Strong work, Matt!

mountainmatt wrote:

+1,000,000... hehehe

I forgot about this video I posted a few years back. Here is the setting.

There were several airplanes that flew in to Moose Creek together to have doughnuts and tell war stories. There was a pretty good representation of Bush aircraft present, with a Cessna 182, a Cessna 180, and 2 Maules. (A Cessna 150 was not in attendance, although I've heard of them landing Moose Creek I was a passenger in the 180 which arrived first. We parked at the intersection of the two runways and waited patiently for the Maules to arrive. Just kidding!

The Maule Pilot can flat out fly that airplane, but did bounce it, as it was not his aircraft. What was amazing was the fact that he had enough power to arrest it in mid air and upon reaching the intersection of the two runways, turned and landed the long runway. It was awesome to see in person, and sorry the quality of video on my little camera is not great.

Whatever your choice of bush plane, from bare bones Cessna 150 to a Maule decked out, it's awesome to be able to fly the backcountry!

Richard

Awesome video but the music..... really? Was that the Carpenters?

Darinh wrote:Awesome video but the music..... really? Was that the Carpenters?

It's what you need to put the finishing touches on your brothers pponk 182. The flying hawkes is practicing his handstands even as we speak.

richpiney wrote:Whatever your choice of bush plane, from bare bones Cessna 150 to a Maule decked out, it's awesome to be able to fly the backcountry!

Richard

I totally agree with this assessment, but the music stole your boy's fire for sure!

I fully support Rich's musical choice. It felt like a nice episode of a 70s TV show.

Guess I better not reveal my Tammy Wynette vids.

A bit of a rant here. Let me start by saying that this is wholly my own opinion. It does not necessarily represent the views of the BCP janitorial staff.

This thread pisses me off. I have read it at least four times and I get mad every time I come back to it. It has a lot of information that someone like myself could find useful, I mean, this thread is 6 pages long!

It pisses me off because it has been robbed of information. The OP deleted their original posts for some reason. The original post stated what was an opinion of the OP. Then, a series of other posts by the OP were deleted as well.

Even though it was an opinion, we as readers/uses value it! Threads like this help with research. I happen to currently be weighing my options right now and am comparing models similar to what the OP posted about.

This site is the only place on the internet that has proven to be a "Go-to" for all things Backcountry Flying, (and flying in general). It is a one stop shop. You can go the the Maule site, and 180 site, but I doubt you will see the type of real world comparison that can be found here. You may be subject to some ribbing by the peanut gallery here, but this place is virtually DEVOID of internet trolls because we have such great users who are so passionate about this hobby/obsession that they will find and execute them on the spot for threatening the integrity of this site.

All that I am trying to say is this place is constantly growing as a resource for our hobby. This site is a library for backcountry pilots. When you delete your posts, you potentially pull a book off the shelf, and burn it. Please consider this next time you want to delete your opinionated post. Opinions are not a bad thing. Hell edit it if you want, but please don't delete.

Rant over.

Good rant Evan.
I was also researching both if these planes and settled on the 180. I have to ask all the Maule drivers a question. If Maules are so great, why do you see so few at Valdez? Or maybe there is more then shown on the videos that I have seen. But it just seems like there is only 1 or 2 every year...
Disclaimer: I do like Maules, just a curious question to stir this thread up a bit. [emoji12]

I like to stir the pooh.

You have to watch them 180s they will bite you. I have a friend who's turned into a glider, it left on a trailer. Another friend tried to knock a tree down with the wing, went home on a trailer. Another friend tried to make a submarine out of his, went home on a boat. Yet another friend thought his was a snowmobile, he found out how a turtle on its back feels.

I don't know that many Maule guys who have bent so many planes. Maybe Maule pilots are just superior pilots?????

Can't buy a new 180. Can't buy a turbine 180. Can't buy a diesel 180.

Maule wins!

Personally I'm not a fan of maules. They seem to be built junky to me. This is from a mx standpoint. We maintain a couple. Never flown one though. I do love 180's though. Maintaining them and flying them.

IMHO there are two benchmark personal airplanes for our kind of flying- Supercubs & Skywagons.
Everything else in the same two categories are compared to them.
Maule vs C180 can be argued all day, just like Husky vs Supercub.
Performance is similar, or maybe not, doesn't matter.
Some designs / details just appeal to some folks, and other designs / details to other folks.
It all boils down to which one you like better- sort of a blonde or brunette kind of thing.
Me, I'm a Skywagon guy.

Maule is family business with limited hiring and engineering resources. Cessna has/had a tremendous amounts of resources and money (until they ask the government to bail them out again).

Call Cessna...You can almost hear them laughing when you call for a part on a 50 year old tail dragger...

"Hey guys, I'm going to quote this old man a price. Ha hah. I'll put it on the speaker phone".

Two different aircraft from day one.

The fact u can buy a new Maule seems to me to be the most fundamental and maybe most important difference between the the two.

Some guys shy away from a 50 yr old airframe. Sometimes younger is better [emoji41]

.
I have no knowledge or comment about the opinion ventured below. They are comparing their designs to that of the Cessna 180. I would however like to hear what experienced 180 folks have to say.

From the website of Custom Flight Limited, a Canadian manufacturer of Bushplanes known as “ NorthStars”
http://www.customflightltd.com/north-star-6-galaxie.html

.
The other consideration is the slow speed flight. It brings back the same complaint I keep getting from 180 pilots, they feel like they are landing a dragster in small rough fields. Add this high touch down speed to less than optimum structural integrity and rough strips become a big liability for airplanes with a higher landing speed than the North Stars. The NS6 will have a much lower stall speed, and carry more weight, than a C180. The cruise speed we don't know yet but it should be comparable to a C180, maybe better.

hotrod180 wrote:IMHO there are two benchmark personal airplanes for our kind of flying- Supercubs & Skywagons.
Everything else in the same two categories are compared to them.
Maule vs C180 can be argued all day, just like Husky vs Supercub.
Performance is similar, or maybe not, doesn't matter.
Some designs / details just appeal to some folks, and other designs / details to other folks.
It all boils down to which one you like better- sort of a blonde or brunette kind of thing.
Me, I'm a Skywagon guy.

I always used the "what are the guys who work airplanes for a living" doing when I was looking to upgrade/modify or buy airplanes. It was never the end all/be all but a place to sanity check a decision.
Around here there are a couple Maule operators. There are countless Cessnas and Cubs out working. I find it hard to believe they/we are all doing it wrong. But hey, anythings possible?
Maule guys love their Maules so thats worth something…..but ya gotta be honest with yourself.

To address another comment- If the "Cessna is landing so fast its breaking stuff" -- the pilot needs practice. I call BS on that one.

EDIT- I think operating a 180/185 off airport (I mean really using it) is one of the most time consuming skills I've personally undertaken in aviation. They are beasts at doing the job, but a longer (much) learning curve compared to other airframes. Potentially thats the issue with operating them "short" vs "SHORT"??-- most guys can't afford the time and expense to actually get there?
I dunno but it makes sense in my head so I'm going with it.

They're both fun airplanes and I would own either. The M-7-235 and Skywagon performance comparison really boils down to the pilot. Aesthetics is a personal choice but often the biggest deciding factor for owners. It's not practical but ownership can be more emotional than practical.

The big bag door on the Maule is awesome. The more upright seating ergonomics in the Cessna is awesome.

Pilots are opinionated SOBs and those opinions are often shaped by what some respected old goat somewhere said about something and the impression was made. The Skywagon has roots as a working airplane long pre-dating the arrival of the Maule on the scene, setting a tradition of opinionated operators.

deleted