I am going to meet with the Maule rep tomorrow and fly a MT-7-235. I have never flown a Maule, so I am really looking forward to it. One big question I see is the useful load. Their website shows 835lb useful load. That sure seems awful low to me, am I missing something?

Thanks,
D.

ddivinia wrote:I am going to meet with the Maule rep tomorrow and fly a MT-7-235. I have never flown a Maule, so I am really looking forward to it. One big question I see is the useful load. Their website shows 835lb useful load. That sure seems awful low to me, am I missing something?

Thanks,
D.

Can't help you with the M7 but my 1970 M4 220 has right at a 1000 pound usefull on wheels. My recent restoration took 60 pounds off the thing.

Don't EVER believe a manufacturer's stated useful load for ANY airplane.

When you go to fly the demo airplane, ask to see the ACTUAL weight and balance for THAT airplane, specifically. You're actually required to verify its presence and that you are legal anyway.

I'm betting that 800 to 900 is pretty close, with some having less.

MTV

My M-6 is something like 940. I know the new ones are heavier, but they haven't gotten that heavy have they? My M-6 is a heavy M-6. I thought a 1000 lbs was pretty much standard for a Maule.

Our old TriPacer with a tailwheel's legal load is 840lb's. A Maule is just a tarted up TriPacer so that weight makes sense. Come on all you one eyed Maule lovers, you won't put up with that will you?

The tarted up Pacer thing has been done, The old M-4 especially has a lot of similarties. Besides what's wrong with tracing your heritage to a Pacer? If Piper had put a 220 hp engine in the Pacer, maybe they would still be in production.
One eyed? Are you implying what I think you are?

Student Pilot wrote:Our old TriPacer with a tailwheel's legal load is 840lb's. A Maule is just a tarted up TriPacer so that weight makes sense. Come on all you one eyed Maule lovers, you won't put up with that will you?

So, does that mean you're gonna run out and get yourself some "MAULEISH" stickers for your wing tips?

a64pilot wrote:The tarted up Pacer thing has been done, The old M-4 especially has a lot of similarties. Besides what's wrong with tracing your heritage to a Pacer? If Piper had put a 220 hp engine in the Pacer, maybe they would still be in production

Nothing wrong with admitting Maule copied from that fine flying machine a Pacer is, just some won't.

Just realize the Pacer wasn't the first airplane. I'm sure if you put it beside an even older design, you'd be surprised in how similar they were.
Didn't Clyde Cessna invent the V tail?
Very few good airplanes are revolutionary. Most of the good ones are evolutionary. That is they evolve over time from a proven design. Unfortunately almost all designs pick up weight as they evolve.

a64pilot wrote:Just realize the Pacer wasn't the first airplane. .

The first Aircraft would be the NZ design that was the first Aircraft to fly. Even those brothers who were the second people to fly (Wrights) copied an immense amount off a bloke called Hargreaves who did a lot of development work with aerofoils, kites and tethered lifting devices.

a64pilot wrote: Didn't Clyde Cessna invent the V tail?

Didn't a fella by the name of Leonardo Da Vinci have a design for an inverted V tail on a glider?

a64pilot wrote: Very few good airplanes are revolutionary. Most of the good ones are evolutionary. That is they evolve over time from a proven design. Unfortunately almost all designs pick up weight as they evolve.

Does that make them necceserely any better? or just different? Some ealier 502's (with triangle truss fuses) I've flown out performed the later 502 B's by a long margin. Even some of the very low serial number Beavers can lift more than later newer machines. Does that make them better? Not to me, if it gets of the ground it's all good.

ddivinia wrote:I am going to meet with the Maule rep tomorrow and fly a MT-7-235. I have never flown a Maule, so I am really looking forward to it. One big question I see is the useful load. Their website shows 835lb useful load. That sure seems awful low to me, am I missing something?

Thanks,
D.

The Maule has put on a few pounds over the years but worry not!

Hottshot wrote:

ddivinia wrote:I am going to meet with the Maule rep tomorrow and fly a MT-7-235. I have never flown a Maule, so I am really looking forward to it. One big question I see is the useful load. Their website shows 835lb useful load. That sure seems awful low to me, am I missing something?

Thanks,
D.

The Maule has put on a few pounds over the years but worry not!

-----


Yeah - just trying to do my homework. Even though it has extra seats, not sure it will be in the running when compared to a Husky.

Thanks,
D.

If you don't have any need for the extra room and higher cruise speed then the Maule won't be in the running compared to a Husky. The one great thing to me about my Maule is what you can put in it with the rear seat removed and both of those rear doors open. I true out at altitude between 132 and 136 kts. depending on what I don't know, but with that speed and a 5.5 hour endurance it's a decent cross country machine.

MT-235 is fun. As a CFI I flew right seat for several hours in a new one that is decked out with G430, autopilot and HSI with 85 gallon tanks.

I've landed the MT-235 in 25 knots continuous 90 degree crosswind. No problems at all, and with no danger of ground looping.

Only thing I missed was the extra flaps the taildragger has, and it didn't seem to turn as sharp on the ground as comparable nose wheel Cessnas. I also felt like I would smack the tail on really high performance takeoffs and landings.

I wouldn't hesitate to take the MT into the Idaho airstrips, except maybe the rougher strips like Dewey Moore, Mile Hi, etc. I think it's one of the best values going for a high performance machine.

ddivinia wrote:
[/quote] Even though it has extra seats, not sure it will be in the running when compared to a Husky.

I don't understand how pilots can compare a Husky and a Maule M-7 or MT-7. I mean no disrespect to the Husky owners out there but come on.
I have gone camping in my Maule and have loaded myself and my wife with both of our full size (nonfolding) adult mountain bikes (just take off the front tire on quick release, one minute job)
two sleeping bags
tent
two pillows
9" thick inflatable airmattress & pump (works out of Maule aux powerlet)
50 lbs of fire wood
hatchet
6 pack of her choice, usually Tecate with lime
shotgun
some extra cloths
food for the camp fire and some good reading and water
This all fit with no problem, nothing was touching my back windows.
Try to do this in your Husky or tripacer. From what i have seen this may be difficult in the C-180 also, but the 180 is cooler then a husky.
Never mind you pay more money and fly slower in the Husky
I don't really like to sit in between the legs of my friends either, but it is cool because you wife can give you a back massage while flying and scratch your head when feeling confused or you can tickle her toes.
The husky is a bad machine don't get me wrong i would like one but why pay more for less options. Never mind if you're based out of high alt. airports, you will enjoy the extra horse power. In Durango the airpark is at about 7000'

Unless you are not confident in your landing skills(for insurance reasons) i agree with Hottshot and would not worry about the weight. I have 85 gallons and when i take four people I try to have only the mains full. this 43 gallons gives me 3 full hours at 75% w/half our reserve. and if there is full in the aux tanks it goes up just the same.
I have seen 4 adults and one 14 yr old step out of a MT-7 235 for breakfast.

I wonder if there is much of an insurance break on the nosewheel Maule verses the real Maule, er, I mean real plane...I mean tail wheel Maule?

I camped under the wing of my M5 out at Oskosh this year. Took enough gear to open a motel.

Man it was nice traveling with a large Coleman cooler full of ice, drinks and food.

People that were walking by kept stopping and looking in the airplane because they couldn't believe all the room, especially with the back seat out and the luggage door open.

It was really funny at the Glasair Sportster booth. They had a big sign that said "Can you carry all this gear?" along side a good stack of stuff. The sales guys asked that question of me. Well "YEAH!" They were a little taken back.

Never, never underestimate the value of being able to carry a lot of stuff. It has made my life so much easier and I go on many more trips than I would have otherwise.

I fly 170-B / 180 hp my Avemco insurance is a lot closer to $1,500 yr. ?!?

It was really funny at the Glasair Sportster booth. They had a big sign that said "Can you carry all this gear?" along side a good stack of stuff. The sales guys asked that question of me. Well "YEAH!" They were a little taken back.

Hahaha...you probably could have piled it on top of all the stuff you brought with you on the trip.

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:17 pm

I fly 170-B / 180 hp my Avemco insurance is a lot closer to $1,500 yr. ?!?

Ya...$2100 is high, but it's based on a 100 hour pilot and a $80K hull value. The actual hull value would probably be much less, but I wanted and apples to apples comparison.