While visiting a friend recently I saw an ad posted for a Maule M5-220 for sale. I was flying my 172 and have had it for 21 years. It has been a wonderful, cheap plane to own. I have decided to sell it and am looking for something faster and capable of getting in and out of my 1000 ft. farm strip. I currently have to keep it in town (25+ miles away) and its a PITA to have to drive to the airport whenever I want to go someplace.

Anyone here have experience with the M5-220? What is the cruise and fuel burn? Is it able to burn auto-fuel when necessary? I see the TBO is relatively low (1500hr TBO) but this particular engine has less then 100 hrs SOH. I've always heard Maules are pretty decent performers when light, how about near gross?

Thanks in advance,
Keith

I have heard concerns about factory support for the Franklin Engines. I have flown an M-5 with the Continental IO-360. It was an excellent airplane. 1000 ft strip at or near sea level? No problem near gross weight, as long as the 50 ft obstacle that everyone talks about isn't right off of the end.

No where's near sea level...a few feet under 1500' above sea level. I'm in North-central Minnesota inside of a state forest so the proverbial 50 foot obstical is everywhere.

M5s have excellent performance and Franklin 220 will handle the 1,000 flt strip in the conditions you describe. I know guys with the Franklin, it is a smooth running engine. Parts are made out that very rare material unobtainium.

Go to the Maulepilots.org site and look around, there are posts there comparing performance of the Maules.

I personally would find a 0-540.

Here some "internet-specs" that I have seen, probably at least as accurate as salesperson specs. These are usually measured at sea level and gross weight. 1500 ft is not very high, and I wouldn't imagine that there would be much performance loss even on hot days.

http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info ... e334.shtml

WWHunter,

This won't help with the Franklin 220 but concerns the M-5-210-C which is an excellent performer.

Before a 15,000 mile, around the nation flight in 2003 my son and I tested my M-5-210 for performace..... as Maule will not provide that information.

We loaded the airplane to MAX gross weight and made numerous takeoffs and landings...both with 20 degrees of flaps and zero flaps. We had friends along the runway to mark the takeoff distance, landing distance and 50 ft. obstacle clearance.

Our homebase airport is at 485ft. msl and the temp. was 64 degrees. It is a hard surface runway.

The airplane consistantly broke ground 600 feet after beginning take off roll and cleared the obstacle at almost exacty the 1,000 ft. mark. That was with 20 degrees of flaps.

Zero flaps resulted in a take off roll of nearly 700 ft. but cleared the 50 foot obstacle a bit sooner and achieved a higher airspeed at the same point in climb....10 mph more. (I say "nuts to knots") anyhow..

Landings with full flaps to a complete stop were consistantly less that 350 ft. at full gross weight.

The airplane had about 350 hours on a factory "remanufactured ZERO time" engine and over 1,700 hours on the airframe.

We flew the airplane all around the nation that year at gross weight most of the time....elevations as high as 6,000ft. plus and temps. of 96 degrees at the Grand Canyon airport. Of course there were few obstacles there and a long runway. Anyhow she performed beautifully. We used a KOCH chart to determine take off and climb performance, using our "test" flights as a baseline. The airplane consistantly outperformed the chart.

Just few her to Montana and Idaho last month. Did backcountry flying and mountian flying. Pretty heavy most of the time and had no performance issues. She has almost 900 hours on the engine now and still smooth as a sewing machine.

I would highly recommend the airplane/engine combination.

Bob

I can get my M-6/235 into and out of 500 ft at gross with a DA of a couple of thousand. I would want 600 or 700 to be comfortable, but I have a couple of more feet of wing and 15 hp more. I'm not talking over any obstacle either, but I'm not that good of a pilot.
A franklin is the best running engine out there, and I believe it's power to weight ratio is much better than a Lyc., but everybody knows how to fix a Lyc. and parts are everywhere.
The Franklin Maules were I believe what gave Maule their name, I think they outperform any other engine, too bad parts are difficult to find. For the last several years there were going to be parts available any day now, but it hasn't as far as I know happened.
From what I can tell, the Franklins take a real hit on re-sale value.

a64pilot,

yeah the LYC 540 is the number one choice, IMHO. I searched for a Maule with that engine for months back in 2002. Just could not find the right airframe/engine time, condition and price. Came across the M-5 which only had 270 hours on the engine and a maticulously maintained aircraft. So I bought it and have never been sorry.

Before the Maule I owned a Skybolt with the 260 H.P. I-O 540. Flew her abut 400 hours. What a marvelous engine. I can still hear that deep rumble and growl she made on take off.

When the I-O 360 comes up for overhaul....I will look into installing a 540 in her. Do you know if the 260 H.P. version is approved for a M-5?

Thanks,

Bob

p.s.

Is an A64 the Apache helio? Surely not the old P-64, export version of the T-6, although that would be cool also!

WWhunter wrote:I currently have to keep it in town (25+ miles away) and its a PITA to have to drive to the airport whenever I want to go someplace.

And it breaks one of the most sacred rules:

Never drive from one airport to another.

Skybolt, It was AH-64. I'm retired from that now, but I still have to work in order to eat
I'm real sure the 260 is not approved for the M-5. You'll find that replacing your Conti. with a Lycoming will cost a lot more than trading for an airplane with a Lyc. in it already, and there is nothing wrong with that little Conti., especially with fuel like it is. It's 360 cubic inches, but six cylinder smooth, best of both worlds.

I believe that both the IO-360 Continental & the 220 Franklin are both 100LL only engines- no cargas approval. The O-540 Lycoming (not IO) is I believe OK with cargas. The petersen cargas STC brochure sez to contact Maule for cargas approval.

Eric

j's no, b's yes, from all I've been able to find

Hard to find car gas without ethynol these days.

tim

I don't know much about Maules but I have been following the Franklin issue rather closely via the Stinson club. In the time that I owned and flew my Franklin 165 most parts could be located through resources like Greg Lucas, Bruce Kown, and the Franklin Engine Co (http://www.franklinengineco.com/). Of late though even the parts that could readily be had have become harder to find to include cylinders and cranks.

A promising development came last year in a couple of Polish guys who bought the rights to manufacture Franklin engines and parts and declared their intent to build new 220s. So far little has come of it, though they were reportedly at Osh Kosh this year still claiming the same intent. Nonetheless not much has materialized, so I think folks are losing confidence in their promises.

When I was deliberating on a new, larger engine for my Stinson I strongly considered the 220 (Bruce Kown had a freshly overhauled one on the shelf) but ultimately shied away from it on three points:
-grim prospect of an enduring supply of parts
-1500 hr TBO
-high compression so cargas was out of the question

With the prevalence of ethanol polluted mogas these days I suppose the last consideration is almost a moot point, but the parts issue and the relatively shorter TBO are detractors. If they actually go back into production on engines and parts and TBO was the only minus it is an engine I would be excited about - if my 165 was any indicator Franklins are beautifully smooth engines.

Vick,
Its true, they were at Oshkosh but I didn't talk to them. They did have a nice display set up though.
I kind of thought that car gas wasn't approved for the 220. I live in the booneys and go to town as little as possible so being able to use car gas is a big issue for me.

On a side note, the density altitude can be a factor here. On Saturday the DA was around 3000'. Not a problem when I'm flying the 172 from the town airport.

Keith - as a biased 220 Franklin owner in my Stinson, I wouldn't let that turn you away from a bird. The 220 Franklin is a fabulous motor. Lots of power, light, very smooth, and low fuel burn. It is high compression, so 100LL is mandatory. 1500 tbo is correct. Almost all make tbo. Really not a different tbo than many 0-470's. The parts issue relates more to the 165 150 hp variants of the Franklin. There are a good number of 220 parts including cranks and pistons, and complete engines for sale. There is a 220 right over by you pickled with less than 300 hours for sale that I looked at this spring. The Polish group at this point indicates they are going to produce the 220 and not the 150 and 165. We'll see if they do or not. As to the 100LL versus auto, the price of 100LL isn't much different than premium non-ox auto fuel here in Cook. About 40 cents/gallon more. I would guess that for most people that fly under 50 hrs per year that doesn't amount to a couple hundred dollars. Personally, I'm apprehensive about any auto fuel in a plane. I'm sure that Mule would get in and out of your strip without a problem. I know my Stinson could easily. If you're back in the plane market, I might have something to sell you again. The wife seems to think a 185 would haul all the crap to Canada that she insists on taking, so I'm in the market for one. Russ

Russ, no doubt the 220 is a sweet engine and I sincerely hope the Poles are able to succeed in their venture. When I bought my Stinson with the 165 parts didn't look like they would be an issue, but here we are only a couple years later and even cylinders have gotten scarce - forget about finding a tagged crankshaft for anything less than a small fortune. I wouldn't necessarily walk away from a plane with an already-installed 220, but I would feel a whole lot better about being able to fly it for years to come if new parts were available.

On that note, here's an excerpt from an e-mail that Susan from Franklin Engines sent to the Yahoo Stinson group...

This is Susan with Franklin Engine Co..Trying to shed some light on continued support for your Franklin Engines. I was at Oshkosh with the poles for several days.Ive asked all the same questions and here are some of the answers.It looks like they are concentrating more on the 220-and the 4cylinder engines .I asked repeatedley about the crankshafts for the 150-165s and was told that if the crankshafts for the 220 and 4 cylinders make inspection and pass their testing, then he would consider having the cranshaft for the 150-165s produced.

I had an M-5 220C Maule that I sold in about 1999. I regularly flew it into a 1,000 foot strip here in the Wrangell Mountains at an elevation of 1,600 feet. It had plenty of power to get in and out of that strip, but you need to know how to fly the Maule to stay out of trouble with it, especially on landing. It had a nice cruse speed and could haul a good load.

I was always worried about parts for the Franklin, and frankly, it sounds like the availability of parts, at least for the 220, has not improved that much. I was sure hoping that PZL would get cranked up.

Even though the engine runs smooth, it seemed like it was always loosing bolts. After having flown the plane for a number of years, I was ready to transition over to a Cessna (170B with a 180 HP lycoming). I was still 300 hours shy of the 1500 TBO, but didn't get much for the airplane ($21,000), but then I had already bought the 170 and didn't want the M-5 to sit on the ramp waiting for a higher price.

I liked the airplane and the engine, but would not buy another one because of the uncertainty associated with PZL support. And then, of course, there is the issue of just getting used to the flight characteristics of the Maule, but that is a different issue that practice should solve for you.

Nizina

Russ,
I was hoping you would respond. I know you like your Stinson and it is a nice plane. The fuel issue is not that big of a problem. As you say the price difference is not alot but I think the last 91 Non-Ox. fuel I bought was just shy of $4.00 and I think 100LL was over $5.00 ($5.25+)here in PR. As I normally fly 50-75 hrs. a year that isn't alot but it does count up. Plus having to drive 60 miles just to get Avgas gets to be a PITA. I do have a huge fuel stand here but haven't been able to find anyone that will deliver 100LL to a private guy.

Thank you Ninza. That is a very honest and straight forward answer. What was your cruise speed and at what RPM-fuel burn?

Keith

Vick - I'm also on the Stinson yahoo group and have been watching the thread on the poles. I know Susan, Bruce, and Greg had a number of 220's sitting on the shelf for sale a month or two ago - at least according to a posting Greg put up in May or June. I think Greg indicated his frustration as to the poles pursuing the 220 instead of the 165/150 market, when he and Bruce had whole spare remaned 220's for sale, and couldn't get the parts for the 165/150's. It looks like right now Susan Prall is lining up a production run of cranks/pistons for the 165 if she gets enough takers. Mine sure hasn't shook any bolts loose, and other than burning a quart every 7 or 8 hours -that's running it hard on floats- it performs like a Swiss watch. Just my personal feeling is that the 220's are OK with parts right now, and looks like they might have lots of parts and full factory support in the future, but the 165/150 line looks to be in trouble if the Poles don't decide to support it. The 220 is a lot of motor for the money. I can see why the Poles are attempting the resurrect the 220 instead of the 150/165 line. While they might have a decent parts market for the 165/150, the 165's would be going head to head with the O-360, and all the experimental variants of the 360. Where as the 220 would come in at almost the same weight as the 360, have 6 cylinder smoothness, and 25% more ponies. I think in the experimental world the 220 would sell well. Would be a heck of a motor on the various kit supercubs. Just my 2 cents, based on my observations and speaking with some local Franklin people. Russ