I'm in the market for a new to me plane. Really thought I was settled on a 180 or its budget version (182), but I can't help coming back to Maules.

It would be a -210 or -235 variant and my budget is probably around $65k if I were to buy a Maule. That probably puts me in a late 70s M5-235 or so. I had a frank conversation wth a guy who definitely knows Maules very well (and is probably a reader and contributor here - don't mean to call you out if you see this, just looking for more opinions).

Anyway, the gist of that conversation was that in my budget and year range, I'd probably be looking at an older M4 or M5, which were described as mean, short-coupled, short-winged planes that get a lot of people in trouble. And, in that price range, most of the planes are junk. The idea was that spending more money on a newer longer-fuse, longer-wing Maule was safe and reasonable, but the older short wing, short fuselage plane was really dangerous and get a lot of people in over their heads unless you have lots of TW time, and I was virtually guaranteed to ball it up in one way or another eventually.

I really do appreciate the advice. I bought a plane once upon a time against similar advice and absolutely regretted it later, so I don't want to ignore such a strong opinion from someone so clearly knowledgeable. Can anyone add to this?

I've been looking into things similar to you and hear similar advise. not to this extreme, and I haven't researched into it much, but I to was told the longer winged/newer models are much more desirable for what most of us here want to do.

curious to see more info on this.

Hard to beat a clean 182. They are great airplanes that are priced right.

A Maule is short coupled whether it is a 1978 or a 2008. There are plenty of people out there including myself that never had a problem with this.

Short wing M5-235 is a good airplane, I put a more then a 1000 hours in one and most of it was off airport, landing places that my buddy Loni (Cubdriver749er) was landing with his 160hp stock Supercub. It made me a better pilot because I was landing them at 55 and he was landing them at 42. I used a lot more braking power to make up for the speed which you can do because the tail is much heavier then a cub.

Bend the Cessna and see how easy it is to repair compared to a Maule and how much it will cost. If you want to fly the airplane airport to airport with grass and gravel/dirt strips being the most extreme thing you ever do then I would get the Cessna (well I would not but a lot of people would). If you want to challenge yourself and for sheer fun factor buy the Maule. Nothing like trying to stick a M5-235 Maule into a 300 foot rough spot to get some adrenaline pumping.

I would say buy the most you can afford with the thought that spending now will save you money in the long run. I would buy the M7 with the universal wing (32'11") if I were you. I would also not rule out the 180 hp Lycomings unless you spend a lot of time in high and hot places loaded up.

I had a M-5-180 for a short while and really liked it. I thought it handled pretty well with two folks and baggage even out of ABQ on a warmish day. The brand seems to have a lot of strong feelings around it, folks are not shy about opining on them even if they have no time in them.

I guess I would say go find one to fly around before buying, which might be hard but there is a Maule owner/users group on line

I did not mean to imply in my post above that Maule's are not good airplanes, I really like them, they are great airplanes. That being said, the 182 for most people are hard to beat when you factor everything in.

Kurt

skiermike. Mean, short coupled, short winged. The advice you have received appears to be from someone who is afraid of, does not understand, or has caused him/herself an accident in an Maule.
As a neophyte pilot knowing nothing, I bought my first one in 1975, an M5-235. I had 107 total hours, mostly in C150 a little C172 and 30 hrs Taylorcraft.
I picked it up at the factory, was given three landings and sent on my way to Alaska. I have since flown scores of them from M4 with O300 145hp to the M7 Avalon 450 turbine, with wingspans of 29'9" to 33'8", to and in many parts of the world, a lot of rough AK operations. I still trade and operate Maules after over 40 years and still have not found another plane that can fill so many missions so safely as a Maule.
Check out the Maule forum and ask Maule owners why they own one.

I'd have to disagree with the "mean" part of that. Seems to be a pretty straight forward airplane in my limited experience flying them. Sure, if you've only got 10 hours in a citabria flying no-wind landings you are probably not prepared. That said, it's an airplane and you don't have to be Chuck Yeager to fly one. A good 5 hours of dual with a challenging instructor should do it, and then a good sense of your own limitations for the first 20 hours solo. First year insurance is high for a reason, but it's not because the plane is the un-flyable deathtrap that some people say.

Think of it this way; if a Maule is a "mean" airplane....what does that make a Pitts, a Pacer, at Stearman, or a T-6? I say if you can't fly a Maule then you just can't fly a TW airplane.

From an airplane purchase standpoint, I'd think a really clean early Maule (of any flavor) with an O-360 would be sweet to own. Nice flying airplane with good balance.

59SC.

Thanks for the thoughts. What about the idea that Maules in that age and price-point are junk? Obviously, you had to do your homework, but at, let's say, $60k for a 70s model M5-235, on average are you buying a project? I think part of this is just simple expectations - I have no expectations of a nice interior or complicated avionics, so if the "junk" comment was about ratty seats and old avionics then that's just fine by me. I'm looking for a simple, straight, VFR plane - it'll get dusty and muddy no doubt. Shoot, the alternative is to buy a 50s-era 180 or 182 that's pushing 70 years old, and I'm perfectly happy to do that too!

Mauleguy wrote: I would buy the M7 with the universal wing (32'11") if I were you. I would also not rule out the 180 hp Lycomings unless you spend a lot of time in high and hot places loaded up.

Mauleguy - you said the M5 is fine, but then recommended trying to buy an M7 with longer wings which, to a degree, echos the advise given originally. Can you expand on this? I'd love to stick with a 180hp engine for a lot of reasons, but virtually all my flying is high, usually hot, and sometimes reasonably well loaded.

Speaking of which, because the Maule useful load is generally lower than the equivalent 180 or 182, I'd generally be operating the Maule closer to its max gross weight. My main concern is climb (fpm) performance - if you took the same 725# load (including fuel) and dropped it in a stock M5-235 or a late 50s 180, which do you think would get better climb performance through, say, 8,000' in terms of fpm?

FWIW one of the members here recently advertised a vey nice looking M4-210 Maule for a bit under $50K (as I recall).
Looked like a good deal to me, and probably a kick-ass airplane.

skiermanmike wrote:Thanks for the thoughts. What about the idea that Maules in that age and price-point are junk? Obviously, you had to do your homework, but at, let's say, $60k for a 70s model M5-235, on average are you buying a project? I think part of this is just simple expectations - I have no expectations of a nice interior or complicated avionics, so if the "junk" comment was about ratty seats and old avionics then that's just fine by me. I'm looking for a simple, straight, VFR plane - it'll get dusty and muddy no doubt. Shoot, the alternative is to buy a 50s-era 180 or 182 that's pushing 70 years old, and I'm perfectly happy to do that too!

I bought a '73 M4-220 for less than $40k that I wouldn't describe as "junk" or a "project" by any means. I've had to replace a radio that started to act up, and the encoder, but I've put close to 250 hours on it since April '16, and really don't have any complaints. Of course I want the extended gear, VG's ADS-B, etc, but none of that keeps me from flying it I had 300ish hours at the time, all but 20 tailwheel, and got insurance for an extra $100/yr over what I was paying for my Stinson.

I think there's a Producer for sale for $60k. Modified Pacer by STC, still a certified aircraft.

If budget is limited, $40k will buy a nice Pacer. That's the "little, older brother" to the Maule, and pretty capable in its own right.

Both short coupled airplanes, but nothing that good training and practice can't prepare you for.

I have about 1300 hours over 20 years. 300 of that was in an M4-210C, 100 was in an M5-180 and 150 is in my current ride, a 1954 Cessna 180. I really feel that there are upsides and downsides to all aircraft but in my experience, none of them were more dangerous or required much more than the others. I would have zero qualms about going from the current much loved Skywagon back to a nice Maule. I would recommend keeping an open mind and looking for the best aircraft for the money in terms of condition and history. Good luck!

hotrod180 wrote:FWIW one of the members here recently advertised a vey nice looking M4-210 Maule for a bit under $50K (as I recall).
Looked like a good deal to me, and probably a kick-ass airplane.

Oh yeah, I noticed.. It's a great example of the type of Maule that seems really attractive - affordable, capable, basic, seemingly in good condition. Even a similarly priced 182 would be in far worse condition, and you can't find a 180 at that price point that's not literally a project as far as I can tell.

I did look at the upgraded pacers, but I think I just simply need more than 180 horses. Fortunately, the budget isn't limited to the point where I really have to look at them seriously, either.

Where do you live? My 160hp Pacer goes pretty good at max gross (2,000lbs) even in the summer time in northern AL. Granted, we're near SL.

A constant speed prop would be nice, though. Even if it did add more weight.

In your price range, I just bought a '93 MX-7-180A. Nice ride, not junk by any stretch, but it does have a nice 50-foot paint job.

Good performer, but I live in the flatlands of Cheese-ville, so don't have any experience up high.

~Chris

The Maule isn't a dangerous airplane, there are perhaps a few dangerous pilots flying them. Professionally I am not enamored with the build quality or the methods and materials chosen, but they are cheap. I can attest they are really cheap to fix. We had a client at the repair station, whom we nicknamed Santa Claus. One he was old and totally white haired with a beard and two, he owned several Christmas tree farms. He had a Maule in addition to several other aircraft. He also had more type ratings than I have ever seen any one person have.

He came in with his dinged Maule, which he had literally duct taped the entire wingtip and aileron back together. He used the plane to fly to his Xmas tree farms, where e would land in a clearing. It was an easy fix, a few ribs, some flat skin new skins for the aileron, wing tip and a box or two of pop rivets (yeah, pop rivets, thats what they are made with). It took more effort to paint it than fix it. It only ran a few thousand to fix. He came and paid cash and flew off. He came back in the morning with the other wing dinged. Ok, same drill.

We fix it and a couple weeks pass he comes back and gets it. Now we don't hear from him for nearly a month. In he comes with a lot of duct tape on both wings. We fixed it again, still not much money. He flies off and never, as far as we knew, dinged it again. Or he just passed on. He was old. This guy started flying in the 30's.

So was it a dangerous plane, I don't think so, but this guy had more flying experience than 20 pilots, in some serious taildraggers. He was old, so draw your own conclusion.

Yes it is cheap to fix, real cheap, about as cheap as you can get. Lots of folk fly them safely, without issue, for years. Some of whom I consider real dingbats. Some folk can ruin a 182, so go figure. Another client with a Wren 182 did a nice job of altering it by running into a pile of fenceposts. Heck one of the Thunderbirds just flipped his F16 landing. So if your a decent pilot, you shouldn't have a problem.

skiermanmike wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:FWIW one of the members here recently advertised a vey nice looking M4-210 Maule for a bit under $50K (as I recall).
Looked like a good deal to me, and probably a kick-ass airplane.

Oh yeah, I noticed.. It's a great example of the type of Maule that seems really attractive - affordable, capable, basic, seemingly in good condition. Even a similarly priced 182 would be in far worse condition, and you can't find a 180 at that price point that's not literally a project as far as I can tell.

I did look at the upgraded pacers, but I think I just simply need more than 180 horses. Fortunately, the budget isn't limited to the point where I really have to look at them seriously, either.

It was mine. M4-220. $45K Canadian. It was far from junk. Actually quite a nice plane. I think for 60k you can buy a nice Maule. They aren't dangerous, but need to be respected like any tail dragger. Heck, I had a terrible takeoff in my old 180 the other day, does that make it dangerous? Nope, just a bad decision by me.
Sounds like someone who has never flown one, or flew one with bad gear alignment gave you bad advise.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

Yeah that's BS...the only downside to the Maule is that us Wagon guys will call you Fat Cub, and be envious of your baggage door, cheap parts, n possibly even the Lycoming haha [emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk