Just joined your group and looking for some experienced advise.

I presently have a Seneca for cross country but want a Stol aircraft for sight seeing in the Rocky Mountains. My brother has a Citabria so I'm familiar with tail draggers and have decided I want tricycle gear - I know some of you will try and talk me out of this but we live in a valley in the Rocky's and the cross winds at our 1 runway airport can get quite strong at times. I also need good performance.

I've done a reasonable amount of research and it appears the best solution is a 235 or 260 Maule. There are several for sale at the moment but my biggest concern is the low useful load. The problem is compounded by the additional 60 pounds the tricycle gear adds.

The question is - is there another tricycle gear airplane out there that compares to the Maule performance but has better useful load?

Regards
Bob

I'll be the first. How about a 182?

This is a no-brainer-- a stripped-down early 182 with a big prop & fat tires.

MY .02

Lots of considerations, but assuming that you want to be on the lower end of the cost range:

Early 182, lighter(better t/o), narrower(faster), taller gear(better clearance) relatively affordable. Either get one w/ a Pponk eng(265-275hp. and 2000 TBO)., or buy one run out and install a Pponk eng. I know they will do fine with the stock eng., but the Pponk will make a much better performing plane, particularly for flying higher mtns., and despite what others say fuel burn should be about the same, unless you bring the extra horses into play. I only use my extra when I need it. SMOOOOOth eng.

Mine is in an early 180, but pretty similar to what I am suggesting. Love the plane and the eng, obvously

Pretty much let you carry what you want, where you want, atleast w/2 people

Gary

hotrod150 wrote:This is a no-brainer-- a stripped-down early 182 with a big prop & fat tires.

How about a loaded 182 with a 0-550 conversion....and fat tires I love the way my chest pounds when one takes off destroying the sound barrier

Early C182, with trimable horizontal... With average proficiency that C182 will get you anywhere a sane person would want to go, and do most things well and really nothing poorly. At a recreational flying level, experience and skill far outweigh high dollar mods.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:Early C182, with trimable horizontal... With average proficiency that C182 will get you anywhere a sane person would want to go, and do most things well and really nothing poorly. At a recreational flying level, experience and skill far outweigh high dollar mods.

Gump

Come on Gump all the skill in the world wont make the sound of a 2 blade running 2850rpm

mr scout wrote:Come on Gump all the skill in the world wont make the sound of a 2 blade running 2850rpm

Naw... The sound of ass sucking seat fabric is pure music when watching big attitudes with $$$ come to the realization that VG's, horsepower, trick-this or trick-that, ain't gonna make up for lack of skill.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:Early C182, with trimable horizontal... With average proficiency that C182 will get you anywhere a sane person would want to go, and do most things well and really nothing poorly. At a recreational flying level, experience and skill far outweigh high dollar mods.

Gump

+1

Bingo

I agree with the 182 (early model) but if crosswind is your major concern a cherokee would be the choice.

Uh, did something happen when I wasn't paying attention?? Last I heard, Maule only built ONE tri gear airplane--the 180.

I'd vote for the 182 as well. That's as good an all round airplane as you'll find in my opinion. And, I agree with Gump--spend the money on gas and learn to fly it, instead of buying gee gaws to make it "better".

MTV

mtv wrote:Uh, did something happen when I wasn't paying attention?? Last I heard, Maule only built ONE tri gear airplane--the 180.


MTV

Yes you missed something
Landing Gear Configuration:
Nosewheel

Landing Gear Type:
Steerable Hydraulic Nosewheel and Spring Aluminum Main Gear

Engine Type:
Fuel Injected, Normally Aspirated

Engine Model:
Lycoming IO-540-W1A5 (235) or IO-540-V4A5 (260)

Propeller:
81” McCauley Constant Speed Prop - 2 blade (Standard (235))

78" McCauley Constant Speed Prop - 2 blade (Standard (260))

Number of Seats:
Four, (Fifth Seat Optional)

Gross Weight:
2500 lbs.

Empty Weight (avg.):
1665 lbs. (235) 1696 lbs. (260)

Useful Load: (avg.)
835 lbs. (235) 804 lbs. (260)

Cruising Speed: (75% power at optimum altitude):
160 mph (235) 164 mph (260)

Stall speed (with full flaps, 1 pilot, 1/2 tank of fuel)
40 mph

Takeoff distance: (1 pilot, 1/2 tank of fuel)
250 feet

Takeoff distance at gross over 50’ high obstacle:
600 feet

Rate of Climb: (1 pilot, 1/2 tank of fuel)
1500 fpm (235) 1650 fpm (260)

Land at gross over 50’ obstacle:
500 feet

Service Ceiling:
20,000 feet

Fuel Consumption (65% power):
11 gph (IO-540-W1A5) 15 gph (IO-540-V4A5)

Can't go wrong with an early straight-tail 182. If I didn't suffer from wallet-crippling vanity, that's what I'd be flying.

Buy this one, or you can loan me the money and I'll buy it and let you borrow it.

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_413376_1958+Cessna+182+B.html

kevbert wrote:Buy this one, or you can loan me the money and I'll buy it and let you borrow it.

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_413376_1958+Cessna+182+B.html

Well with the panel not having any attention since the 50s how did the rest of the plane fair.

mr scout wrote:
Well with the panel not having any attention since the 50s how did the rest of the plane fair.

Yes the panel will need some updating and the plane would require a thorough pre-buy inspection. But, that's to be expected for only $36K.

Of greater concern is the 047 engine! VERY cheap to operate, but at one tenth the displacement of an O-470 you're limited to taxiing only!

On the Straight tail 182 I would add the Sportsman Stol for the low and slow, + Wing-X for the increased useful load. Add the big tires and you could park next to most tail dragger pilots. Not all but most. JPI for the fuel economy. I used to get around in my 182 (those mods except the Big Tires) at 13 gph into a head wind and 10.5 with a tail wind. Used to fly that plane out of the tail dragger strip in Saline Valley, Ca. Loaded, tires skidding, glovebox flying open, white knucked to the end. Long time ago. Those were the days.

Skydive206 wrote:On the Straight tail 182 I would add the Sportsman Stol for the low and slow, + Wing-X for the increased useful load. Add the big tires and you could park next to most tail dragger pilots. Not all but most. JPI for the fuel economy. I used to get around in my 182 (those mods except the Big Tires) at 13 gph into a head wind and 10.5 with a tail wind. Used to fly that plane out of the tail dragger strip in Saline Valley, Ca. Loaded, tires skidding, glovebox flying open, white knucked to the end. Long time ago. Those were the days.

Interesting. My Maule burns the same amount of gas no matter which way the wind blows. MPG Changes.

Cheers

Another vote for the 182. Steve

Your right MPG changed 10 mpg into the headwind and 14 mpg with the tail wind. Close to the same ground speed. I like working Range / endurance. Do I save only 1 MPG on each end? Hour and a half trip, $5 each leg? I flew an Aerostar for a guy and as I pulled the props back for economy he yelled up "What are you doing?' " These things are for going fast!!" Fast we went.