iceman wrote: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....

I don't consider this a valid justification for choosing a 6-cylinder engine over a 4-banger. I had a connecting rod fail in a C-145 once and I wasn't limping very far or for very long. The problem is not be the loss of 25% of the available power with a 4 cylinder engine, versus 16.6% with the 6-banger-- it's the resulting vibration plus the damage caused by the broken part(s) flailing around.

ok that's you... six is better than 4 any time.. just like two is safer than one...it's not the sole justification but one of many...

The 76 inch prop is too small to put 180 hp effectively in the air same with the 235 HP unless you have a minimum of 80 inches they are dogs.

The 78 Inch prop is seriously laking on the 235 in comparison to the same prop at 80 inches particularly on floats and short strips.

That is why maule guys Plane works so well with the 90 inch prop

More prop is better for STOL work not as good for cruise.

You guys are funny mine is bigger than yours more cylinders more better --.

cheers......

Bush Buggy wrote:You guys are funny mine is bigger than yours more cylinders more better --.

You're kind of funny for bringing up an eight year old thread

8 years ago $55K was too much to pay for an M5 180, if I could find just about any Maule for $55K today, I would hop on the first flight I could to go buy it. I have $75K, more if needed, in my airplane fund right now and have found NOTHING worth buying.

I've owned our M5 180 since 2015 and the several hundred hours I've put on it since then paints a better picture than previously mentioned in this thread.

I consistently get off the ground in 300' with a medium load at 600' MSL, 400' at gross, and 800' at gross at 9000' DA at KGUP in the summer. The climb rate is not impressive but will leave ground effect quickly and climb safely. It'll burn 6.5 gph at 11,500' doing 130mph across the ground; that's better fuel economy than any of my trucks and twice as fast carrying several hundred lbs payload. Since we keep it at the ranch it is as cheap to keep as any of our other equipment. For our mission, it has proven to be a perfect fit. Sure, it would be cool to have more power but that always comes with an increase in fuel cost et al. We don't have a big airplane budget for what we do but this plane fits well and we couldn't be happier.

Granted, not everyone's defined mission fits what we're doing so it may not be what you want, but the M5 180 is no slouch.

Do you have the longer gear legs or something? I would have thought the 180 would need longer runway than that, given what I see the M5 235 do. I assume the M5 180 has the short wing too.

Your performance sounds pretty similar to mine in my MX-7-180 (1991 so short wing). 9000ft DA with two pilots and takeoff weight of 2100 lbs I needed about 900ft. At sea level single pilot and full fuel its about 400ft to clear a 50ft obstacle.

My current personal aircraft is a M-5-210C,
My complaints particular to the type:

1. The curves of the four are more aesthetically pleasing to me.

Mission profile is a a little bit of two person distance flying with some luggage, some four person local flying without luggage, and a lot of three person moderate range flying with lots of stuff. Each mission is easily accomplished by the Maule.

(F, 62, 5'5", 125 lbs. A&P, CPL, with significant time in CE-150TL, CE-170, CE-180, CE-185, CE-206/207, CE-310, CE-337, EV-4500, H-295/395, J-3, M-5, PA-20/22, PA 23, some time in AAC.1/CASA-352, CE-120, C-46, DC-3, DC-4, DC-6, M-7, 0+20 logged in a 5-AT-B.)