Best thing about the -180s is a higher legal useful load. That said when I was looking at them I kept hearing everyone say the 235s were better especially at heavier weights and high DAs or taking off from short fields and slightly longer landings due to heavier weights.

If you are looking to cruise economically you can pull the 235s way back and get nearly the same fuel flows as the 180s. If not in a hurry I often cruise at 21"/2100RPM and 10gph at 120-130mph even better if loitering at 100mph and 6-7 gph. Of course you also have the fuel sucking balls to the wall of 14 gph and 150 mph if you're in a hurry. I chose the 235 and have been very happy.

Weird situation to have saved up 75K free and clear to spend on an airplane and to feel like the poor kid who doesn't have the scratch to get what he wants. First world problem for sure. A year ago 75K would have been plenty, and I support that statement with old ad's of sold aircraft.

You will find detractors of any airplane you choose.
A gal I know has an Ercoupe & loves it...
but I wouldn't fly one if it was given to me.
Flyhound on this site has an M7-180 and likes it,
it seems to do a good job for him.
Another guy on my airport has an M5-210, ditto.
I'd suggest flying the M5-180 & making up your own mind.

I found a really clean MXT7-180 in my price range that I think suits 90% of my missions.

What I like about it:

Nice IFR set up with Apareo Stratus ADSB transponder, G5, 430 WAAS.
Has many of the mods I like on it already, such as VG's, Rosen Visors, Pulse Lights, EZ Flap, patroller doors, engine heaters.
It has an O-360, I can use MOGas and I have access to it pretty cheap for local flights
It is way cheaper to insure than a tail dragger.

What I don't like:

It has the small wheel on the wrong end.

So what I don't like seems really small compared to what I do like. Detractors speak up.

Don't let some sense of urgency cause you to settle. If you want a taildragger you'll always have the regret in the back of your mind and it will affect your satisfaction with the aircraft.

Some characteristics are okay to concede. The landing gear config is pretty major though.

But, your insurance will probably be cheaper.

I agree with Z.

I think it was Wup that said the tricycle Maule has better STOL performance than the tw version.

But, tri-maules are fugly much like a tri-Pacer or a 701.

whee wrote:I agree with Z.

I think it was Wup that said the tricycle Maule has better STOL performance than the tw version.

But, tri-maules are fugly much like a tri-Pacer or a 701.

No matter how much fun I have had in tri-pacers, they are still the dumbest looking plane I know of, 701's are the same to me. But the more I look at the tri Maule, the more I think I can grow to love it.

How about a PA-12? Fits the bill in most of what you are looking for I think and a very forgiving Tail dragger.

MW

DavidB. wrote:

whee wrote:I agree with Z.
I think it was Wup that said the tricycle Maule has better STOL performance than the tw version.
But, tri-maules are fugly much like a tri-Pacer or a 701.

No matter how much fun I have had in tri-pacers, they are still the dumbest looking plane I know of, 701's are the same to me. But the more I look at the tri Maule, the more I think I can grow to love it.

I think Tri-Maules are one of the nicest looking nosewheel aircraft. Having said that, I think milkstool Tri-Pacers are awesome, like the English Bulldog of general aviation. Can you look at these photos and picture your Tri-Maule there and feel the same way? If so, then it's probably your plane.

David,

I would jump on that Tri-Maule! Question, would you rather be flying a nice nose wheel airplane wishing it were a TW airplane or be on the ground wishing you were flying anything.

The Tri-Maule is a good airplane, a lot of bang for the buck, you get more airplane for the money, cheaper to insure, good cargo with rear seats removed, good performance and so on. Buy it, fly it and if you don't like it then sell it. A couple years flying that airplane around and you will really be able to refine your wants and needs. Unless you want to go on skis or soft stuff that REQUIRES big tires you really don't need a tailwheel airplane. I get the “TW airplanes are cool” factor but I have never bought or sold a tailwheel airplane only because they had a tailwheel, I bought them for mission or pure desire to have that type of airplane. If you really want a taildragger then get one but, that Tri-Maule sure does check a lot of boxes.

Kurt

I agree or at least understand the point of the above comments. Thanks guys.

Here is what I am looking at

https://flightsimple.com/aircraft-for-sale/

It is the first plane listed, couldn't link directly to it. I LOVE it's logs, and I am very picky as to how logs are kept.

The PA-12 suggestion...... Yes, I like those. I found a fixer for 28K near me, I don't want a "fixed up" 70 year old airplane unless I am the one who fixed it up. The PA-12 I looked at had been kept outdoors in AK, and then in Arlington WA for 8 years. I suspect I would find corrosion and other issues. I can not see paying 28K for an aircraft that in a year will be in a pile worth $5K while I rebuild it when I can buy someones else's $5K pile of disassembled aircraft and know and see what I am buying and fixing. So, with that in mind, I would just assume build an experimental Cub before replacing a fuselage, wings, gear, empanage, firewall forward, and panel to make a PA-12 into a 3 seat cub.

My wife and I put a lot of effort into saving this much cash free and clear of any other wants or needs, with the purpose of getting an aircraft with few limits as to what our mission is. I want to pay for something that has been kept nice from day one, not restored to nice. In my 30 years of dealing with machines, there is a difference.

Zzz wrote:Don't let some sense of urgency cause you to settle. If you want a taildragger you'll always have the regret in the back of your mind and it will affect your satisfaction with the aircraft.

Some characteristics are okay to concede. The landing gear config is pretty major though.

But, your insurance will probably be cheaper.

Absolutely correct! Sense of urgency can make you pay too much for something you may not really want.

There are a lot of airplanes out there. Wait for the right one.

That's a nice MXT-7. You could fly the daylights out of it and take it anywhere. If in the future you wanted a TW version you could sell and switch. All about mission and value. I'm sure you will make the right decisions.

Good points on the PA-12. There are a few on the market that have already been redone and are in your price range.

Take care,

MW

A friend of mine who had a very nice C150 taildragger bought an MXT-7 180 a year or so ago.
As it turned out, the guy selling the Maule liked his 150 & they worked out some sort of swap arrangement.
He was kinda defensive about it being a nosedragger for the first few months,
but the airplane has really worked out well for him--
it's pretty darn capable & he really likes it.
Plus he says it's really nice to come home to a big crosswind & not get in a dither about it.

G44 wrote:David,

I would jump on that Tri-Maule! Question, would you rather be flying a nice nose wheel airplane wishing it were a TW airplane or be on the ground wishing you were flying anything.

The Tri-Maule is a good airplane, a lot of bang for the buck, you get more airplane for the money, cheaper to insure, good cargo with rear seats removed, good performance and so on. Buy it, fly it and if you don't like it then sell it. A couple years flying that airplane around and you will really be able to refine your wants and needs. Unless you want to go on skis or soft stuff that REQUIRES big tires you really don't need a tailwheel airplane. I get the “TW airplanes are cool” factor but I have never bought or sold a tailwheel airplane only because they had a tailwheel, I bought them for mission or pure desire to have that type of airplane. If you really want a taildragger then get one but, that Tri-Maule sure does check a lot of boxes.

Kurt

^^^ agree

I like that M7....How roomy are they compared to something like a 182

TLDR: Don't let other people's opinion about tricycle geared airplanes make your decision for you. If the Tri-Maule meets your needs, and is a good, solid plane at a fair price, I'd say "Go for it!"

That Maule looks pretty darn good to me! To paraphrase the old saying "Ugly is as ugly does..." I flew my father-in-law's Piper Colt (underpowered version of the Tri-Pacer) and it was a complete blast to fly. Ever since then, I've had a LOT more respect for that plane (and a lot less respect for my fellow pilots who dismiss them without ever having flown one).

I strongly suspect the Maule would be a total blast to fly as well! As the Carbon Cub NX (nose wheel model) has shown, a properly designed nose wheel plane can take off, climb, cruise, and land with every bit as much performance as its tailwheel brethren... The CC NX, in fact, takes off and lands shorter than the tailwheel version, because it can achieve a higher angle of attack on the ground – even higher than a cub with the biggest tundra tires available.

When I first began looking for a "new" airplane, I quickly narrowed my list down to the RANS S-6 Coyote II. Initially, I wanted a taildragger, and nothing else would do. (After all, I'm a tailwheel pilot, and "real" pilots fly tailwheels.) But I could not find a good example of a tailwheel S-6 with the Sport Wing (highest gross weight, and best all-around performance of the three types of wings they offered). I saw lots of nosewheel versions that looked like decent planes. I finally realized that the tricycle-gear would do everything I really wanted an airplane to do, would cost a bit less to insure, and would have a whole lot nicer manners in cross-winds. And since I could put 8:00x6 tires on the mains, and a barely 1-inch smaller diameter "turf tire" on the front, that should get me in and out of pretty much anywhere that I really had any business landing or taking off... I'm not a bush pilot. There's no "rough field" that I absolutely HAVE to land in. I have to recognize that I'm a relative neophyte backcountry pilot, living in north Texas, and most of my flying will be within 350-400 miles of here.

To me, a tailwheel would be "mandatory" if I planned to land on soft sand, or where there are BIG rocks, or if my only choice for a forced landing would be that same type of terrain – like if I were a bush pilot in Alaska. Or even if I was an experienced backcountry pilot and planned to do serious mountain flying, or to take on some of the more challenging backcountry strips in Idaho, Montana, etc. I'm not going to try to land my airplane anywhere I would risk serious damage if I slightly misjudged... It's more about being unwilling to take the financial risk just to experience the adrenaline rush of pushing the limits. That's just not really me...

So I finally told myself to just get over it, and buy the best airplane I could find, regardless of where the third wheel was located... Shortly thereafter, I found a great, low time nosewheel model, bought it, and am having an absolute blast with it. The STOL performance is amazing to me. The plane stalls somewhere around 32 mph with flaps, and around 36 mph clean. It gets off the ground in well under 250 feet, can climb to 800' AGL before reaching the end of our 7000' runway, and routinely lands in under 250 feet as well.

I'm now working on refining my ability to "hit the mark" on each and every time. I'm close, but still occasionally misjudge the headwind and undershoot a bit – energy bleeds off quickly in a lightweight, high-drag airplane! Landing short of my mark is unacceptable to me, especially if I want to enter any spot landing contests or STOL competitions. Not that I ever expect to win against some of the super-specialized STOL aircraft out there, but I do think it would be a fun challenge...

Lots of people defending and justifying tricycle gear for you, but that's not really the issue.

If tailwheel, or any other major design characteristic, is important to you, don't settle. It's a lot of money to just settle.

Zzz wrote:Lots of people defending and justifying tricycle gear for you, but that's not really the issue.

If tailwheel, or any other major design characteristic, is important to you, don't settle. It's a lot of money to just settle.

I could definitely live with that tri-gear Maule, it's not what I have been dreaming of owning as far as what type of gear, but I like it a lot more than any of the 182's I have looked at. I am slowing this search down a little. Things sell slower in the winter, especially with the election, and then holidays right around the corner. If that tri-maule is still around, I'll take a closer look at it. If something better comes along, I'll look at it.
Your right, it is a big chunk of money to settle, and as I wait for the right aircraft, I can continue to grow the available money.

This thing would be in my hangar tomorrow. https://phoenix.craigslist.org/evl/avo/ ... 03863.html

Have enough left over for some bigger tires and a few panel upgrades. Cannot find more bang for yo buck- Period.