zane wrote: Hey Gump, this is the first time I've heard this downside to the conversion. Have you flown a 170 or a 180 and felt that those aircraft had enough elevator authority, unlike your conversion?

Hey Zane...

I was never a C170 flyer, but I have a shitload of C180 hours. The tail is a whole different critter in the 180. It's a stabilator, not a fixed horizontal with an elevator that has an adjustable trim tab. The whole horizontal surface moves with the trim wheel and allows a huge amount of movable lift to be generated at the tail, all adjustable and usable at the control wheel. Makes the C180 feel like a fairly light and nimble little airplane compared to the C172TW, which feels extremely tail heavy on the ground.

And of the other hand...

I don't know about your 170's, but with my Bolen conversion C172 I can't get a decent 3-point with over 20 degrees of flap hanging down. There's just not enough oomph when ya pull back. The angle might be different in the C170, I just don't know, but the C172 tail is set up for the airplane sitting level, not tail down on the ground.

Gump

Zane,

I've flown one 172 with the tailwheel conversion, and it was precisely as Gump described it. That tail just isn't right for that job.

Dogman, did you do most of the work on your plane yourself?? That seems like a pretty low cost estimate if you had to hire someone to do the work. Just curious.

Sounds like a great machine, in any case. Point is, there are lots of ways to get to where you want to go.

MTV

Dogman wrote:I have a 57 172 . I bought very cheap and went to work.
new Lyc. 180hp cs/prop Bush conversion.
Bought a pair of 175 wings had them completely rebuilt 50gal fuel.
Rebuilt horizontal stab.
all new stainless control cables and hardware.
Took it apart and put it back together fixing any corrosion or replacing epoxy primer in and out new paint.
empty 1300lbs Gross 2200
Interesting thing the 175 is exactly same airframe and wings except for 50gal tanks. 175 has 2350 gross.

It performs really well for me! I

I am waiting for the wingx stol kit to be approved.

Trying to decide weather to go with the Larger nose for or the TW conversion.

Here was my reasoning. I looked at older 182 and 180s 170s. I found for what I could get for the money I had in hand 60k was a lot of if's.

So I bought this and have a Or what should be a nice reliable airplane and I know there is nothing hiding. The airframe is like new and the engine is new. I have 60k invested and do not believe I could find a plane in this shape for what I have in it.

Before the Maule and Cub people jump me. I would love to have either

but I am 6'7" and 275lbs. I can not fit in either one.

This is my first post here and this is a great site. I hope to come out west someday soon and learn to fly where you all play.

I gotta admit it is hard to get in and out of the Maule and it is a bit cramped.. Good choice on the 175. There's a taildragger one here on our field and he loves it.

Went to the NW Supercub fly-in at Snohomish yesterday. There were only about 3 non-Cub participants in the STOL contest. A 160 Pacer, a 170, and an early 172 with fat tires. Both Cessna's had the 145 Continental, 170 had an 80-43 prop and the 172 had a 76-49. All three did very well, not too competitive with the Cubs but then again they get you there alot quicker. The 170 and 172 had very similar performance. The 172 may have even had shorter TO due to more available ange of attack. Also seems to me that landing the 172 might be easier due to control of the angle of attack at touchdown might be less critical.

Eric

GumpAir wrote: A little trim tab is not a stabilator, and without being able to move the whole flying surface to where you need it for t/o and landings, especially if it's hot and you're heavy, it makes for a really clumsy airplane.

Gump

Not to nit pick...

But I think you mean a trimable horizontal stabilizer (like a Super Cub), not a stabilator (like a Cherokee or my Musketeer).

As I research less expensive aircraft that can haul a load into grass strips I have found that having a trimable horizontal stabilizer or a stabilator is a very nice thing to have. With my Musketeer when I'm at gross (2350lb) and it's hot (90deg 3000' den alt) the plane flys the same as when light; it just doesn't accelerate or climb as fast.

-Todd Giencke

tgiencke wrote:

GumpAir wrote: A little trim tab is not a stabilator, and without being able to move the whole flying surface to where you need it for t/o and landings, especially if it's hot and you're heavy, it makes for a really clumsy airplane.

Gump

Not to nit pick...

But I think you mean a trimable horizontal stabilizer (like a Super Cub), not a stabilator (like a Cherokee or my Musketeer).

I stand corrected.

My '57 C180 POH calls it an "adjustable stabilizer." The change from fixed stabilizer/trim tab in the earlier small Cessnas, to the entire surface being trimable, made for a quantum leap in performance, and in my opinion, really helped make the 180 series, especially the early models, one of the sweetest flying airplanes out there.

Gump

mtv wrote:Zane,

I've flown one 172 with the tailwheel conversion, and it was precisely as Gump described it. That tail just isn't right for that job.

Dogman, did you do most of the work on your plane yourself?? That seems like a pretty low cost estimate if you had to hire someone to do the work. Just curious.

Sounds like a great machine, in any case. Point is, there are lots of ways to get to where you want to go.

MTV

Purchased the airframe 2800TT, bad engine. $14k, sold the engine for $6K and went to work.
I hired much of the work done and I had the work bid and the price would be decided before work was done, which I think helped a bunch. The wings were found by me and then hired out to rebuild. The horizontal was bought and rebuilt . The engine is a Superior engine Kit. I bought a O-360 a1a and took the tag off ,Sold for parts and had the kit ordered and built. Old Tag went on the new engine. It can't be a considered Zero time engine but the every bit of it is brand New. That saved a lot of money!
Purchased the Prop over the internet off of a new Husky that the owner had changed to the composite prop. My prop had 100hrs SNEW when installed. New Mags New Vac Pump Bought and rebuilt the Alt., rebuilt Prop Governor and Carburetor.

I did a lot of disassembly and stripping. Painted it in pieces in a Auto Paint both. Great paint job and able to cover all surfaces.
Removed and inspected gear legs stripped and repainted New brake lines ,Fuel lines, Wheels, Replaced and rebuilt Nose strut,Headliner, Carpet,All Glass replaced. She is all corrosion free. and should stay that way for a long time.
Also Has new style steam gauges. It also Bought and installed Kx155/GS,GNC300 ifr approach cert, Has G340 audio. Transponder. All the radios were Bought out of wrecks and yellow tagged with a warrenty.

I helped and did what i could and this took 2yrs to complete.

Its not perfect it has a couple waves in the engine cowling and a couple dings in the wing tips but I wasn't trying to build a Beauty queen I wanted a safe dependable air plane.

I think the biggest money saver was managing the job myself. The biggest hurdle was getting the 175 wings approved on the 172.

I learned a lot. My second Plane first was a Pa-32-260, which i sold on completion of the 172

Dogman wrote:I learned a lot.

Very smart way to go. You now know your airplane better than anyone, and if something breaks or doesn't feel right, you'll know where to look and how to fix it. Comes in handy when broke down a couple hundred miles from anywhere.

Bought my first airplane in the late 60's when I was 16. An in-the-box, basket case PA-18 with an O-235. Spent a year doing welding/fabric/wiring and engine rebuild, then learned to fly in her. Four years later she took me to Alaska and my first flying job.

That little airplane (still flying up there by the way) taught me more about flying and life in general, and opened several lifetime's worth of doors. I still get a tear or two when I think back on that little Cub.

Gump

Dogman,

Sounds like you did well. You obviously did a lot of the work yourself, at least in finding stuff, and paperwork exercises. Most folks fail to realize that mechanics charge by the hour, even if they're looking up part numbers for your new alternator and calling someone to order it.

Enjoy your machine, as you say, it should last a while.

MTV

I have thought for a long time that a C175 w/180 lyc. and CSP was the best bang for the buck. Fairly easy to find, usually not too many hours on them. airly roomy, lots of room under the cowl. I like the earlier years because you can make a good taildragger out of the. Metal tanks, Real basic plane, minimal maintenance (hopefully). That being said, I have a buddy with one with a 220 hp. Franklin. Talk about a little hot rod. If I had it to do over again, that is the way I would go. 150 mph., 9 gal./hr. good TBO., smooth engine, light flying, climb like a SOB. The fuel thing is a little misleading. I think these have about 9 gals. unuseable. So there's my $.02 Gary

This happen to me yesterday at the Maule fly in. We went to Cut Bank, Mt. for gas. Run way 25 was under repair so 4 of us landed on the grass next to 25. We should have back taxied but we were all landing one after another, so we took a short cut. This is what can happen when you drop into a badger hole.

Two hours later with the help of Rick and other friends, a donor TW and I'm flying again. I believe if I was using a nose wheel I would have bent something real expensive and would still be there.

If ya want to go off the pavement take your checkbook.

Don't take this as a nosedragger is better than a taildragger because during the ground run if a nose/tailwheel hits a big rut/rock the tailwheel will do better.

If you do the 172 get the prop tweaked for climb. Fly light, and early while it is cool and the air is calm. Regards...Rob

Or, you could have put a main gear tire into the hole with that Maule, and it would have gotten just about as expensive as the nosegear deal.

Badger holes will do that to you..

MTV

Beefed up hawk with engine, prop and wheel upgrades


hawk with 180 ponies Nanwalek AK. 8.50 mains and 800 nose


175 Skylark Ex CAP a/c sitting on Rebar field (Whittier AK) airport directory warns of rebar iron on runway.


Stout as a brick shit-house 1956 182 with cowl mods, prop, engine, fork and wheel upgrades (Palmer AK)

What's the strap around the cowl on that last 182? Fasteners shot so they stuck a tie down round the cowl and ratcheted it up?

So, to all you Maule guys: I have considered a Maule in all of my thoughts about this. I even have have an hour with Ray Maule in a MX7-160 (I know it ain't much) in my very-thin logbook. It was a blast and I have been a fan of Maules ever since. I always check them out in TAP and agree that they look to be a big bang for the buck. My concern would be parts availability for those Franklin engines. Can somebody address these concerns? Would a Maule with the Conti 210 hp be comparable to the 220 Franklin, while mitigating some of the parts issues?
Thanks again, Wes

Wes wrote:So, to all you Maule guys: I have considered a Maule in all of my thoughts about this. I even have have an hour with Ray Maule in a MX7-160 (I know it ain't much) in my very-thin logbook. It was a blast and I have been a fan of Maules ever since. I always check them out in TAP and agree that they look to be a big bang for the buck. My concern would be parts availability for those Franklin engines. Can somebody address these concerns? Would a Maule with the Conti 210 hp be comparable to the 220 Franklin, while mitigating some of the parts issues?
Thanks again, Wes

Some of the Continental IO-360 engines are derated in horsepower, depending on the model plane. Not sure about the Maules.

Edit: Duh, sorry, its very early this morning (AK time and all), no the IO-360's in the M*-210's are not derated, but if you want the 210hp, why not just get the O-540 and get a bit more? My guess is the M*-210's are more inexpensive for a reason. Some folks on here might know more about the version of the IO-360 that went into the Maules, I remember some buzz about them but can't recall the specifics.

As for the Franklin 220 horse, it is hard to find new parts for them, but in my experience finding yellow-tagged parts is relatively easy. A generally reliable engine. I flew a 172 with the Franklin 220 in it once, jeez what a rocket ship, I can imagine what it'd be like in a Maule - fun!

The Maule M-4 was available with a 220 Franklin, or a 210 Continental (IO-360) as the top line motors. The 210 Continental is a good engine, if you treat it right, like any other engine.

RIght now, you can get Franklin engines and parts. The company has come and gone several times over the last few years. There are used parts around in any case, and of course some stock of new parts in inventory. But the engines have a really spotty history of support.

MTV

I have the IO 360 in mine and I'm loving it. The fuel injection part is different in the start procedure since you have to use a boost pump, which I just had to have rebuilt, to start. Also I've been told that sometimes it's hard to restart a hot engine but I haven't had that experience yet. YellowMaule also has one and has had his longer than me. Everyone who has one says run them hard. The engine was made to run hard and strong. I usually run 24 or 25 squared most of the time and get about 140-150 MPH cruise speeds on a good day. You can tell a Franklin from a continental M4 by the bottom of the cowl. If there's a air scoop tunnel under there it's a Franklin. Continentals have no scoop. As of now I have only had minor problems with the airplane and those were due to some lax maintenance by the previous owner. It does perform though. Tail up fast and back on the yoke and you're off. Just put in patroller doors and I absolutely love them. Looking straight down is a new experience and watching your wheels turn as you taxi is different to say the least.

Wes, there is no one plane that can do it all. The one's that come closest usually cost to much.

So what's a guy to do? You have started in the right place. There is so much knowledge on this site, it's great. Don't be in a hurry, and do your home work. Get what ever you buy checked out REAL good! Surprises suck.

Get what your comfortable with. Regards...Rob

I'll second what Rob said. Every one is a compromise of one sort or another. Pick your priorities and stick to your budget and what ever you wind up with, fly it a lot. You can have a great plane and not be very good at flying it or you can have a plane that may not have big tires, long ranges or do 250 mph and have a great time with it.
A friend of mine has a 1937 T-craft that he rebuilt some 20 years ago. He upgraded to the Big engine from the original 37 hp Continental. Now with his 65-hp monster he goes every where with it, clamming, picniking, you name it. It is one the neatest planes I have ever been in. He averages about 200 hours a year and is in his mid eighties.
I don't feel that I'm current if I have not flown the Peril in a couple of weeks. I don't care that the FAA says 90 days, that's just me though.