Here's one for all the Maule Bashers:

-1100lb useful load
-Over a 50' obstacle in 800'

Is there a 235 hp or less, certified, stock airplane out there that will beat this? I thought maybe a 180, but not according to any of the numbers I've seen.

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2 ... auler.html

Great looking plane.
If I had bought a certified plane it would have been a Maule. Did they give you a quote?

Maybe a C-180 with Wing-X and Sportsman Stol? Stene's site claims 650' over a 50' obstacle for the 180 http://www.steneaviation.com/performanc ... =7~7~13~13.
And Wing-X will increase the gross weight to 2950-3190 depending on year, this will give most 180s more than 1100 useful.

4Whitey wrote:Here's one for all the Maule Bashers:
-1100lb useful load
-Over a 50' obstacle in 800'
Is there a 235 hp or less, certified, stock airplane out there that will beat this? I thought maybe a 180, but not according to any of the numbers I've seen. .........

Maule had a history in the old days of overly enthusiastic performance claims for their products-- as I recall they claimed a 180 mph top speed for their M4-145.
Per the Maule spec sheet webpage, this new M9 weighs in at around 1700# empty with a 235 horse engine &165 sq ft of wing area. An average early C180 weighs in at around the same or less, with 225 horsepower & 175 sq ft of wing-- about 4% less hp & 6% more wing, which probably kinda cancel out each other. So unless Maule builds in some special kinda magic, I can't see how the M9 is gonna really be any improvement in performance over the old benchmark Cessna 180. However, the M9 does have a higher gross by 250# & 25 gallons more fuel capacity than a stock early 180, which could be pretty significent differences depending on mission.
The AOPA article mentions that Maule will be putting the M4-180 2 seat model back into production. This is pretty good news. I don't really understand why they didn't sell more of them when that model was introduced a few years ago at around $100-110K, comparable to the Husky & Top Cub but quite a bit less money. A lot of people (like myself) prefer side-by-side seating, too. I see Maule now sez prices start at $158,900--quite an increase over the original (re)introduction in 2005. What's a Top Cub or Husky cost these days?

It'll be interesting to see if the M-9 book numbers equal the real world numbers.

I think a modified Cessna 182 or 180 would come close, and I'd bet a stock Helio would beat it. Although if you want a certified, current production, 235hp or less AC, I don't know of anything can touch it... especially if you want a TW.

Imagine a 300hp io540 or a 420hp turbine on the front of that thing, wow.

I have no idea what they cost.

Don't rule out achieved thrust as a wild card that may (or may not) make one old dog get up and go better than another one in the same class. 3 blades versus 2 blades, prop diameter and pitch, shape and pressure distribution on the cowl, cooling inlets "backing up" and affecting prop in/out flow. All those little things can tip the scales far more than just a few HP one way or another.

Also, some are Lycoming and some Continental. There are probably engine experts here who know far more than I, but surely there is some difference in torque at the prop hub at X or Y RPM. As the old saying goes, "horsepower sells the airplane but torque is what makes it take off and fly".

Also, the Maule uses the Cub's beloved old Brontosaurus USA35 airfoil, which I believe makes a bit more lift than the slicker/sleeker 23 series Cessna wing, and I think will hang on at a slightly higher alpha. Once again there are surely people here with letters behind their names that can expound on that far above my pay grade.

Althoiugh I own and enjoy my "brand C" airplane, and have owned/enjoyed many other types, the Maule always reminds me of the old saying "old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill". Go get 'em B.D. you crafty old coot!

EZ has a point about Maule getting a design and sticking to it with just small changes over the many years. Kind of like Suburu cars, they only make 4 of them, only 2 different chasis, everythiing AW drive from the start, boxer engine forever, and just keep tweeking it till you got it done right. Sometimes thinking outside the box is good and sometimes it isn't. Maule has definitely stood the test of time for a reason. I can't say the lines are all that sexy but definitely functional.

Rhyppa wrote: I can't say the lines are all that sexy but definitely functional.

The spring gear is a nice improvement cosmetically in addition to functionality/maintenance. Their vertical tail should have been higher aspect ratio and unswept, if for no other reason than cosmetic. Probably fly a smidge nicer too. But it's not really unattractive as-is. The shape of the side windows is the only significant thing that Maule needs to look at changing, from a physical beauty aspect. Otherwise I think it's pretty beauteous for a nasty old whiskey drinking bushplane that is essentially a descendant of the J-2 Cub.

The real world numbers should be pretty close given similar conditions. The test pilot (female) did a great job and I can't imagine any reason why she would fudge on test results. She's a pro.

M-9 235 is $252,900 less avionics.

4Whitey wrote:It'll be interesting to see if the M-9 book numbers equal the real world numbers.

I have no idea what they cost.

EZFlap wrote: Otherwise I think it's pretty beauteous for a nasty old whiskey drinking bushplane that is essentially a descendant of the J-2 Cub.

I, for one, think she's DAMN SEXY!

That is a sweet looking plane!!

Pretty cool!! Looks super sweet!!