Cessnas walk on water!

I own a Maule (M-5-235C) and have about 10 hours in a 180. The biggest differences I notice between the two is the larger cabin width in the 180 and the very different deck angle on takeoff and landing. During a Vy climb, I can't see any ground out of the front in my plane, but had no trouble in the 180, and on landing the attitude seems rather flat in comparison. I find flying the Maule more "comfortable", but then, I own one and have flown it quite a bit more. The Maule seems to perform better when fully loaded, but maybe it carries less, too (not sure what the gross weight of a 180 is). Ground handling in both is not the big deal people make it out to be; Contrary to what many people say, Maules are not difficult at all. They are both excellent airplanes, and really it's a matter of preference. I certainly have mine

Hey Terry,
Maules can too!
I think this is the same stretch of beach at a slightly different angle.




David

m7flyer wrote:Hey Terry,
Maules can too!
I think this is the same stretch of beach at a slightly different angle.




David

Ha, yep, looks familiar.

as I am finding out again ( I am a slow learner) the Cessna parts are STUPID expensive compared to the Maule. But if your going on looks alone, the 180 takes it. What is your primary mission?

Skalywag wrote:Question: what does a bigger motor Maule with 29/31" ABW's cruise at?

The 260HP Skalywagon cruises 145mph @ 23"/2300 LOP with 29" ABW or 155mph 24"/2400 ROP

And yes, Cessna parts can be disturbingly expensive $$$

I agree with M6RV6.

My M7 235HP on 29" Air Hawks will cruise at 143 +- at sea level it burns 16GPH at 8500MSL same GS 12.5GPH I believe the Maule is not as aerodynamic as the Cessna.

If $$$ were no object I would have a MEGA-HP, MT prop, 185 with glass panel, wing X, Sportsman, leather, stretcher door and custom paint. To get that I think we are talking 300K

Or a 206 or King Katmai. I like to haul weight.

Cheers...Rob

Skywagon, Maule or Bearhawk. You can't go too far wrong with any of them.



Skywagons and Maules look pretty good together:

3Blade wrote:Has anyone out there had to opportunity to spend time in both the Maule M7 ( 180 HP or 235 HP ) and the Cessna 180 or 185 ? Aside from the construction design, cost, and maintenance I am more interested in the flight stability characteristics during takeoffs and landings ( calm and windy conditions ) , power on as well as off stalls, taxi, and short field performance. Is there a significant control feel between the two during these maneuvers ? Any additional information I may have forgotten would be great.

I appreciate your time and thank you in advance.

I will try to answer your questions, but keep in mind my Maule time is limited (mainly M4's). I believe the 180/185 would a little more stable in flight and on the ground, and should handle crosswinds a little better, but both will most likely be limited by pilot skill and technique. A 20kt crosswind is very doable in the 180 with proper technique, perhaps someone would like to comment on the M7's abilities?

Both planes will be similar in calm wind taxi, takeoff and landings. As for power on/off stalls and short field operations, that will most likely be limited by pilot skill and technique. Patrick (lameusernameguy) can land his Maule M7 in ridiculous places, but his M7 and skills are perhaps 2nd to none. The same could be true about Kevin (AKTahoe1) and his 180. Mods and pilot skill/technique will dictate who wins this battle, but both are true STOL airplanes.

As for control feel, the early 180s will be similar to the Maules, I would say both have a medium control input. The later 180/185s have a pretty heavy control input and a "truck like feel". But hours behind the yoke should make this a non decision maker, all are fine aircraft.

Mainly it comes down to mission and personal preference (think a blonde vs brunette debate). There's plenty of Maule and Skywagon info on BCP and other sites, but actual seat time will likely pick your candidate.

I know a Maule can get really stuck!!

Yes I'm on snowshoes or would have disappeared!

Oregon180 wrote:Skywagon, Maule or Bearhawk. You can't go too far wrong with any of them.



Skywagons and Maules look pretty good together:

Do you suffer from tire envy Oregon 180?

M6RV6 wrote:

Won't go wrong either way, but in a perfect world, get a Wilga

Scolopax, Mine is far from the perfect world?? Some might even commit to saying my world is a bit tilted and strange!! But it's all MINE!!

I would expect nothing less than you owning your world M6RV6!

Scolopax wrote:Do you suffer from tire envy Oregon 180?

That's why I always put my plane in the foreground. Makes my tires look less puny.

Oregon180 wrote:

Scolopax wrote:Do you suffer from tire envy Oregon 180?

That's why I always put my plane in the foreground. Makes my tires look less puny.

Good trick!

I'll chime in on this one since I just went through the same debate in my mind a few months back when deciding on a plane.
For me it came down to the following:

Budget- I looked at 180's and couldn't find anything newer than a '56 or '57 for less than the $65,000-$80,000 range. There were some cheaper ones out there but who knows how much $$ it takes to get them flying. Maules were newer and less expensive generally.
this was a big factor for me. I didn't have $80k for a Cessna-180 so got a M5 for $40,000.

Design- I like the cargo door on the maule, when both halves are open it offers a huge loading area. I couldn't see myself throwing bikes and camping gear over the back of the seats in the Cessna. Those baggage doors on the 180 are too small.

Maintenance - as most have already mentioned, Maules are less expensive in terms of parts. I also like the fact that since the factory is still producing them in some form or another, there is more support available to owners.

Quality - the Maules feel a little 'experimental' to me in terms of build/finish quality. I agree that the cessnas are better quality and the cabin is more roomy too.

Flying - I only have >30 hours in 170/180/185's but thought they flew great. The M5 feels more sporty to me in handling though.

Check out both options and see for yourself. If it came down to it and I only wanted a 180 then I wouldn't be an airplane owner today. I don't feel like I have made a huge compromise in getting a Maule. In fact I quite like it!
I'm having a blast in the thing.
Just get something and enjoy

Many years ago on a thread somewhere I read that Maule is the best homebuilt plane in America.

Other than they both have a prop at one end and a tail wheel at the other, it's just not an apples to apples comparison.

Coondawg wrote:Other than they both have a prop at one end and a tail wheel at the other, it's just not an apples to apples comparison.

But as we have read, they're often options for the same mission.

Thanks to all you have contributed their input. Like OregonMaule if money were no object a KatMia would be killer but then again a turbine Sherpa would be amazing. With the Sherpa WHEE would have nothing to bitch about as it has a "stick".
Not that a sinking Maule in the snow would be the deciding factor but there has to be a great pre and post story to the photo. Thanks again everyone.

The market place has a way of identifying the most valuable aircraft by them being the most valuable..........

Redbaron180 wrote:The market place has a way of identifying the most valuable aircraft by them being the most valuable..........

that's probably a supercub then...