Tens of thousands less than a new C172 or Husky. !!
And Hundreds of thousands less than equivalent hp new C182

Why has this thread gone so quite all of a sudden?

400ft takeoff roll with 2800lbs aboard is pretty impressive stuff.
They seem to look the part too:

So who can answer these questions, 180 vs Maule M9, I've never flown a Maule?

Which wins in these areas:

4Whitey wrote:Questions about the M9 compared vs a 180:
- Bigger cargo area?
- Better Handling?
- Crosswind Landing?
- Rudder Authority?

maules.com wrote:Tens of thousands less than a new C172 or Husky. !!
And Hundreds of thousands less than equivalent hp new C182

But what is the base price for one of these

For some of us, just sitting in a Maule is all you need to do to make sure we will never own one. Not quite small and cramped, but definitely tight and for me a fuselage tube hits my knee at just the perfectly WRONG place despite how I adjust things. Much, much prefer the comfort of a Cessna cabin.

jugheadF15 wrote:For some of us, just sitting in a Maule is all you need to do to make sure we will never own one. Not quite small and cramped, but definitely tight and for me a fuselage tube hits my knee at just the perfectly WRONG place despite how I adjust things. Much, much prefer the comfort of a Cessna cabin.

Yeah Jon,

But you're bent kinda funny after that high-Q event... so we can't use you as any kind of a benchmark for standard fit...



Ross

4Whitey wrote:So who can answer these questions, 180 vs Maule M9, I've never flown a Maule?

Which wins in these areas:

4Whitey wrote:Questions about the M9 compared vs a 180:
- Bigger cargo area?
- Better Handling?
- Crosswind Landing?
- Rudder Authority?

Eric, My experience is only in Maule M7s and M5s so I don't know the specific variations with the 9.
The Maule cargo door offers easier loading of bulky items, but with the extended baggage on my 180, I can fit more in. I take the passenger door off of the 180 when I want to load larger things, like the 11 ft. Christmas tree the four of us picked up this year. I don't know the measurement of the length of the Maule space, but I think the 180 beats it by a "bit". Be good to know if folks are loading their kayaks and such? The other thing with the sling seats is that you can't load gear like kayaks and christmas trees, stacks of 2X4s and have someone sitting next to it. Don't know if Maule offers different rear seat options like with the Cessna Jump seats, Atlee Dodge, etc?

I like the air handling of the Cessna better, but I think they both do fine on the ground. It seems you have to work harder with both when they are set up with bigger tires, and do much better with tailwheel steering when they have the little sneakers.

I never had a problem with the rudder authority or crosswind landings in either, but have not been out in the Maule in near the cross winds that I have been in with the Cessna. Both have a record of failures in this area I have seen both handled capably in crosswinds by pilots who were familiar with their bird. FWIW, I have not had a problem with wheel landing the Maule, normal or crosswind, but have talked to several who try to avoid it because of prop clearance and other issues? Again, don't know about the 9, but would suspect this is only with certain gear and tire set ups?

I really enjoy the Maule, but before my hip replacement, it was hell getting in and out. I like the view better out the Cessna front window. The Maule seems a bit narrower and like you are sitting back.
Matt

maules.com wrote:Tens of thousands less than a new C172 or Husky. !!
And Hundreds of thousands less than equivalent hp new C182

Can you be a little more specific?
Also, what happened to the M4-180 2 seater? That one looked like a helluva bargain when first introduced at less than 100K, but just a year or so later the advertised price went up about 25% or more. Even so, I thought that it would provide some stiff competition to the Husky & Top Cub, esp for those of us who prefer side-by-side seating, but then it just kinda faded away.

hotrod150 wrote:

maules.com wrote:Tens of thousands less than a new C172 or Husky. !!
And Hundreds of thousands less than equivalent hp new C182

Can you be a little more specific?
Also, what happened to the M4-180 2 seater? That one looked like a helluva bargain when first introduced at less than 100K, but just a year or so later the advertised price went up about 25% or more. Even so, I thought that it would provide some stiff competition to the Husky & Top Cub, esp for those of us who prefer side-by-side seating, but then it just kinda faded away.

I had never even heard of that one. I'll bet they got the jigs around there someplace. I imagine they would make you one if you insisted.

EB

The M9 has the same airframe dimensions as the M7.
The wing and landing gear are stronger and there is minor beefup in the fuselage.
M7 is 2500lb gwt and M9 2800lb gwt. M9 has a heavier empty weight.
M4-180V with M4 style fuselage has no rear seats and no baggage door which is what makes the Maule.
The initial M4 180V 2 seater price was less than the equivalent 4 seat 180 hp with baggage door but not much cheaper to build.
Very quickly the prices were within $10,000 of eachother and I could not see any advantage in the M4-180V so in all honesty did not promote it.
The 4 seat with all 4 doors version becomes a 2 seat with the 2 minute removal of rear seats and performs so close to the 2 seat and has the incredible loading advantage.
Only 10 of the M4-180V were built.

Maule M9-260 hp IO540 Lyc is $269,000
Cessna 182 230 hp SMA is $515,000
Cessna 182 235 hp Lyc is $493,000
Cessna 172 160 hp Lyc is $274,900
Cessna 172 180 hp Lyc is $307,500
Aviat Husky A1C Lyc is $315,000
These prices are derived from a quick google search.

maules.com wrote:Cessna 172 160 hp Lyc is $274,900

More $$ than my house. What's wrong with the world?

Who would choose a 160hp 172 over a Maule M9?

Zzz wrote:

maules.com wrote:Cessna 172 160 hp Lyc is $274,900

More $$ than my house. What's wrong with the world?

Who would choose a 160hp 172 over a Maule M9?

Amen brother Z - preach on!

maules.com wrote:Maule M9-260 hp IO540 Lyc is $269,000

Which brings it back to my point RE: M9 Vs/ C180... You can have one HELL of a lunatic C180 for way less than half that price.

bigrenna wrote:

maules.com wrote:Maule M9-260 hp IO540 Lyc is $269,000

Which brings it back to my point RE: M9 Vs/ C180... You can have one HELL of a lunatic C180 for way less than half that price.

Brand new you can't.

I give Maule huge props (hehe) for hanging in there and building a quality tailwheel plane when others in the market have jumped ship. Just imagine what a brand new 2013 Cessna 180 would cost.... (if there were such a thing).

Where do you find one that is not 50 years old

vaughans wrote:Where do you find one that is not 50 years old

It's not the age by any means. It's the condition, amount of damage, wear and tear, and how it has been maintained and flown. There are 60 year old airplanes in lots better shape than 25 or 30 year old airplanes. Ever seen a 1979 Cessna 152 that spent its life as a flight school trainer?

Finding a 180 of any calendar age that has not been ridden hard and put away wet is probably a much bigger challenge. If you are looking for a low time, undamaged, not beaten up 180, it is probably a lot easier to find a 182 in that condition, and do the conversion. You may or may not save money over buying a 180, but you have a much better chance of having a lower time and less damaged airframe with a lot more life left in it.

But it is about age, comparing a 50 year old riveted aluminum airframe to a brand new airplane unless it has been totally rebuilt with ever part being restored to factory new specs. and every rivet replaced. It's Apples & Oranges. Yeah, you could build a hell of a 180 for considerably less money than the price of the new M9, but you could also build a hell of a early M7 Maule for those same dollars and would be a much more fair comparison. I'm betting the demographics that Maule is targeting with the NEW M9 are not looking for 30 year old airplanes let alone 50 year old ones. The price doesn't seem to me to be out of line when you consider that Cessna does not even offer a new airplane of the same class to compare against. They are both good airplanes but lets be fair in what we are trying to compare!

Vaughans

I say if you have $250+k at your disposal in this economy, buy a brand new M9! I'm sure the employees and their families at Maule will thank you.

EZFlap wrote:

vaughans wrote:Where do you find one that is not 50 years old

It's not the age by any means. It's the condition, amount of damage, wear and tear, and how it has been maintained and flown. There are 60 year old airplanes in lots better shape than 25 or 30 year old airplanes. Ever seen a 1979 Cessna 152 that spent its life as a flight school trainer?

Finding a 180 of any calendar age that has not been ridden hard and put away wet is probably a much bigger challenge. If you are looking for a low time, undamaged, not beaten up 180, it is probably a lot easier to find a 182 in that condition, and do the conversion. You may or may not save money over buying a 180, but you have a much better chance of having a lower time and less damaged airframe with a lot more life left in it.

I would suggest that you would have to do an engine upgrade on the converted 182 to get the same performance as the M9.
Nice 182, low time, undamaged .... + PPonk?? .... + gear conversion ... would it be crazy to say you would have ~200k invested. I guess i am not convinced that you can have "one hell of a lunatic C180 for way less than $134,500" there would have to be a compromise somewhere (avionics, high time engine, poor paint ....)

I guess you have quite a bit left over for gas compared to a new M9. But on the other hand you are comparing Brand NEW to 50 years old and you may eat up some of that dealing with gremilins that have been developing over the last 50 years?? If you can afford 200k can you afford 270?

I think the primary factor is what people will or wont ride in. Some people wont drive a ford because it is a "ford" some wont fly a Maule because it is a maule ....

Wait a minute this isn't my place .. i shouldn't even by participating in a discussion with these kinds of numbers ....i'll keep quiet and go back to my 60k and under world.

Really i am not suggesting one way or the other just throwing some fuel on the fire. If i had the cash new would be awsome but at the end of the day reality is a real bitch .... perhaps in 15 years we can have this argument again and be able to compare a 1500hr M9 priced less than 200k to a hopped up 7000hr 65 year old C180 priced at ????