Ok, does this mean anything at all??

If you take an 85 hp BC12D (800#) fill it with 24 gal of gas, put my wife and me inside you get 14.22 pounds per horsepower.

If you take a Maule M4 with the original 0-300 (1200#) fill it with 42 gal, put my wife and me inside you get 11.83 pounds per HP.

These are two completely different wings, one with flaps, one without and the Maule purchase is predicated anyway, on a quick resolution to the current AOPA/EAA proposal sent before the FAA (good luck). This question is specific enough that there shouldn't be any hard feelings about re-covering old ground. Besides, Zane has already declared (on the 26th) he's not ever going to catalog these "what's the best airplane" threads.

The reason for the M4 interest is that Uncle Jorgey likes them and they hold way more stuff, like dogs, camping gear, blow up dolls, pistols, single malt, old expired sectionals, and dead animals.

So will the littlest Maule get into JC without heart failure?

Emory Bored wrote:Ok, does this mean anything at all??

If you take an 85 hp BC12D (800#) fill it with 24 gal of gas, put my wife and me inside you get 14.22 pounds per horsepower.

If you take a Maule M4 with the original 0-300 (1200#) fill it with 42 gal, put my wife and me inside you get 11.83 pounds per HP.

These are two completely different wings, one with flaps, one without and the Maule purchase is predicated anyway, on a quick resolution to the current AOPA/EAA proposal sent before the FAA (good luck). This question is specific enough that there shouldn't be any hard feelings about re-covering old ground. Besides, Zane has already declared (on the 26th) he's not ever going to catalog these "what's the best airplane" threads.

The reason for the M4 interest is that Uncle Jorgey likes them and they hold way more stuff, like dogs, camping gear, blow up dolls, pistols, single malt, old expired sectionals, and dead animals.

So will the littlest Maule get into JC without heart failure?

I believe the littlest DC-10 will get into Johnson Creek, but that is not from personal experience

A Maule will carry a lot more stuff than a T-craft, even a T-craft devotee like me will have to admit.

Under the right conditions, about any type of aircraft can get into and out of JC.

Lol what piston plane can't get in to JC is a better question. Maybe a B29? Or an original 45 hp cub maybe just couldnt get that high but I bet even one of those could on a cool day.

Darn skyline beat me

Maules, Maules....

....they do eveything everyone says they will do....even the lower powered ones. I am a big fan and love our M-5 210-C. It hauls a big load and leaps off the ground after a short take off roll. But after about 500ft. agl it doesn't climb worth a damn, even light. I am thrilled to get 500 fpm when loaded. Often see only 300 fpm when heavy. There is another thread where a guy claims 1,400 fpm on his Pacer at 5,500 msl and 600fpm at 14,000 ft. That is impressive and might steer you toward a Pacer.

Do other Maule pilots have the same limited climb as me? Best of luck in your search.

Bob

Blu wrote:Darn skyline beat me

Sorry I'm like in total lock down in my house today

58Skylane wrote:Under the right conditions, about any type of aircraft can get into and out of JC.

Hey, if I knew what I was talking about I'd be dangerous. I don't even know where Johnson Creek is. And I frequently end sentences in prepositions, so what the heck do I know. I just thought all those smarmy super cub brats would at least pick a spot that was scary to hold their yearly rendezvous. There I go again. Just kidding!

I've flown a 150 hp 22/20 Pacer. I never saw those numbers. Probably bad technique.

Emory Bored wrote:Ok, does this mean anything at all??

If you take an 85 hp BC12D (800#) fill it with 24 gal of gas, put my wife and me inside you get 14.22 pounds per horsepower.

If you take a Maule M4 with the original 0-300 (1200#) fill it with 42 gal, put my wife and me inside you get 11.83 pounds per HP.

These are two completely different wings, one with flaps, one without and the Maule purchase is predicated anyway, on a quick resolution to the current AOPA/EAA proposal sent before the FAA (good luck). This question is specific enough that there shouldn't be any hard feelings about re-covering old ground. Besides, Zane has already declared (on the 26th) he's not ever going to catalog these "what's the best airplane" threads.

The reason for the M4 interest is that Uncle Jorgey likes them and they hold way more stuff, like dogs, camping gear, blow up dolls, pistols, single malt, old expired sectionals, and dead animals.

So will the littlest Maule get into JC without heart failure?

I think we need more info on the heart failure question! Is landing at Johnson Creek before or after you have inflated the blowup dolls? At what altitude did you inflate said dolls? And actually how many blow up dolls do you carry around with you?

z3skybolt wrote:Maules, Maules....

....they do eveything everyone says they will do....even the lower powered ones. I am a big fan and love our M-5 210-C. It hauls a big load and leaps off the ground after a short take off roll. But after about 500ft. agl it doesn't climb worth a damn, even light. I am thrilled to get 500 fpm when loaded. Often see only 300 fpm when heavy. There is another thread where a guy claims 1,400 fpm on his Pacer at 5,500 msl and 600fpm at 14,000 ft. That is impressive and might steer you toward a Pacer.

Do other Maule pilots have the same limited climb as me? Best of luck in your search.

Bob

That other guy you're talking about would probably be me lol, but i only get the 1200 fpm @ 5055 and 600 fpm going up to 14 when alone. I wish i could get 1400 fpm anytime, let alone anything over 6-700 fpm when remotely heavy. And my technique comment on the other thread was from my personal poor technique on many tries for short ground rolls

coloradokevbot wrote:That other guy you're talking about would probably be me lol, but i only get the 1200 fpm @ 5055 and 600 fpm going up to 14 when alone. I wish i could get 1400 fpm anytime, let alone anything over 6-700 fpm when remotely heavy. And my technique comment on the other thread was from my personal poor technique on many tries for short ground rolls

IMHO gap seals, VG's and a better wingtip shape will likely make a noticeable difference for the short wing guys flying at high altitudes. Also, check your flap and aileron rigging angle with simulated air loads (hand pressure applied from the bottom). It might reveal that your wing trailing edge is reflexed (camber) in the air but not visible on the ground. This could happen for two reasons... first normal wear and cable stretch in the airframe, and second some previous owner re-rigged it slightly for better cruise speed at lower altitudes.

Once you get a better wingtip shape and the VG's, you might just possibly illegally illegitimately secretly find that the amount of washout (twist) built into a Pacer is a bit more than it might oughta shoulda be. That gives you back a little more "lost" lift and thus more climb rate, but it comes with a price of lower Va speeds and more thorough inspection of the structure. More lift at the tips means more bending load on the spars and more tension loads on the struts in turbulence. Also you CANNOT do that safely until you have addressed the tip stall and attached airflow issues that the tips and VG's deal with. You also have to practice slow turns and stalls much more (at altitude) because the airplane will not be as idiot-proof. Just like any high performance race upgrade to a car, you're trading performance for more personal responsibility and vigilance. But if you need the performance at altitude and are willing to pay the price, you can probably see some worthwhile improvement in the short wing climb performance.

Or you could just inflate the sex dolls with helium