Av8or2skier,
to answer your question, that is the magic of a Maule rear double door.
54" wide! Standard equipped.

I agree, the trips with family and friends are a small percentage of my total hours but large percentage of memories.

I owned a Luscombe first, and loved it. Great way to start. But then I bought the 180 I still own and never looked back. I can carry people or just my wife with bikes and gear.

As for owning 2 place and renting 4 place when you need it... I thought I might do that when I bought my Luscombe but never did. Renting loses all attraction (whatever there was) when you own. Also, it's pretty hard to rent a 4 place plane suitable for backcountry.

If budget keeps 4 place out of reach then by all means 2 place is great, whatever gets you flying.

I'll echo what others have said, a four seater is a great choice for 2 plus plenty of room for gear. I like being able to take my wife, dog, and enough camping gear for hitting the backcountry for a week or 2. Although a two place would work for most of our local flying, our longer trips wouldn't be possible with the cargo area and useful load they provide. And like Terry, I look back on the camping trips to Idaho, Utah, etc and enjoy those the most. And with the lower fuel burn of the 170, it doesn't cost much more than most 2 place aircraft to operate.

When I had my C170, I found that I flew with the back seats empty most of the time, and sometimes when they weren't empty it was because someone else stuck me with their excess pax. Therefore, after a while, the back seat was not installed most of the time. All that room did come in handy when camping, but since I don't do that much of it it went unused a lot of the time.
After about 10 years in the 170, I sidestepped to a C150/150TD-- more performance & sportier handling at about the same operating cost. The downside is less room for gear (and not-as-easy access to it) when I do go camping, and of course the loss of the seldom-used back seats.
It all depends on the mission. If you're a family man, or anticipate becoming one, get the 4-seater. You wanna be able to take your kids along (and maybe even your wife!). Ditto if you wanna do a lot of camping. But if you're mainly gonna be sport-flying, two-seaters work just fine.

Av8or2Skier wrote:

Battson wrote:Like you say - there's never a free lunch:
Pros: you pay half the fuel bill, lower maintenance costs too.
Cons: you get half the gear carrying capacity, 75% the airspeed.
I think it all balances out in the end.

That sounds like the Equation for twins vs. singles.
The extra engine gets you:
2x Mx costs
2x fuel costs
1.5x the load capacity
1.2x the speed

Blackrock: What plane is that in those pictures?

Almost but not quite... The stickler is in just exactly what 2 and 4 place machines you are comparing. While a Courier and the likes will absolutely smoke a big 4 place in economy, the same can not be said about the machines closer to the middle of the road. In fact most C180's will get better economy than a bush worthy Supercub on every mission beyond a trip around the patch. So depending on what planes you look at, and how you use them, fuel burn may be a wash, and in some instances (such as the C 180 vs Supercub) may even favor the 4 place

Fuel burn- unless you pull back in that rip-snortin' 4 place & fly slower, which very few people do, I think the mielage thing favors the smaller airplane. My 2 seater burns 8gph at 120 mph, something burning 12 gph needs to do 180mph for the same efficiency. Might happen in a Bonanza or similar, but not in a 180/182.
The two seater is generally still outclassed in the loadable-space department though..

hotrod150 wrote: My 2 seater burns 8gph at 120 mph

I have it on good authority you can do about the same in a Bearhawk (9gph for 125), but they have 2 more seats?

As others have said, it depends on the aircraft being considered, not just the number of seats. Av8or2Skier mentions a Maule and Citabria/Scout as possibilities.

It seems alot of the four seaters are more of a 2+2 type in reality. But if you do occasionally fill all four seats you are hauling three times the load, not two (3 pax vs 1 pax). I moved from a two seater into a four seater and can't imagine moving back, unless I strike it rich and can afford two aircraft. I have yet to fill the seats with adults, but two passengers and bags are quite comfortable, and I can fit the wife and the two little ones just fine. I don't think many people have complained about having too much room. If they did there would be no market for extended baggage compartments and belly pods
-Nate

I have put 4 people 190-210-125-120 + 120 pounds of fuel This is legal on the 29 Airhawks. Put on the 8.50s and I get another 50lbs I think.

Just enough room for a fun 2 hour flight, no more!

I have heard the M7 will take off just fine at the same weight as the float version, I believe that is 200 more than wheels. Just don't land that heavy.

On a side note, I think maules.com got a ferry permit to fly somewhere over water. Got permitted to take off at some ridiculous weight like 900lbs over gross with ferry tanks installed. Maybe he will chime in on that.

OregonMaule wrote:I have heard the M7 will take off just fine at the same weight as the float version, I believe that is 200 more than wheels. Just don't land that heavy.

Yeah I reckon that's probably right.
(Droning on the same subject) Structurally, a Bearhawk = Maule roughly speaking. It can takeoff 200lbs heavier than it can land. The designer doesn't recommend pushing it like that, but a lot of guys have chosen to set their MTOW limit at 2700lbs not 2500lbs. The Maule could surely do the same, if an emergency situation or some special circumstance required it... but within the rules, naturally.

2 or four seats? whats wrong with a six seater? I sold my 180 and got a 206. Now I can sleep in the plane again without all the blood pooling up in my feet at night.I can can also bring my two kids , my wife , and my 100 lb dog with me as well as tons of firewood , beer, ammo ect , ect,

low rider wrote:2 or four seats? whats wrong with a six seater? I sold my 180 and got a 206. Now I can sleep in the plane again without all the blood pooling up in my feet at night.I can can also bring my two kids , my wife , and my 100 lb dog with me as well as tons of firewood , beer, ammo ect , ect,

You forgot to mention the flame thrower

Since 1981 the 235hp Maule has been 2500lb gross weight, however when on floats it gets a 10% gross weight waiver and so increase of 250lbs to a new gross of 2750lbs.
Thus the wings, empennage, controls, frame, engine and in fact everything except landing gear (removed to install floats) have proven themselves adequate at 2750lbs since 1981.
Various fuel tank loads have been used, 40, 43, 63, 66, 70, 73, and 85 gallons.
The trans pacific shortest route is Santa Barbara to Hawaii so ferry tanks can be installed. The useful load referred to was 1835lbs at take off (not landing)if I remember correctly. Turbulance was encountered.
Years later I disassembled and reassembled the same M7 for shipment in a container and found no indication of stress anywhere.
That Maule is still flown regularly.
I am not condoning overweight ops of course.

^^^ that is interesting, I thought I have heard of weight increases when operating in Alaska?
If so how does that work? Percentange of gross weight?

low rider wrote:2 or four seats? whats wrong with a six seater? I sold my 180 and got a 206. Now I can sleep in the plane again without all the blood pooling up in my feet at night.I can can also bring my two kids , my wife , and my 100 lb dog with me as well as tons of firewood , beer, ammo ect , ect,

I love the 206. I was going to buy one with my bro in law before he bit the big one.

Flame Thrower is always on board(put it in the far back and it keeps that stupid nosewheel from hitting first)......So how do you guys like landing super heavy in the 180/M.mmmMaules . I was usually very light in the 180 on landing .Never had a 180 job that required me to land heavy.I have ,on occasion, landed the 180 heavy though and it is a completely different bird.(Much more of a hand full than when light) Can u really load the Maule that much that you can't land it like that?(on paper of coarse)? I have never flown a Maule. Kinda drifting off topic here.