Oh, if I remember correctly the thrust increase with the new prop and exhaust was 300 lbs. static, which is HUGE in my book. I don't what the difference is between the 180 and the 235 in static thrust. Jeremy? Don't forget the 180 is lighter so it's not a 1 to 1 comparison.

Motorcitymaule wrote: ..... she never got off i quick as i did....

I've had that same issue with a gal or two also.

180 horse performance: keep in mind that it's an experimental, not really a Maule, but check out the performance of Greg's 180-horse Bushwacker in the LPBR video's.

zero.one.victor wrote:

Motorcitymaule wrote: ..... she never got off i quick as i did....

I've had that same issue with a gal or two also.

Hey, I think I know her!

I am LMAO on that comment.

BTW I believe if I go for another plane the M-7 180C may become the choice.

Bub

You think that if I showed up at Joseph, Oregon there would be chance to get the toure and get a ride in a Maule. I need to go out to Provo Utah and I do not think it is too out of the way.

Tim

Static thrust dynamometer/spring balance pulls are very rough tests bcause of weight of aircraft, balance of aircraft, windage flow of cowlings, prop drag and so many things. Measured time and distance to lift off and to a climb point using the same pilot with equally loaded planes is realistic and we dont have these figures for the so many diferent Maule engine and wing lengths except in anecdotal form.
Jeremy

Even aircraft performance numbers aren't easy due to differences in density altitude etc. the conversion factors are close, but usually pessismistic. Cooling climbs are best done in hot wx as opposed to using the conversion for example. Then there are just some aircraft that perform much better (or worse) than other identical aircraft. Pilot skill is of course a factor as well. An apples to apples comparison is hard.
But that 180 Ray was flying got off quick and climbed hard from what Icould see.