Skystrider wrote: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.

Last fall I flew out alone to a remote lake. I had to camp there for 3 days in order to stake out some property that I got drawn for. I'm 90 miles away from anything and alone in bear country. I brought along this small tent (if you could call it a tent) that is basically for one person that's not much larger than my sleeping bag. I had four 6' 4x4 posts, chain saw, 5 gal water, 5 gal gas, large action packer, post hole digger, shovel, rifle, stove, back pack and all the other camping and working gear I needed. When I got there I cleared a nice path from the lake to the tent. Well, that night, the wind was blowing and, of course, I had my 7mm Mag next to me. Well, I could not go to sleep. I kept thinking that there was no room in that tent to swing my gun if need be, I'd basically cleared a nice little bear trail right to my tent and every snapping twig from the wind had me at heightened alert. Finally, I gave up. I went to the plane, took out the co-pilot seat (back seat was already out) and I threw my sleeping bag on the floor and got a nice night sleep rocking with the waves. I'm 6'-3" and was able to sleep stretched out with my pillow resting on the oleo framework. Might be able to do the same thing in a 180 but not sure there are many others out there where I could do that.

Well, let's see: Maule insurance costs are high and going higher.

I wonder why?

1) Ground handling

2) Waeellllll Shiiiifffttt--I can cram ALL my worldly possessions in there, and slam the doors and the thing will fly JUST FINE!!

The man asked the legitimate question: WHAT is the LEGAL useful load of the airplane.

You can cram all that crap in there all you like, and one of these days you'll discover the cold hard facts.

Have em engrave a nice stone for you NOW, with the words "I can stuff everthing I own in that there airplane, and it'll fly jus fine".

A fitting epitaph.

Duh.

MTV

mtv wrote:Well, let's see: Maule insurance costs are high and going higher.

I wonder why?

1) Ground handling

2) Waeellllll Shiiiifffttt--I can cram ALL my worldly possessions in there, and slam the doors and the thing will fly JUST FINE!!

The man asked the legitimate question: WHAT is the LEGAL useful load of the airplane.

You can cram all that crap in there all you like, and one of these days you'll discover the cold hard facts.

Have em engrave a nice stone for you NOW, with the words "I can stuff everthing I own in that there airplane, and it'll fly jus fine".

A fitting epitaph.

Duh.

MTV

Oh come on Mike we all know that the "Ground handleing" is more due to the loose nut behinde the wheel, and the darn thing is not a T-cart or a J-3 it is a High performance airplane that needs to be treated as such. The reason for high insurance is not the fault of the airplane it is the fault of the owners and the claim rate. that is unless the airplanes themselves realy do veer off the runway on their own...... I mean if it is the airplanes fault you sure as heck better not look at a HUSKY!!!!!


Give me a Brake! and you don't ever hear that from the Husky and Cub guys either

2) Waeellllll Shiiiifffttt--I can cram ALL my worldly possessions in there, and slam the doors and the thing will fly JUST FINE!!



Ok I'm done ranting fo now

Now MTV,
The older Maules have 1/2 ton useful load. They in fact can carry all of that crap, and do it legally. I'm surprised the new ones got that heavy, but with the extra seat and bigger fuselage and spring gear, I guess that's about right. The M-9 if and when it comes is supposed to have an 1100 lb. useful load. Add the options and you will still have that 1/2 ton useful load.
But yes the man asked a legitimate question, an important question.

mtv wrote:Well, let's see: Maule insurance costs are high and going higher.

I wonder why?

1) Ground handling

2) Waeellllll Shiiiifffttt--I can cram ALL my worldly possessions in there, and slam the doors and the thing will fly JUST FINE!!

The man asked the legitimate question: WHAT is the LEGAL useful load of the airplane.

You can cram all that crap in there all you like, and one of these days you'll discover the cold hard facts.

Have em engrave a nice stone for you NOW, with the words "I can stuff everthing I own in that there airplane, and it'll fly jus fine".

A fitting epitaph.

Duh.

MTV

Don't go jumping to conclusions too fast MTV...I said nothing about weight...the stuff I had with me was bulky but not heavy. I don't think I was up to gross (I know...I said "don't think"). I've got about 1000 useful, subtract my 220 lbs and 240 fuel and I've got enough for 540 pounds of gear which wasn't even close to what I had in there. Since I'm on a "shortish" float pond, if I'm not off the water by 3/4 pond it's not going to come off the water...time to un-load. By the way, I was able to climb out at 1150 fpm with that load (thanks to that new prop) so that should give some insight as to where I stood on the weight and balance that day.
I'm more than aware of a decent weight and balance. The FAA allows a 10% gross increas in Alaska for the commercial guys. No reason I can't tack that 10% on mine as well...other than the fact that I'm not commercial that would give me 730 pounds of cargo ability that day.

MTV: a few things here. 1st the man never asked what the useful was he clearly stated it 835lbs! Duh!! he asked if he is missing something. No sir you are not missing anything, thats what is stated on Maule's website.

Well, let's see: Maule insurance costs are high and going higher.???
Is this actually true?? My insurance went down alittle more then 50% in the first year, and then more then 10% the second year!

If anyones insurance is going up it's because they did something stupid or are shitty pilots when landing their machine or their engine went out and they HAD to stuff it into the trees or the water. maybe engine out on takeoff, not likely why "Maule insurance is going up though"

Ground handling: If someone can't handle a tailwheel airplane they should not have bought one. Tailwheels need to be flown often by there owners, and if a guy can't commit then please go w/the nose wheel. 40 hours a year is not good enough unless you're a fairweather pilot.

Wheel shift: well lets learn to use the brakes at the same time as pushing on the rudder pedals. i love when my wheels shift (what ever that means exactly) so i can practice more, and be better suited for next time.

I really don't apprieciate the whole grave stone epitaph thing. and to suggest it's engraving now makes it sound like your saying i'm going to kill me and my wife. My bird fly GREAT at gross and over. "just fine"

mtv wrote:Well, let's see: Maule insurance costs are high and going higher.

I wonder why?

1) Ground handling

2) Waeellllll Shiiiifffttt--I can cram ALL my worldly possessions in there, and slam the doors and the thing will fly JUST FINE!!

The man asked the legitimate question: WHAT is the LEGAL useful load of the airplane.

You can cram all that crap in there all you like, and one of these days you'll discover the cold hard facts.

Have em engrave a nice stone for you NOW, with the words "I can stuff everthing I own in that there airplane, and it'll fly jus fine".

A fitting epitaph.

Duh.

MTV

Who really knows why insurance costs are the way they are. There have been two Maule wrecks last week here. One was the reversed elevator issue and another was a crash into the side of a mountain while spotting sheep. Neither accident related to the BRAND of airplane but likely noticed by the insurance companies. There was a Maule that spun in a few years ago because the pilot tried to turn around and get back to the lake after discovering she took off on an empty tanks. Had a Maule go down in the mountains because the top skin came off the wing as a result of excess speed and incorrect rivets being used during a re-skin...again, neither accident related to the brand of plane...but certainly a bad mark against Maules.
My plane has had 2 wrecks in the past (not by me)...both related to ground handling.
They can bite you if you're sleeping during take off and landing...but again, that's not the plane's fault. I think the Cessnas are more forgiving during those stages due to their longer coupling. The insurance companies seem to realize this since they'll reduce your premiums once a pilot builds some time. A maule pilot with several hundred accident free hours has shown competence with the plane whereas the guy that jumps in the thing after 40 hours of 150 time and a big ego is the one that gives the Maule a slap in the face and the high insurance rates.
I've honestly never heard of a Maule going down because it was over-loaded...not saying it hasn't happened though. I have heard of a Piper going down because of being over loaded though.

Now guy's it's a fact that Maules have a higher accident rate than Cessna's for example. So we are either less proficient pilots or the airplane is more likely to bite you. Another fact, a Maule has a high power to weight ratio and is short coupled. That's a fact.
Insurance is simply a matter of statistics.
I got a kid that's about ready to start learning to fly. I'm looking for a Cessna 120 / 140 for that. No way would I let him in the Maule by himself.

mtv wrote: Waeellllll Shiiiifffttt

I interpreted that as a southern vernacular for "well, shit."

Capt. Kirk I really like that "mauleish" comment to Student pilot
And again i agree w/Capt kirk Don't jump to conclusions MTV. There maybe a chance that we Maule pilots live even thought we put a lot of shit in our planes. To suggest other wise seems unfitting of the website.

My Maule: empty weight: 1734lbs with both back seat and back bench.
gross: 2500lbs
useful: 766lbs you gotta see the plane though
Myself and wife =310lbs
firewood =50lbs
2nonfold mynbks=55lbs
=415lbs

2 pillows
2 quality sleeping bags
Seirra Designs tent
shotgun
hatchet
6 pack of good beer
extra cloths
water
unneccessarly large airmattress
=46lbs
415+46=461lbs 766-461=305lbs/6lbs per gallon (about)=50 gallons
50gallons/11gph fuel burn give the two of us and all that shit 4.5 hours.
And lookie lookie i'm still at 2500lbs Duh! And when i crash i will surely be lighter do to fuel burn. If I take less fuel i'm sure i can fit that head stone MTV was discribing earlyer.

If a pilot screws up and groundloops it's his fault not the plane.

OK back to the original thread. useful loads
Maule M-7 235 Oloe gear - 895lbs
M-7 235 Spring gr - 847lbs
MT-7 235 - 835lbs as stated in the 1st post
MX-7 180 Oloe -1062lbs
MX-7 180 Spring -1017lbs

Husky A-1A -700lbs
Husky A-1b -810lbs all these #'s are avg. depends on the
options. like mine! i got almost all of
them so mines is heavy.
Like i said earlier Husky's cost more go slower and can't even consider carrying all that stuff. Unless your going to fly out of your darn backyard i would go with the maule. Man i would like to own a husky too. but why not a super cub? MTV i'm sorry you just got under my skin alittle.

Jesus! It's a type war!

Zane, "what type of plane should i buy" is getting ugly...

Okay,

To clarify a few things:

1) Kirk, you described (grossly incorrectly) two Maule accidents of which you obviously have NO information. I was good friends with both pilots, and at least one of the passengers, as well as both spouses. In fact, I was on the scene of one of those accidents as the NTSB was doing their investigation of it. Your descriptions of BOTH those accidents is wrong--dead wrong. But, in fact, neither has anything to do with this discussion. In short, you do not know what you are talking about on these accidents.

Oh--and a "shortish" float pond???? I assume you are talking Chena Marina?? Good grief!!! That qualifies as an International caliber float pond. Try Kodiak Lilly Lake, where I worked a Beaver, a 206 and a Super Cub for 8 years--at 2200 feet long.

Finally, the FAA DOES NOT, under ANY circumstances, permit ANY commercial operator in Alaska or elsewhere, to operate at 10 % in excess of legal gross weight. If you would take the time to actually ASK a commercial operator that question, they'd tell you that, after they got done laughing.

Guys--everyone jumps my case cause I'm bad mouthing Maules. For the record, if you all would please read my POST, I did not, and am not, bad mouthing MAULES. Everybody says "Hey it isn't the Maule, its the Maule pilots".

My point precisely, folks.

The Maule is a good airplane. It is short coupled, so ground handling is a bit of a challenge. Not impossible, not even extreme, but a bit of a challenge. Anyone who says he will never ground loop ANY taildragger best be prepared to eat those words. Maules do just fine, as long as the DRIVER respects their needs, and handles them with respect and skill. It's the pilots, folks, not the airplane.

Second, they are (relatively) inexpensive to purchase, for the capability you get. I'd say that's a good thing--for the buyer, right? Is that bad mouthing the airplane?

Unfortunately, this means that some people who are singularly unqualified to operate the airplanes, and who are too egotistical to seek good transition training, buy the airplane, and those folks wind up increasing the accident record and hence insurance rates for everyone.

The airplane is very powerful as well, further attracting the numbnuts with bucks and testosterone, who fail to get checked out in the plane. Does that sound like a slam on the airplane?? Nope--its the pilots, folks.

People who cavalierly discuss how much crap they stuff in their airplanes, and then to vindicate themselves, actually (after the fact) have to do a no shit weight and balance to vindicate themselves, just piss me off.

Please forgive me for being a jerk here, but I've WORKED airplanes for a living for 38 damn years now. I've heard all this testosterone laden crap about gross weight HUNDREDS of times, and I've attended funerals of dumb shits who just weren't smart enough to figure out what actually results from exceeding the manufacturer's limitations.

And, NO, it isn't the wings coming off the thing that is apt to result from exceeding the maximum legal gross weight of the airplane.

Figure it out, people. Does that sound like a critique of the Maule??

It's the pilots, people.

As to insurance rates....Motorcitymaule wrote: "Well, let's see: Maule insurance costs are high and going higher.???
Is this actually true?? My insurance went down alittle more then 50% in the first year, and then more then 10% the second year!"

Well, duh--even I can figure that one out: Let me guess--You had no Maule time, and probably little tailwheel time to start, and flew the airplane safely the first couple years. Good for you, but that has NOTHING to do with industry wide insurance rates. THose are based on actuarials, and the Maule's actuarials are not looking good right now.

But, IT'S the PILOTS, people.

Show me ANYTHING in my post which slammed the airplane, and I will happily retract it.

It's the pilots, as noted by a couple of the "reactors" here. And that is what I was getting at from the first.

The airplane has never, not once, been known to overload itself. In fact, most thinking individuals would recognize that the airplane is in fact, incapable of doing that.

It's the pilots, folks.

But, just keep on ranting, and going back and doing W & B after the fact....

MTV

I’m no Chuck Yeager and I can fly a Maule just fine thank you very much. I pay attention and keep my head out of the used food ejection port.


When I bought my Maule I could have got any plane in the 150K range. That includes all the planes we are talking about. IMHO there is nothing out there with as much bang for the buck as the Maule.

I like the idea of being inside the tube cage also. I think it is safer. If aluminum skin is safer than tube then all race vehicles would be built like a Cessna.

I got a 2000 Maule M7 235 90TT .6 Hr. on the engine from Lycoming with the crank AD completed. Tons of options. IFR 4 package $14000.00 and it looked like NEW! All for 130K I shopped for a year. Nothing else came close.

I like the way you sit in a Cessna better. If I had more money I would get the Bush Hawk. Buy what makes YOU happy! ANY plane is better than no plane or renting.


Cheers…Rob

Mike why do you always sugar coat it. Just tell us how you really feel

Man, I didn't mean to start a war here. I was just curious about the useful load. I am no expert on the Maule (any plane n fact). I did indeed go fly the MT-7-235. It is a nice plane. The short field performance makes one believe that picture of a Maule taking off out of the hangar.

All these talks of real world loads really makes me wonder how many planes are flown over the numbers. I am sure there is a safety factor in there, but I guess my CFIs have done a good job of drilling weight and balance into me to really keep an eye on it.

Thanks,
D.

1) Kirk, you described (grossly incorrectly) two Maule accidents of which you obviously have NO information. I was good friends with both pilots, and at least one of the passengers, as well as both spouses. In fact, I was on the scene of one of those accidents as the NTSB was doing their investigation of it. Your descriptions of BOTH those accidents is wrong--dead wrong. But, in fact, neither has anything to do with this discussion. In short, you do not know what you are talking about on these accidents.

First off, I'm truly sorry about the loss of your friends in those accidents.
Next, I was repeating what was told to me by a mechanic (who I thought had the inside scoop) and what I read in the paper. Again, my apologies if that information was incorrect. I am interested in what happened though so if you feel like it I'd appreciate a PM with the causes.

Oh--and a "shortish" float pond???? I assume you are talking Chena Marina??

That was said with respect to flying with a heavy load...if I can't get out of there by 3/4 of the pond it would be a clear indication that the thing was too heavy. When I'm recreational flying I can get out of there in 1/4 to 1/3 the length...so, no it's not short but it's not the tanana river either.

Finally, the FAA DOES NOT, under ANY circumstances, permit ANY commercial operator in Alaska or elsewhere, to operate at 10 % in excess of legal gross weight

You're gonna make me look it up arent' you? I know I've read it in either the AK Supplement or the FAR's (can't remember which right now) about there being a 10% weight increase allowed in Alaska. I knew about this clause back in 88 when I made my first trip to Alaska and noticed it again in the regs about a year ago. I don't have my FAR handy right now...I'll e-mail my brother to see if he can quote me the page and or section.

Not sure I ever accused you of bad-mouthing Maules...if I did...sorry. Frankly, I don't really care if anyone bad-mouths Maules...I like my plane and that's all that matters to me. I kinda like the typical "My Super Cub is better than your Maule" and the "Franklins are shit" banter just because I've been putting up with it for 20+ years. Never expected the Cessna boys to want to join in on the reindeer games though...the more the merrier I guess.

I'm sure your resume' far exceeds anything I could accomplish in my life span and you should be proud of that. It's also likely that your piloting skills are finer honed than mine are but I don't think it's fair of you to say that I'm going to kill myself because I don't do a weight and balance calculation every time I put a 6 pack of pop in the back seat. My plane has been in my family for about 25 years and I was fumbling around on the controls with my dad before I had a license. I cut my teeth on that plane and, from the time I was working on my ticket to the time I purchased the Maule from my dad I owned a 48 Luscombe which, apparently to some, also seems to have a reputation for squirley ground handling.
What I'm saying is that I know my plane...I know when I need to look at the weight and balance...and no, it's not with every load. I am a cautious pilot and no, I'm not full of testosterone.
I've actually got an Excel spread sheet on my computer (recently updated with the new W&B numbers) so I can quickly check a load when it warrants a check. I just did a check on flying my boss and fuel out to Moose Camp. I can get (3) 15 gallon jugs of fuel and him out there in one trip. The weight is slightly over but the CG is right in the middle of the envelope.

Again, sorry for the loss of your friends.

ddivinia wrote:Man, I didn't mean to start a war here. I was just curious about the useful load. I am no expert on the Maule (any plane n fact). I did indeed go fly the MT-7-235. It is a nice plane. The short field performance makes one believe that picture of a Maule taking off out of the hangar.

All these talks of real world loads really makes me wonder how many planes are flown over the numbers. I am sure there is a safety factor in there, but I guess my CFIs have done a good job of drilling weight and balance into me to really keep an eye on it.

Thanks,
D.

Glad you had a good test flight. Regardless of what plane you get you should continue to keep an eye on your weight and balance. I don't think this recent discussion began as a result of how much over weight a plane can go but rather how much volume could be hauled. Maybe we should have stated we could haul 200 pounds of those styrafoam peanuts and it wouldn't even come up to the bottom of the windows. Maybe that would have avoided the weight discussion.

Kirk,

Don't bother to look up the reg on over gross ops. It is there, in the FAR. However, as I said, talk to any 135 operator, and ask them if their OP SPECS permit utilization of that 10 % over. It hasn't happened for MANY years, and will never happen again. The Op Spec is what a 135 operator lives and breathes by, and those delineate specifically what they can and cannot do with regard to W & B. THAT is what they go by. That FAR also permits the DOI to operate at 10 % over, and in very limited circumstances, they may still do so, but that too is very rare nowadays, and generally restricted to specific airplanes. In this case, it's sort of moot, because those are Public Use aircraft anyway, and therefore not subject to the FAR.

I'm not casting aspersions on anyone who owns a Maule, or any other airplane, nor, as I pointed out, am I casting aspersions on the plane itself.

My point was and is, that if you take the attitude that W & B calculations are for the other guys, and shove everything in the back and go, you will at some point add to the accident statistics, methinks.

Weight and Balance limitations are important, and should be verified PRIOR to every flight. Yes, if all you have aboard is a six pack of pop, and half gas, fine. There have been many times flying a work airplane that I did not CALCULATE a W & B for a flight, but I could tell you, based on the weight and where I loaded it in THAT airplane precisely where I was in regards to weight and CG. That is legal, and reasonable.

When you start discussing accidents, particularly fatals, you have to be VERY careful to be sure you know the facts, rather than hearsay.

MTV

I just got done getting insurance quotes for various airplanes. A Maule was $1100 more per year than a Cessna 180, and a Husky was $1200 more. When I asked why, the answer was simple: they have a higher claim rate. I suspect a lot of that has to do with an average pilot seeing what a superb pilot can do in a short field plane, then trying to duplicate it. Sort of like a novice photographer buying a top of the line camera and believing they can get National Geographic quality images.

I didn't ask, but I'd guess the premium for a super cub would be similar. I don't think anyone in the insurance industry thinks Maule's are inherently more dangerous than any other plane, they just know what people are buying them for, and they know how often they have to pay to replace them.

Don't bother to look up the reg on over gross ops. It is there, in the FAR. However, as I said, talk to any 135 operator, and ask them if their OP SPECS permit utilization of that 10 % over. It hasn't happened for MANY years, and will never happen again.

My brother, who flies commercial here, also confirms what you said. I thought I was loosing my mind there for a minute...I know I read it in there. I have no intention of upping my allowable gross by 230 pounds just because I fly in Alaska. To me, what it does imply is that there is a bit of a "reserve" built into that allowable gross weight for no other reason than the region a plane is flown. One of my friends indicated that he thinks it only applied to certain aircraft too...but I don't recall seeing that.

Again, you're not going to get any arguement from me on the importance of weight and balance. I'm an engineer and completely understand this center of gravity thing. I also fully inderstand the implications of not adhearing to a planes loading envelope.
When I'm hauling a big load I do do a W&B calc BEFORE the flight...it would do me no good to be sitting next to a pile of twisted metal with a calc pad wondering where things went wrong. I don't think you're going to get any arguement from anyone on this site about the importance of W&B. I too sometimes cringe a bit when I hear the standard "if you can fit it in there it'll fly" comment. I take that comment (which everyone should) with a grain of salt and more of a non-serious illustration of how much the plane can haul.

Regarding my statements about the accidents. Lets do a hypothetical here.
If you were told something by a friend who lived and breathed "widgets" and then got a similar independent story from another friend that had a widget and who hung around other people who had widgets and...read a story that somewhat cooberated that same story...would you feel comfortable repeating that story to other people? Probably so. I wrote what I was told because I had no reason to doubt the sources. I am interested in what happened because if it's a plane issue I need to know that right now.