I've heard that the Maule uses the same airfoil as the Pacer & Cub. If so and given they moved the aileron out to the end and lengthened the flaps did Maule do anything to strengthen the wing vs a Pacer wing for example? I've noticed that Maule has a bit higher payload rating. The M4 has the same total sq ft as a squared off Pacer and looks to use similar struts.

The reason I'm asking is that those are mods I'd like to make on an experimental Pacer build.

Thanks

The STC to square off the Pawnee wing makes it capable of handling heavier loads. A rib is added which gives the extra wing area that makes a big difference in high density altitude work. I never had a PA-22 with the squared wing. The original wing carried loads well, however.

Arguably the biggest difference between the Pacer and the Maule wing is that Maule covered their wings in metal, whereas Pipers wings were fabric covered. I don't know if that feature in itself made the wing stronger, but I doubt it.

I've flown a couple Pacers with squared off, extend d wings, and that really does improve lift considerably, particularly noticeable on floats.

I've never flown one with the ailerons moved out to the extended tips, but based on my experience in cubs with wing extensions, I have to believe moving the ailerons to the tips would be very beneficial on Pacer with extended wings.

MTV

mtv wrote:Arguably the biggest difference between the Pacer and the Maule wing is that Maule covered their wings in metal, whereas Pipers wings were fabric covered. I don't know if that feature in itself made the wing stronger, but I doubt it.

I've flown a couple Pacers with squared off, extend d wings, and that really does improve lift considerably, particularly noticeable on floats.

I've never flown one with the ailerons moved out to the extended tips, but based on my experience in cubs with wing extensions, I have to believe moving the ailerons to the tips would be very beneficial on Pacer with extended wings.

MTV

It is interesting to me that in contrast to Cessna and Dehavilland airplanes, that Maule made a metal skinned wing, but still relies on both forward and rear lift struts to react wing torsional loads. If designed properly, metal skin will create a torque cell that demands only a single lift strut. It seems that if the skin isn't reacting torsional loads, the weight of the skin isn't working for you as efficiently as could be. Maules and Pacers are both sweet crafts with airframes that will handle more abuse than is wise to inflict. Highroad here has owned both and uses them to their potential.

I'd be cautious about comparing an older metal covered Maule wing with a Piper's fabric, or a Cessna for that matter. I had a later '70's M-5 and the rivets were there to hold the metal together, but as I vaguely recall weren't typical rivets. They tended to smoke a bit when flown in rain and turbulence. Some or all may have been externally applied and not bucked from below (a non-mechanic's description). It appeared to me that the metal covering was similar to metalizing found on some aircraft that were originally fabric covered.

There was a fatal crash of a M-7 floatplane (?) near Howard Pass in the Brooks Range of Alaska some years ago. It's a traditionally windy stretch of rocks (winds approaching 100 mph have been recorded: RAWS station HOWA2). Some anecdotal discussion indicated a portion of the upper wing quit holding hands. Someone mentioned it had been a test mule for Maule at one time. All or some of this may not be correct.

Edit: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... l&IType=FA

The pilot was experienced and not new to the conditions, and I assume the aircraft. This is not meant to criticize Maule or the pilot.

GAP

Maule used metal to "cover" the wing. It's not structural like a Cessna. Thus the two struts. I think a Maule wing with fabric would be super sweet. At least fabric is tight. Maule metal is loose. But it seems to work just fine. And is dirty tough most of the time.

FYI. I want to make a ridiculous post and be a ridiculous person for posting it. If this is not it, I'll keep trying. Hi Zane. [emoji4]

As BD knew and Bob Barrows employed, using metal on the wing allowed the airfoil to retain its intended shape and perform better. Fabric is lighter and gives the designer room to use the weight bonus elsewhere, but it flexes in the wind and does not retain the true airfoil shape. Fabric is also cheaper to build with and repair than metal. But it also requires repair where a metal wing may have withstood the damage. It has been well said that an aircraft design is a conglomeration of compromises...

PA1195 wrote:I'd be cautious about comparing an older metal covered Maule wing with a Piper's fabric, or a Cessna for that matter. I had a later '70's M-5 and the rivets were there to hold the metal together, but as I vaguely recall weren't typical rivets. They tended to smoke a bit when flown in rain and turbulence. Some or all may have been externally applied and not bucked from below (a non-mechanic's description). It appeared to me that the metal covering was similar to metalizing found on some aircraft that were originally fabric covered.

There was a fatal crash of a M-7 floatplane (?) near Howard Pass in the Brooks Range of Alaska some years ago. It's a traditionally windy stretch of rocks (winds approaching 100 mph have been recorded: RAWS station HOWA2). Some anecdotal discussion indicated a portion of the upper wing quit holding hands. Someone mentioned it had been a test mule for Maule at one time. All or some of this may not be correct.

Edit: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... l&IType=FA

The pilot was experienced and not new to the conditions, and I assume the aircraft. This is not meant to criticize Maule or the pilot.

GAP

This accident pops up from time to time in discussions. The weather that day was heinous, estimated winds of 80 to 100 kts with the mechanical turbulence of the Brooks Range thrown in for kickers. They should not have been there period. I would never blame the construction of a Maule on this accident.

You and the NTSB agree regarding the conditions and probable cause. At the time there was a local discussion of prior aircraft use in certification by Maule, but that's discussion and I don't know if that was true of false.

But my experience with my M-5 N393X was that the upper wing panels and rivets were looser than I liked, and certainly looser than any Cessna I've flown or seen as far as the wing. Smoking rivets do not make for confidence, but that plane may have been an exception.

GAP

It was an exception. The wing that failed had been repaired incorrectly. It is the only wing to fail in a Maule and as noted previously the wx conditions were exceptional. They were heavy and on floats and had decided to search for a more sheltered camp. The accompanying aircraft wisely stayed on the water.
Regarding smoking rivets in the M5. M5 wings were made on a flat jig table so when washout was introduced it induced a little oil canning to the top or bottom skins, thus stress on the rivets. Later wings being longer were built with washout induced at the jig table.

Thank you for the clarification regarding the accident we discussed...by commenting I meant no disrespect to Maule or their owners. They are sound aircraft and with the factory support and upgrades I'm sure they are safe. I enjoyed mine immensely and sold it only because I wanted floats and couldn't afford both at the time.

As I mentioned that Howard Pass/upper Nigu and Etivuluk River area is windy and subject to mechanical turbulence. It's essentially a broad flat pass marked by interrupting terrain and is a major north<>south air pressure gateway between the southern North Slope of Alaska and the nearby Noatak River valley. The NPS has a few remote area weather stations in the area (RAWS station HOWA2 is in the pass) to monitor yearly climate and extreme weather events.

I've flown around there on floats and wheel skis in a C-185 and can attest to the localized adverse weather that occurs. It's avoidable and planned flights should be flexible in their route and timing.

GAP