I think that BD Maule was wildly optimistic back in the day when preparing spec's for consumer distribution. Esp for that M4-145.
Don't see too many of those around, I do see a fair number of M4-210's &-220's though. They'll give you better performance, as would a 180-horse 170, but that gain in performance ain't free: it comes with a higher purchase price & higher operating costs.
It seems like there are quite a few Stinson's available with 180,210, 220, and 230 horse conversions. If you want a true 4-place airplane, those seem like the best bargains. I'm partial to 180's, but even in this economy they're not cheap. Early 182's can be had for a pretty reasonable price also if you don't mind the nosewheel.
I think one of the best buys out there in a light (2+2) 4-place airplane is the Pacer, esp a PA-22/20- 150 with the Lycoming O-320. They can be had in good shape in the low-to-mid 20's, and with the closest thing to a bullet proof engine there is to boot.
I also want to remind everybody that I've got a good ragwing 170 for sale for $25K- check the marketplace if you're interested.

Eric

Hey Eric, what's your ragwing weigh? Just curious as I've always heard they're lighter.

ya know, for an all around bird to fit a lot of missions, including short
and soft, plus cross-country's of 500 nm or more, an older 182 is
a good idea. lots of room , first class continental 470 motor, and
good solid airframe and handling. warm to fly in the winter, too.
as u have more $ to fix it up, bigger tires and vg's help a bunch.
resale on 182's seems to hold pretty good, also...

fly mine to central idaho a lot, and also to prescott and phoenix to visit
daughters, most of the time loaded to the ceiling with stuff and/or
people. the 470 burns about 10-11 at 60% power and 130 or so
on the kts...

+1 for a Stinson from another Stinson driver, if you prefer a TW. Probably the best bang for the buck in that market. Cranks for the Franklins are pretty scarce, but for the time being everything else is available. Find one with a well-built low-time engine and you'd be good to go for a while.

For pure budget utility I would vote for the early 182 suggestion. I'm flat amazed by the one's I've flown - they just don't seem to care what you put in them.

Awesome time to be in the market, some very reasonable pricing out there in general.

The 182 is the most versatile and reliable airplane out there. We operate off a grass strip 2200' with obstacles on both ends. Ground roll full of fuel with 2 people is about 700'. Landing takes about 1200' to a full stop with no wind. You cannot outgrow the 182. If you have more than 2 kids, you can always add a jump seat in the baggage area. Insurance is also reasonable. I pay about the same for it with 80K hull value as I do for my J5 with a 25K hull value. Although the J5 is more fun to fly, I will admit the 182 can't be beat for all around utility.

1SeventyZ wrote:Hey Eric, what's your ragwing weigh? Just curious as I've always heard they're lighter.

1332 with rear bench seat, 1310 with single rear jump seat,1300 with no rear seat. If you have a full paint job & full interior and still have the gyro's in yours, Zane, it sounds pretty light for a B model. I know a guy who owned a light B model, with no gyro's, minimal radio's, no ext paint , and a gutted interior &and his weighed in o the scales at around 1250. Lots of guys have 170's that weigh 1250 on paper, but in real life-- not so many.

Eric

Don't know if it's an option for you, but there's a really nice '55 180 for sale at Stancil's for $75k.

http://www.skywagons.com/3270d.html

My old 170B was 1318 lbs on paper before we weighed it.

After yarding a bunch of old, heavy junk out of it and weighing
it, it came in at 1361.4 with the back seat out, 1393.0 with the
back seat in....

This was with a decent paint job, a fluffy interior and a basic/VFR
panel (an electric turn & bank was the only gyro in the panel).
As the saying goes, never weigh your airplane 'cause you're not
gonna like what you get!

That being said, with the back seat out, my old 145hp 170B had a
useful load of 839 lbs. As long as I kept it light (1/2 fuel or less with
just me in it), with the prop pitched to 51 inches and the Sportsman
STOL kit it had on it, I could go just about anywhere my 180 buddies
went, as long as I went home before the heat of the day came up....

Load a stock 145hp 170 up to gross weight and it is an accident
waiting to happen anywhere west of the Rockies....

1954C180 wrote:Load a stock 145hp 170 up to gross weight and it is an accident
waiting to happen anywhere west of the Rockies....

That's for sure... Keep em light and they do fine. Great solo + gear bird. Meat just weighs so much....

My '53 170B is truly 1319 with no rear seat, 1349 with. I weighed it at annual 2 years ago. It does seem impossible to get into the utility category though, as I just can't get the CG far enough forward.

You guys rock. Thanks for all the great input. I've dismissed the Stinson until you mentioned it and never even thought about the PA22/20. I'm going to have to look into these some more.

I had a feeling that the internet numbers were bogus. You can play with aerodynamics but a 145hp engine is a 145 hp engine.

I would love a C-180 or M6/M7 but they are too far out of my price range.

hotrod - I've been eyeballing your plane, but a ragwing in a Maine winter is asking for problems. The Kitfox is easy...fold up the wings and stuff it into a garage or the corner of somebody's hangar.

Cheers
Dave

crazyivan,

Your questions were concerning the choice between a Maule M-4 and a C-170. If you are like me....procurement cost is an issue. If so....then discussions concerning C-180's, C-182's and even the 180 HP C-170 become somewhat academic. Heck, we all want a C-180 but not all of us can afford to buy or operate one. No shame in that.

I have an M-5-210-C, which I have flown over 600 hours and consider it a fabulous airplane but in all reality a poor man's C-180.

That being said....the cruise speed for the M-4 is wildly exaggerated. 130 mph "maybe" under perfect conditions, but not 130 kts. My M5 with 210 HP and constant speed prop trues out at 120 kts; burning nearly 11 gph.

For performance, I think that the M-4 would be preferable to the C-170. On the other hand the C-170 is larger, more comfortable, quieter, more docile, more stable and has classic good looks. It would probably cost you several thousand dollars more to buy a comparable C-170 vs the Maule.

The Maule front seats are hard to enter and exit....but offers great load carrying ability and access to the rear seat area.

Bottom line it comes down to how you want to use the airplane. IMHO the Maule is better for rugged back country, camping flying. The C-170 better for family and more conventional, pleasure flying.

Try them both out. Fly them. Make up your own mind. Good luck....most of all have fun....be safe.

Bob

Got a 52 170b. 1245lbs with very basic IFR- 1 vor- and the C-145 engine. Very good family airplane. I have a 955 lb useful load that gives me just over 700 lbs with full fuel. My airplane is lighter than most but as long as you don't have tons of useless junk you won't go over 1300lbs. The interior of the 170 is a lot bigger than a maule m4. Much more leg room and space to put junk behind the seats. The baggage area is just a little smaller but I can get a Jogging stroller (bobs revolution) and a pack and play in the back. Can't quite fit the double jogging stroller. Looked at a M4 and had the wife sit in it and she liked the interior room and visibility of the 170 over the M4. Much quieter also.
As for performance, I cruise around at gross quite a bit. I just don't land up at tahoe or expect to go into short strips. I disagree with Bela. The 170 flies west of the rockies at gross quite well. I just don't expect to land in the rockies at gross. With myself and my son I operate off of a very rough 1100 ft strip with trees.
I wish I had a C-180
I wish I had a M7-235
I have a C-170 and bang for the buck you can't beat it. I don't know if you are planning a lot of mountain flying but if you live at sea level like me you can go anywhere with the 170 at 105 kts and 8gph.
Great family airplane.
PM me if you have questions.

Well, of course, you are right Buzzlatka...

The 170 does do a fine job at sea level west of the Rockies.

I put 700 hours on the '54 C-170B I had before I sold it, and
I loved every minute of it (well, there *were* a couple of takeoffs
in the backcountry of Idaho where I would have traded my
right arm for some more horsepower....).

Ok I've been trying to bite my tongue on this one but im not made of stone. I am partial to the 170 having grown up in one (that you may be familiar with Zane) and love my 170B that being said it is in the shop getting a bigger engine. heres my 2 cents the maule is simpler newer but Id try to get at least a M5 160 for the money.(i hate continentals!) the cessna has better fit and finish and its all metal! long story short bolth are great 2 seaters with the ability to haul 4 people in the right conditions. either one will provide many grins and thats what its all about.
by the way Sane i dont know about getting charly into the utility category but I guarantee you can spin it and do hammerheads with the back seat in (dont ask how I know)

I didnt spell your name with an s Zane it was the spell check, I swear!