So I have flown the citabria for a year now and realize that it does not quite fit my mission. Started looking into Maules and have found one close to home (20 minutes from my hangar).

Tell me what you guys think. What's it worth? Why not to buy this M5 or why to buy. All info is welcome.

http://barnstormers.com/classified_7297 ... +1986.html

Jackson

didn't read past the first line.... Horsepower.... You'd have to talk to Maule owners who own the 180 HP model but it's not enough for what I do...which, I assume is what you do also...and for 55 K you can find a 235 Maule or less for a M4 with 210 or 220 HP.you might check the Maule site for comments and info also..

iceman wrote:didn't read past the first line.... Horsepower.... You'd have to talk to Maule owners who own the 180 HP model but it's not enough for what I do...which, I assume is what you do also...and for 55 K you can find a 235 Maule or less for a M4 with 210 or 220 HP

Yep and yep.

Jax, I agree on the horsepower. With a few hundred hours in Maules, I couldn't make my 180 HP M5 get off the ground in less than 600' at sea level. The 210HP M4 I had would do under 300' pretty easy. Both can be down and stopped in 150' if I worked just a little bit. That made me really frustrated with the M5. Great for landing but too many places where getting back out would be pretty dicey. Other Maule pilots have had better experience with the 180 but I would never consider another one. The 210 or 235 are very worth the money and, at $55k, that M5 looks about ten grand or better over what it should probably sell for. Sorry if I stepped on anybodys toes, just an opinion. Maules do rock though!

yep I can get off under 300 ft pretty regularly and if I yank full flaps it leaps into the air about 200-250 ft... (M4 210C).It's why you see so many 180 HP maules for sale....

Definitely what they said x2
GT

Mauleguy uses a Lycoming O-360 in his Maule, and I have seen him take off out of some pretty short holes in the brush. I have no Idea what mods he has made to it, other than a big flat prop from a Pawnee. Just Sayin.

Scolopax wrote:Mauleguy uses a Lycoming O-360 in his Maule, and I have seen him take off out of some pretty short holes in the brush. I have no Idea what mods he has made to it, other than a big flat prop from a Pawnee. Just Sayin.

From information on his video his plane has quite a few modifications. The most important one's in regards to stol performance are.
The fuselage is m5 with a m7 wing with 120" flaps at 50' deployed. probably has Vg's
Aircraft has been built and kept light with no unnecessary bling avionics, bare bones
0360 with custom exhaust swinging 90" prop at 32"
5" extended gear for high aoa on rotation.
and again. stuff changed to make it light light light as possible

This ^^. Everything is power:weight ratio. Mauleguy's plane is an M5 but it's a beast of its own. It is extremely light, and with more wing (M7 with flap mods I think) he's developing more lift at lower airspeeds. He's also running a long fixed pitch prop, which again is lighter.

The O-360 is lighter too due to fewer jugs, but that only works out at low gross weight. At high or near max gross, the extra ponies more than make up for the heavier engines.

That's why for newer aircraft, the O-390 seems so appealing. But that's another topic.

I don't have any experience with the shorter wing on the M5 but I own a 180 hp MX7. I don't think there is any plane/pilot combo out there that couldn't use more horsepower once in a while. I have VG's and 31" ABW's and an MT prop. Not a light airplane at 1560 EW, lots of gizmos/toys in the cockpit. At 2500 pounds, summer day of 80 degrees and field elevation of 300', I can get off the ground in about 600' but better have 1000' beyond that to clear the 100' trees at the end. More to be comfortable. Yesterday, at 2000 pounds in and out of a strip that's 600' with 50' trees on the approach end and 75' on the departure end (actually about 800' between tree stands) sea level 45 degree day. Airborne in under 300' without too much effort and over the trees no worries. Idaho in the summer coming out of Lower Loon at 2200 pounds and 85 degrees, airborn half way down the strip but flying in ground effect off the end and scratching and clawing for altitude for 3 miles downstream.

More often than not I would like more HP and if I was to buy another it would have 235 hp. You work with what you have but given that you are buying, buy something that is less restrictive to work with.

Just my 2 cents.

Mr. Ed

I really appreciate all of the advice. I figured that the higher horses are definitely more desirable. Also the plane is priced ~10k too high in my mind. I will still go take it around the patch to get a feel for the differences when I do get into a -235. If anyone knows of a "deal" in one shoot me a PM.

Thanks again

Jackson

I've owned my Maule MX-7-180 for 14 years. It has the O-360-C1F engine, constant speed prop, short (30'10") wing and vortex generators. I love the airplane and it does have more useful load than the 235hp versions, but more hp would be better and I would prefer the 32'9" universal wing for getting off short airstrips at higher weights. With two people, full main fuel (40 gal) and 100 lbs of baggage on a hot day, it takes 500 - 800 feet to lift off and climbs at around 500 fpm. Higher elevations are worse. Landing distance is as good as any Maule and more a function of pilot proficiency, although the vortex generators and elevator gap seals make a big difference in low speed handling and stall characteristics.

If you can afford it, I recommend a M-7-235 with the IO-540 engine. You'll get better fuel distribution and performance with the fuel injection, especially at higher density altitude. The 3-blade MT prop also looks promising since it's much lighter for the same thrust.

I know they have different wings, but I have been satisfied with the O-360/76" Hartzell on a 172 ~2300lbs up to +10k ft. density altitudes and now a Husky with the O-360/205cm MT prop at 2200 lbs on floats down at sea level. I was kinda eyeing a basic M5-180 as an economical (operating and maint.) 2 place plus BIG baggage plane. Curious what you think after checking it out?

Just got back in town and will be checking it out this week. Will let you know what I think.

Jackson

There been plenty of talk about more horsepower giving more performance, but does that benefit get somewhat balanced out by the lighter weight of a smaller engine, in terms of takeoff performance of the two aircraft (O-360 vs IO-540)?

I read that it takes 89 hp to fly a 2400 lb weight with no climb from sealevel. (McCall mtn flying booklet I think).
The remaining hp of a 180 hp is 91 hp
The remaining hp of a 235 hp is 145 hp
Big difference viewed this way even though the 180 and 235 hp Maules are 2500 lb gwt.
Early models were 2300 lb gwt.
This is referred to as residual, or performance hp and hp diminishes with increase in altitude and increase in temperature.

the lighter engine weight of the 180 HP engine vs the 235 HP could never make up the difference in performance between the two.

I think a 180 Maule (MX-7-180b/c) would make an excellent two-place back country plane. While 230 HP would provide much better performance, the economics of lower purchase price, less fuel burn, and a 4 cylinder engine to maintain have to be considered. Low HP Maules are not equal to Super Cubs when it comes to super short takeoffs and landings but in return they offer better cruise speed.

I have seen a number of nice low-time 180 HP MX-7s for sale recently with modern avionics that were very reasonably priced. One thing I don't like about them is the rudder/aileron interconnect.

Just to clarify the interconnect system.
There is no direct connection of the aileron and rudder.
There is an adjustable bridle cable on the aileron cables that goes to a servo tab on the back of the rudder.
When aileron is moved, the tab acts as an aid to oppose adverse yaw from aileron action.
This system does not change the ability to cross control for slips, crosswind ops etc, but does make the Maule very benign re cross control slow flight regime, which is why it is so stable and forgiving in the "moose, coyote, photoshot, skid landing" regime which is such a delicate situation in so many other aircraft.
There is a completely separate rudder trim system to trim the rudder for straight flight.
The 180hp Maule had three different wings over the years with 2 different flap systems and will land within a few feet of a Cub, however it is four seats with 2400lb gwt (fixed pitch) or 2500lb gwt (constant speed) and though cruising much faster, thus will not out perform the much lighter Cub in takeoff unless seriously lightened as in Gregs Bushwhacker.

you're flying over the Frank Church wilderness in Idaho in your 180 HP Maule.. suddenly your engine sucks a valve... You're probably going down somewhere in the wilderness... On the other hand I'm also flying with you and "SURPRISE" same thing happens to me only I still have 5 and can probably limp to McCall for repairs and a steak dinner....