson would have made a bigger ball!

have fun

Hooo Boy!! This could get ugly...

Holy geez, this is a new development. We've never had a type comparison before.... [/sarcasm]

Right now in GA News: 1975 M5-210,80 smoh,refurbished 2000,$47.5K.
Right now in TAP: 1973 Maule M4-220,240 smoh,$49K in Georgia. 1974 M5-220,1016 TT , in Oregon,$41.5K. 1979 M5-235,25 STOH, $59.5K in Texas. Lots more in TAP but higher priced.
I remember seeing an ad pinned up locally a while back for a latish-model 160-horse Maule (M7?)-- they were asking around 60-ish, seemed reasonable.
A local guy I know has a Stinson 108-2 for sale, has a 150 Frank instead of the usual 165. It's in TAP, he's asking $19.5K. It's not fancy or super-shiney but appears to be a good solid airplane. Seems like a pretty good deal at that price.
I've had my ragwing 170 about 9-1/2 years now & I'm getting kinda bored with it. Been thinking again about selling it and buying a Pacer, got my eye on a PA-22/20-160 with VG's, tips,& fat tires. I've flown my bud's 22/20-150, with no tips or VG's, and it performs real well. This one I'm looking at can't help but perform just as well or better. Another friend just bought a Pacer too, so we'd kinda be the like three amigo's, spreading cheer and BS wherever we go. Sounds like fun.
If I do that, the 170'll be on the block. So if anyone's interested, email me.

Eric

I can't speak for/against the Maule, but I have a fair amount of time in 170's and Stinson's.

The majority of my C-170 time is behind an O-360. It is a great flying airplane, and the performance is noteworthy. Unfortunately, the only economic way to get into one, is to find one with the O-360 in it vs. doing the STC yourself. Even then, it's going to be an expensive purchase.

I agree with the others in that a Stinson is a great aircraft as well. The landing gear makes wheel landings a breeze. You almost have to try to bounce a Stinson. The Franklin engine runs almost as sooth as a turbine too. If I were to sell my 140, I'd get a Stinson. Good luck.

Well, I am biased, however when I had to make the "which airplane to buy" decision in 1975, I was advised to write down a list of what I wanted to do with my future plane.
Mostly 2 seats, but the capability for four.
Greatest ratio of slow speed to high speed 4:1
Adaptability to floats, skis, big tyres, belly tank, door off, towkit.
Affordability to buy, retain value and resell without loseing $$$
Crash worthiness. Tubular steel construction and tough.
Safety, land anywhere very short.
Low maintainance cost.
At this point I'd never seen a Maule, only heard the name and then one day ferrying a Citabria to AK from CA I had to land on the Alcan when confronted by fog, and a Maule came in right behind (he'd been following). I asked to look it over and the kind fellow opened it up and I saw the door system! My dreams were answered, I went to the factory, bought one, along with the AK dealership and the rest is history.
Sorry, but I just had to tell this story.
Jeremy

zero.one.victor wrote:

Hottshot wrote:We looked at the same thing before we bought the Maule, ...... .

Wup, what year/model Maule do you have?
And more importantly, what size BW's?

I have a 1995 MX-7 180, and for learning to fly I couldn't recomend a better platform. Nice and light on the controls economical to fly and.... well the chicks dig it! (don't worry my wife is the one who told me!!)

As for what size tires I have currently I have the 29's on and will have the 31's pretty soon and as soon as the 35's are STC'd I will have to have a set of those on as well.. and then........

I second what the rest have said about the Maule the deals are out there you just got to be quick when they do come up they go fast, also like the guys have said don't discount the Stinson they are a great bird as well. but again 9 times out of 10 you have to buy a 165 hp and convert it and to me that again means LESS TIME TO FLY!!!!! So like I have said before find them fly them and decide from there. But when you do fly them with someone who knows the aircraft and how to make it perform cuz if you fly a Maule like a Cessna IT WON'T WORK!!!

Good luck!

Hey StinsonPilot, what do you know about the Franklin Recip line being tooled up for manufacture? Did somebody finally buy the line from P&W?

There are definitely some technique differences involved between flying the Cessna vs. the Maule... To really compare, you'd have to have an expert in both aircraft, with comparable powerplants, do head-to-head demo flights. I believe though, that with all the above being equal, there is no replacement for wing area and flap effectiveness.

M