skiermanmike wrote:... which were described as mean, short-coupled, short-winged planes that get a lot of people in trouble. ... 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.

That's one opinion.... I don't think it's very factual.

Personally, I don't notice any increased difficulty compared to a Cub, taildragger Cessna, Bearhawk, Jodel, whatever tail dragger. A Maule is not especially hard to take-off, fly, or land in my opinion. I learnt to fly one with about 120 hours total time, and about 6 hours tailwheel time.

Like most tail draggers, it will bite you IF you stop paying attention while the plane is still moving! If you like to fly without moving your feet, and quit paying attention when the wheels touch ground, then a taildragger is not for you. But if you're a halfway comptent pilot, then you've nothing to worry about.

What everyone else has said is pretty accurate. I think maules.com nailed it when he speculated that kind of thing is passed on by a person who got spooked by a Maule, likely with little tailwheel time, or they heard it secondhand from someone with a similar experience. Many things in aviation are just hearsay.

Another possibility though is that the person flew a Maule that actually WAS mean spirited. I've heard stories of poorly rigged/aligned gear or axles on Cessnas that made them a handful on the ground. They could have been bent, or reassembled incorrectly, or a combination of that with a low tire. Who knows.

Thanks guys, appreciated. I have a hard time discounting this guys opinion: he's not a random stranger - he works in the industry, would be considered an expert on Maules specifically and is probably reading these post shaking his head (again, for the record, really not tying to call him out, just looking for opinions - I know how testy online forums can get).

That said, I haven't necessarily be dissuaded. I really think the -210 and -235 planes are compelling. I'll keep searching.

Does anyone have any experience with my earlier question - Given the Maule's typically smaller usable load, I'd be operating it relatively closer to gross (typical load with fuel is about 700#). Put that 700# in a -235 Maule and a late 50s 180. Which climbs better?

Many 200, 210, 210 TC, 220, 235 IO or O, 260 hp Maules have useful loads over 1000lbs. depends on mods, landing gear, tires, , props, battery, interior, paint layers, rigging, engine, wings, and pilot regarding Maules, C180s, or any plane. There can be a few hundred fpm difference from one unit to another of same model and/or same year. Its all about empty weight and engine/prop combination for best thrust.
Best way to search is to fix the amount you can spend, then you can find a lower priced stock plane and modify it as you want, or a higher priced one already upgraded.

I only suggested the universal wing because it will allow you to land slower then the 30'10" wing. It is always nice to land slower!
When I had my M5-235 and kept it light at sea level I could see landing speeds in no wind (GPS) of around 54-56mph with a modified flap ratchet. That was tail low but still could see where I was going. That universal wing would probably get you down to 46-48 same attitude.

That may not sound like a lot but every bit helps when looking over a new LZ

I went from trainer aircraft directly into our M5 180C; actually finished up my training in it. Having time in Cessnas, Pipers, and Citabrias the Maule was an absolute blast to transition into. We hangar it at the ranch with an 1100' strip and fly to NM regularly where we operate from SRR, GUP, GNT, and others at 6500 MSL on hot days with no issue climbing out. Just got back a couple weeks ago and the DA on the GUP ASOS was over 9000' and still seeing 700 FPM climb. Made a fuel stop at E98 and at gross had no issue climbing from 4800' to 10,000' to clear Manzano Mts just to the east of the field. I can do this on 8 GPH at 130 mph. I try not to put myself into situations that make me wish for more horsepower; I didn't want to have to feed an O-540. With my current weight, the plane can carry 927 lbs of stuff. Thats 16 mpg for an almost 1/2 ton truck. That's pretty economical operation for an aircraft and gets me to my destination in a little over 1/3 the time it takes to crawl a 1/2 ton truck using the same mpg. I can get it off the ground in 200' and landed in 300' solo and light on fuel.

I have operated a lot of dangerous machinery through the years. If you fall asleep at the wheel of your car its as dangerous as anything. Like all machinery, you have to pay attention to avoid mishaps. Consider what the risk scenarios are and develop a mitigation plan in advance of any flight or operation.

Based on my experience, the Maule is a rugged, reliable, easy to maintain, simple to operate, and economical aircraft option that really performs it's STOL capabilities well. Dangerous among airplanes? Not anymore than any other aircraft.

skiermanmike wrote:..... Given the Maule's typically smaller usable load, I'd be operating it relatively closer to gross (typical load with fuel is about 700#). Put that 700# in a -235 Maule and a late 50s 180. Which climbs better?

I like to compare power loading (horsepower / weight) and wing-loading (sq ft of wing / weight), and also sometimes combine the two calculations. Of course, this doesn't take into account different airfoils, flaps, STOL kits etc but it can give you a idea of what kind of performance to expect when comparing different airplanes.

And IMHO useful loads matters when trying to keep the airplane legal, and within CG limits, but given the same horsepower an airplane weighing 2500# is generally gonna outperform an airplane weighing 3000# -- no matter which one has a bigger useful load on paper.
Or to put it another way, a 180hp airplane loaded to it's gross weight of 2300# is probably not gonna perform with a 235hp airplane loaded to its gross weight of 2500#.

Good points - I have had some of the same thoughts regarding lighter and heavier planes, useful loads, wing area and power loading. I compared the wing loading and power loading of 180s and 235hp Maules, and they're very similar. I do think that the airfoil and design of the wing matters - is it built for "lifting" or for speed or something else. Cessna wings seem to be a compromise between speed and lift, whereas a supercub's airfoil seems more geared to lift (this is anecdotal - I don't really know if that is technically true).

Again as already stated, its the pilot thats dangerous, not the airplane. No skills and over one's head is just that in any airplane. In the Beech Bonanza world we say " Bonanzas don't kill doctors. Doctors kill perfectly good Bonanzas"

skiermanmike wrote:Good points - I have had some of the same thoughts regarding lighter and heavier planes, useful loads, wing area and power loading. I compared the wing loading and power loading of 180s and 235hp Maules, and they're very similar.......

I have a little time flying with a friend in his M7-235 and it seems to perform very similar to my 230hp C180.
I guess it boils down to whichever one blows up your skirt, and what you can get the best deal on.
I've always liked and owned Cessnas, and wanted a 180 for years before finally buying one, but a Maule being in my future sure isn't out of the question.

I have something over 1k hrs in my 1977 M5-235C and have to say I have never considered the plane "dangerous".

As with any conventional gear plane you will be punished if you don't pay attention all the way to stop. I have never landed a C-180 but it looks to have a bit longer Main to TW distance which might gain some stability and that is just a guess on my part. I have seen a number of "marginal" landings in C-180's (Pilot capability vs aircraft capability) .

My useful (with oil) is just over 950lbs, with a full IFR radio stack. A 182 or 180 have higher useful think, but I can load up two 180 lb people, full fuel, and still have a lot of capacity for gear. Having the entire right side open makes loading and unloading a breeze and I have seem some amazing things stuffed into the back of Maules. I remember wrestling a 35 gallon fuel drum in to the rear of a C-180 and it was not a fun job from the dock.

Parts cost are much less than comparable parts for Cessna.

Oleo gear is amazingly tough......trust me I have tested this with more crappy landings than I can count.

Having a steel "cage" wrapped around the cabin also appeals to me.

I would have to agree, while I love the roll rate of my M5, the two extra feet of wing in the M6-M7 buys you shorter take offs and landings, but if flown properly the M5 is no slouch in these areas.

If you want the 235hp and run mogas, keep in mind the O-540 "B" model is the only one with a mo-gas STC.

There are Ford people and Chevy people. Airplane folks are no different. I am a Maule people.

TD

TomD wrote:
There are Ford people and Chevy people. Airplane folks are no different. I am a Maule people.

TD

What Tom said....

Dangerous ?? Bull crap....Just learn how to fly....I have about 3300 Maule hours and they just require a REAL pilot's hand...Never bit me...And I learned how to fly in a M5...

Did my bi-annual in an M7 w/180 fixed pitch... first time in a maule... needed more input for both rudder and ailerons than my stock Pacer.... building a Maule look alike...cept has a permold IO520 with 300 ponies.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I have about 1,000 hours in my Trigear so I can't comment on the groundlooping but...

All airplanes can be dangerous! They fly for crying out loud. All cars and motorcycles and cheeseburgers are also dangerous.

Groundlooping per se is expensive, but rarely dangerous.

Juat as guns don't kill people, people kill people, planes don't groundloop, pilots do.

My Maule is a fairly straightforward airplane to fly, but a very nuanced and difficult airplane to fly well. I am constantly working on improving our relationship.

RockHopper wrote:Again as already stated, its the pilot thats dangerous, not the airplane. No skills and over one's head is just that in any airplane. In the Beech Bonanza world we say " Bonanzas don't kill doctors. Doctors kill perfectly good Bonanzas"

I fly a Bonanza quite often. I love that plane and it loves me. No one is going to kill anyone here!

Except for more systems to manage, the Beech is much EASIER to fly than my Maule.

Flymac wrote: they just require a REAL pilot's hand

Headoutdaplane wrote:

Flymac wrote: they just require a REAL pilot's hand

We can all only aspire to be a REAL pilot. No pilot ego there.

skiermanmike wrote: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?

You've gotten a lot of advice and opinions here. But the opinions of others, regardless their purported experience or silverback status, are worthless compared to you, yourself, taking some dual instruction in such a reputed beast of an airplane. Go try one on. Maybe Maules.com or Wup or someone in the Maule community can arrange it.

Anything else is just masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

That was probably my M4-210 that was referenced earlier. Great airplane and hard to beat - the reason they are often beat down is because low time guys like me without the deep pockets can afford them and often low time = accident waiting to happen in a high performance tail dragger regardless of what it is. Even my 4 was 900lb useful.

I like a 5 personally. They are the best balanced IMO and with the 2500lb gross upgrade can have easily upwards of 1000 useful.

I may or may not know of a clean M5-235 that is IFR capable and on bushwheels I your price range. He might sell it.