Here's my dilemma. Growing family and a Kitfox ain't gonna work. I need 3+ seats and I can't afford a C-180 or a 210hp Maule.

Next best thing...C-170 or a Maule M4-145. Right?

Having flown neither of these aircraft I need some help deciphering the numbers.

Here's what I find on the internet:

Maule M4
Horsepower: 145
Gross Weight: 2100 lbs
Empty Weight: 1100 lbs
Top Speed: 157 kts
Cruise Speed: 130 kts
Stall Speed (dirty): 35 kts
Fuel Capacity: 42 gal
Range: 750 nm
Takeoff: Ground Roll: 700 ft; Over 50 ft obstacle: 900 ft
Landing: Ground Roll 450 ft; Over 50 ft obstacle: 600 ft
Rate Of Climb: 700 fpm
Ceiling: 12000 ft

Cessna-170
Horsepower: 145
Gross Weight: 2200 lbs
Empty Weight: 1205 lbs
Top Speed: 122 kts
Cruise Speed: 104 kts
Stall Speed (dirty): 50 kts
Fuel Capacity: 42 gal
Range: 410 nm
Takeoff over 50 ft obstacle: 1820 ft
Landing over 50 ft obstacle: 1145 ft
Rate Of Climb: 690 fpm
Ceiling: 15500 ft

Something isn't right here.
The 170 has 2 fewer hours of range than the Maule with the same engine and fuel capacity.
The 170 has twice the "50 ft obstacle" numbers than the Maule, again both with the same engine. And they have approximately the same climb rate.
The 170 cruise is 25 kts slower than the Maule.
I'll concede that the Maule is a more efficient airframe but I still look at these different numbers and they don't make sense.

When it comes down to it, I guess my question is is the Maule 145 really that much better or are these numbers BS? Should I plunk down $10-15K more on it vs the 170? Should I be looking at another aircraft (Stinson?)

Thanks for any of your insights and ideas.

And Happy Veterans' Day to all who have served, past and present.

Buy a 170B with an O-360. You will love the airplane. It is affordable and it will handle a family of 3+ with a bit of sensible attention to w&b. And it is a great flying airplane with that extra horsepower.

Nizina

I'd be wary of the numbers for either. Some possibilities for the discrepancy in two otherwise comparable birds:

It's possible that Cessna chose to use a higher safety margin in their performance data than Maule, although I think any 170 owner would probably report the numbers to actually be optimistic.

The Cessna has a higher max gross, and the performance data is recorded for that weight. Likewise, the M4 has a lower empty weight.

Wing shape? Does the M4 have a wing chord like the C-170?

Did the original M4 come with a constant speed or fixed pitch prop? That could make a huge difference in performance on the takeoff and cruise perf data.

I of course love 170's but I've flown with friends in their M4's and am rather fond of them as well. Both have a lovely round tail.

No way, no how is 145 HP going to get you 130 kts, much less 157 kts. A friend of mine had an MX-7, that's 235 HP. At 75% she got 130-132 knots with the flaps negative. I'd say the cruise speed will be the same or slightly higher than the 170 if the Maule has a CS prop, if not than the same as the 170.

1SeventyZ wrote:... I think any 170 owner would probably report the numbers to actually be optimistic.

I second Zane's comment about the 170 #'s being inflated in terms of TAS. Rate of Climb is more realistic, and I can beat those T/O & landing figures on a good day as long as I'm not bursting at the seams. That's operating at 2,000 MSL, and running a climb prop BTW.

Will you keep it outdoors? I do, and I sleep better now that I have a metal airplane, than I used to in my rag-and-tube days. I used to stumble out to the airport in the middle of the night every time it snowed 4 inches or more. Maybe over cautious, but I don't sweat it so much now. Does the M4 have wooden wing spars?

Nizina's got a hot tip too, if you can swing one of those. Definitely cuts into the range, though.

Good luck

I'd say that the extra range you're seeing on the M4 is due to the long range tip tanks. I think they are 15 per side. I used to have a '55 170B and it would cruise at just over 100 kt and burn about 8 GPH.

Ninza,
I think you could find a 180 for not much difference in price as you will pay for a 170 with an O-360. Those 170's go for quite a bit more than a standard 170.
WW

Have you considered a stinson 108-2/3....... i think it's a lot more plane for the money, they fly like a dream weigh from 1250-1400 (fabric/metal) and has a 2400 gw. All origionally came with franklins but many are changed (and the franklin isn't much worse finding parts for than an o-300) . I belive they are the best bang for your buck plane you can find. Lots of storage, rear seats are slung and can be removed and there just classy.... maybe i'm biased since I own one but I can definitely say it's nice to have an extra 20hp over the o-300 170 and maule and definitely comes out in performace


Mike

I own a 170 with an O 360, and I'd second the note on cost. That engine brings a premium in the market.

I'd also second the comments on the Stinson.

The original Maules are going to be really hard to find, I suspect. The good news is that any you do find will have been rebuilt/recovered, cause the Maule processes back then were not that great.

A lot of performance depends on WHERE you're planning on operating as well as what. If you plan on working in the intermountain west, at altitude and/or during summer months, both the airplanes you mention are going to be effectively two place airplanes, due ot density altitude issues and power.

If you'll primarily be near sea level, and in cool temps, either would work.

I like metal airplanes, but....

MTV

I don't think the Maule numbers are right, I looked at a M5-210 and flew it, it was owned by a friend. His cruise was about 125 kts, with a 100 hour prop and engine. I don't think the round tail would be 5 kts faster on 65 less hp.

I would check with your insurance company, insurance for our C-180 is about 2/3 what it would have cost if we had bought a 235 hp maule.
$2100 vs $3500 for $75k

Almost got a Stinson. I checked the usable load and speed vs fuel burn and the older 182's won out. Stinsons are still a really good bird. I think a Stinson 108-2/3 is about 8 to 10K less than the strait tail 182.

If it were a tinson I would want a non metalized 108-3 (ten more gallons fuel) in a hangar.

No hanger = no rag wing
Tim

Won't speak for the Maule, but my 170B numbers differ a little from the list you gave.

Empty weight 1280 lbs, I think this is a lighter than average 170

Stall speed less than 50 MPH compared to the listed 50 KTs

37 gal useable fuel, 8 gph, 4.5 hrs +, 450 miles. Not tested to 4.5 hrs but the 8gph is correct with the 0300.

My strip is 2200' with 50' trees at one end. Summertime - I have not taken off over the trees with a passenger. Climb rate is 600 to 700 fpm. Could probably make it but thats not good enough for me. With a straight on 10 kt wind and full fuel, I would. Winter weather, zero wind, full fuel, adult passenger, my trees are not an issue. Climbs real good, 900 + fpm without passenger.

Landing over 50' obstacle, less than 1000'.

I'm real happy with the 170B as a two person airplane. Add a 2nd passenger (three adults) and my take off roll almost doubles. With three adults the beginning of the take off roll is pretty slow.

Anyway, past performance is not indicitive of future results

Bill

With fuel and the economy I've seen some fairly good deals on 50's model 180's. You might want to look around a little before you count them out.
The insurance issue is very true and I second the hangar for fabric - also more money.

crazyivan, I have a M5 180C which is 180 hp vs 145 in the M4. I flight plan 105 to 110 kts (120 to 126 mph). I see 7 to 8 gph. The other numbers for the M4 you found look good to me.

I have hundreds of hours in the Maule and some time in the 170. For what it is worth (not much) I found both to be excellent flyers.

On final the Maule will drop faster than the 170. The 170 will float better in ground effect due to its longer wings and give a smooth landing. To get a smooth landing in the Maule you have to keep some power on or extra energy on short final.

The Maule will get off the ground faster than the 170. Both will carry the same weight but it is a little easier to get it in the Maule. The rear seat comes out quickly in the Maule and the fourth door helps.

The 170 is better in a crosswind landing. The broad flat side of the Maule can make it a handful with a stiff crosswind.

The Maule will cost less to repair but more for insurance. The 170 will be the opposite.

You are not going to go wrong with either one. I would choose based on which one is prettier to you!

It's very common for people to interchange Kts/MPH cruise speed numbers . I have a MX7-160 , and I've never even seen anything close to those numbers in cruise. I know it is a little different airframe, but closer to 120 MPH is more like it in my experience.

If you have a growing family you are going to outgrow both of these aircraft in time. An older 182 might be in your price range and do everything you want to do. Also remember when your kids become teenagers they probably won't want to hang out with you anyway.

I was told, when I owned a 170, that they had four seats, but they weren't allways a 4 place airplane. In the mountains and with high DA that is the case. That is why I got rid of my 170 in favor of my 182. I know the 230 hp engine in the 182 uses 12-13 gal/hr as commpared to 8 in the 170, but in the mountains that hp is nice to have. Bob

I really liked the over the nose visibility in a 170... I'd buy it just for that reason alone... Great airplane too...

I took my rear seat out shortly after buying it and haven't put it back in once.

Even then, my empty weight is 1319 lbs.

Found this great pic: