I have a couple questions about Maule wings and flaps...

first, a Maule can set the flap to -7 degrees. What is the use of the negative setting?

Does the Maule wing use the sme airfoil as a cub?

SOME Maules have the "reflex" position of -7, which reduces the wing's "profile drag" in high speed cruise flight.

I believe the Maule uses an airfoil either identical or very similar to the USA 35B Cub airfoil, but one or three of the BCP membersw can probably say that with far more authority than I.

There are slight differences i n the ACHIEVED airfoil when you go from fabric to metal, and rib stitching to rivets, and open bays to sheeted bays... but that is picking the fly Obama out of the pepper.

Not sure about the -flaps, but I think it gives a bit more top end speed.

Nope, Cub wings are high camber (gives the big lift) and Maule wings are "hershey bars" which are for speed, not lift.
Maule on floats visited here for a month a couple years ago. He took FOUR times as much water to lift off as my Cub. I understand Maules do fine on wheels @ sea level, but he was pretty disappointed/embarassed up here.

Flame suit on.

Nimpo.... close but not really...

US35B pretty much same airfoil as cub, AOA though is very different Cub has several degrees more AOA on the fuse vs the Maule and that along with the fact that the Maule is almost twice the weight as the cub with a shorter wing span than the cub.

The Flaps are for a better cruse speed but it only works with certain load configurations

Cambered airfoils create a nose down pitching moment when they create lift. To counter that, (in most flying setups) the tail needs to provide a downforce to cancel out the nose down pitching moment. To counter that downforce, the wing needs to provide more lift. That extra lift on both the wing and the horizontal stabilizer creates more drag (remember, the more lift a surface generates, the more drag it generates).

There are two ways to eliminate a nose down pitching moment from an airfoil

1) Use a symmetric airfoil like a NACA 0012
2) Use a reflex airfoil where the camber reverses on itself

By using a negative amount of flap, you are creating a reflex airfoil in the section of the wing that has flap. Less pitching moment, less downforce on the tail, less lift and drag required there. Less downforce, less lift required on the main wing, less drag. So now you should have less drag on the plane overall, allowing you to cruise faster.

This may only be true for certain loading configs, because as the CG moves, that will also change the tail lift/downforce requirements. This is why rearward loaded CG planes can cruise faster. That is taking the place of tail downforce if you don't increase the weight to do it. This can become dangerous though, as it could move the CG behind the aerodynamic center of the plane, causing it to become unstable.

Canards defeat this issue by moving the "tail" surface up front. To combat the nose down pitching moment, the canard up front provides lift instead of downforce. Think about it, if you are trying to fly, why would you ever want to have a surface on your plane in normal flight pushing down on the airplane, it adds inefficiency.

Answer: Canards are a bitch to design to be stable, and a canard doesn't work so well on a taildragger. They can also lead to CG range limitations (again stability).

Enjoy!

NimpoCub wrote:Maule wings are "hershey bars" which are for speed, not lift.

I believe that "hershey bar" is most often used to describe wing chord taper, not airfoil or camber. At least that's my understanding.

Oops, OK I'll take yer word for it.
MY interpretation, from hearing "hershey bar" describing flatter (faster?) wings.

I'm not totally useless... I serve as an excellent bad example!

NimpoCub wrote:Maule on floats visited here for a month a couple years ago. He took FOUR times as much water to lift off as my Cub. I understand Maules do fine on wheels @ sea level, but he was pretty disappointed/embarassed up here.

Flame suit on.

same engine?, prop? Weight? Etc., etc., etc., I hade a maule m-5 (0-540) and there is no chance a cub was getting off the water four times quicker than mine

Garth

[quote="NimpoCub".

I'm not totally useless... I serve as an excellent bad example![/quote]

Classic!

Hershey bar indeed means a constant chord wing. From below it is a rectangle with no taper, hence, a hershey bar. Hershey bar wings are actually a slower wing on average, as they have a higher amount of induced drag. This is more of a factor at slower speeds where one's CL is greater, as induced drag is a function of CL.

You can minimize induced drag by creating a wing with an elliptical lift distribution, as in the wing of a Spitfire or Tempest. Problem is, it is a pain in the ass to make structurally, so there is usually a compromise like a partially tapered wing on a 172, or a fully tapered wing on a lot of business jets.

Hershey bars are great for creating lift, as for a given span, they have more wing area. They are also a lot easier to build, and I would imagine a lot easier to cover without complex curves.

gear wrote:

NimpoCub wrote:Maule on floats visited here for a month a couple years ago. He took FOUR times as much water to lift off as my Cub. I understand Maules do fine on wheels @ sea level, but he was pretty disappointed/embarassed up here.

Flame suit on.

same engine?, prop? Weight? Etc., etc., etc., I hade a maule m-5 (0-540) and there is no chance a cub was getting off the water four times quicker than mine

Garth

Sorry if that sounded a bit condescending, didn't mean to insult. Thing is, after hearing that Maules were a STOL airplane, and then witnessing this "dog performance", and then asking around about it, I was advised that Maules on floats were NOT STOL, due to the low AOA. They NEED the tailwheel to get enough AOA to get off short.

That's what was explained to me by knowledgeable bush pilots. Do I have the wrong impression/info??
Wup, you sure the airfoils are the same?

There was a period of time during which many Maules were mounted on EDO 2440 floats, with a LOT of incidence between the floats and the wing. Those airplanes didn't perform well. Eventually, the rigging was revised with longer aft struts to fix some of that, and performance improved.

Nevertheless, I'd guess if the fellow you're discussing really exhibited that poor a performance on floats, he either had a lame motor, or piss poor technique.

Maules do quite well on floats, assuming they are loaded intelligently, of course.

MTV

quote="mtv"]Nevertheless, I'd guess if the fellow you're discussing really exhibited that poor a performance on floats, he either had a lame motor, or piss poor technique.[/quote]

I recon you have a good point. I should have reduced respect for this pilot instead of the Maule.
He was flyin' Baumans, I remember because he had to buy a new one when he ran it into the shore & busted the right one. We had to rig/float it back to the ramp so we could get in into a hangar.
He wanted me to show him some moose. We warmed up, I took off & circled around @ about 5-600' until he got off. I did a big 180, he was still on the step. I said "pull back" He said "I am".
I think he said it was a "235".

I smell a Cub Supremacist.

A Maule will never be a PA-18, and a PA-18 will never be a Maule. I frequently fly with a friend who owns a Maule M7-235, some here may know him too, and I fly(rent) a CC Sport Cub myself. To compare these two is a bit fruitless, because while it may seem that the PA-18 is the standard by which slow flight performance and STOL is measured, there's no way its utility can be considered in the same ballpark as the Maule.

There are many Maule models throughout history, with vary levels of power loading, so I suppose focusing on the airfoil of the wing can tell you something, but there are many other factors. If you consider equivalent power loading to say, a 160hp Super Cub, you might get some valuable comparison information, but what's the point? If you need to haul more than 2 people, or a crapload of gear, the Maule has the Super Cub beat merely on number of seats and baggage volume. If you need a lightweight bushplane and have no need to carrying more than 1 pax, the Cub can't be beat for short field performance.

On the other hand, one of our most notorious short-field-big-rock-long-propping bad boys trounces everyone with a 180hp stripped-down Maule.

I personally would choose the prettiest plane.

A Maule M-7 on Baumanns is a great float plane. I have a hundred or so hours in one.

MTV

I sure don't want to start a chev-ford pissin' contest, so I won't get sucked into this. All I said was Maules are touted as STOL planes, and (from my limited experience) they're not. Sure, haul a lot or go fast, but not STOL, C185s take a LOOONG time to get off the water too... they're all good planes but... different mission than STOL.

No polyester undies, so have at it!

Everything is relative...to people that fly Cirruses (or is it Cirri?) my PA-22 is a STOL machine. But to people in supercubs, it isn't.

And technique can matter an awful lot.

Reminds me of a quote I really like..."What sort of piano do I have to buy to play like Beethoven?"

dirtstrip wrote:

Troy Hamon wrote:Everything is relative...to people that fly Cirruses (or is it Cirri?) my PA-22 is a STOL machine. But to people in supercubs, it isn't.

And technique can matter an awful lot.

Reminds me of a quote I really like..."What sort of piano do I have to buy to play like Beethoven?"

Stip,

That's dedication posting a 5min video to prove a quote. I like it

dirtstrip...well done...should have seen that coming...