msanger wrote:Agreed. Some Maules get really mushy at slow/high AOA situations. I put VG's on and it cleared that issue up completely. C180 is a great aircraft, but far more expensive to operate on an hourly basis. I also own a C172-XP and cringe when its time for annual or need to order a part vs the Maule as its operating costs are 1.5 to 2x that of the Maule (really glad I don't own a Beech!). I did extensive research before I bought the Maule and found that it was a much bigger bang for the buck-it is like a cross between a Super cub and C182. You can even buy a new M7 or M9 with 235-260hp for half of what a new C182 costs and get better overall performance, versatility and way lower operating costs.

How much is Maules.com paying you???

Battson wrote:

msanger wrote:Agreed. Some Maules get really mushy at slow/high AOA situations. I put VG's on and it cleared that issue up completely. C180 is a great aircraft, but far more expensive to operate on an hourly basis. I also own a C172-XP and cringe when its time for annual or need to order a part vs the Maule as its operating costs are 1.5 to 2x that of the Maule (really glad I don't own a Beech!). I did extensive research before I bought the Maule and found that it was a much bigger bang for the buck-it is like a cross between a Super cub and C182. You can even buy a new M7 or M9 with 235-260hp for half of what a new C182 costs and get better overall performance, versatility and way lower operating costs.

How much is Maules.com paying you???

Lots...
No, really this is my honest analysis without endorsement or otherwise. I am biased towards Maule and I just feel that Maule gives the average Joe the total package at a bargain price both initially and by the hour.

I just feel that Maule gives the average Joe the total package at a bargain price both initially and by the hour.

Nicely put!

Further to my earlier post I don't think it's realistic to expect to carry a 5 person in the 180hp Maule assuming you have filled the rear seats with passengers first. I am limited to total rear seat passenger weight of about 260lb so when back seat is in it's near impossible to get to full usefull load and stay within C.G. With rear seat out and heavy stuff loaded well MAUW is doable. With the 235hp Maule you may get slightly less usefull but at least you'll be able to load it in legally.

Having had the 180 HP mx7 and the 235 mx7 the only thing I will ad is SAFETY I loved my 180hp Maule the balance was great and it was a great get in short get out short bird, but the thought of a 5th seat in the 180 kinda makes me cringe. The main reason for the change to the big 6 in front was my kids.. they grow when you feed them don't let any one tell you different. There were several times I would make a second trip in and out of a place to get my wife /kids gear because the 180 just couldn't pull the load over the trees and out of the canyon. So for those that give you the " It burns less fuel" line yes it is true but when you have to make twice the trips it tips the fuel goes the other way pretty quick. Now also to quantify another thought as SM said the 210hp is Great and burns less fuel and as he said it don't climb with the 235.... True "But it don't burn as much fuel" True.... but when you have to make one more circle in the canyon to make the rim and get out that extra time burning "Less fuel" don't save much. Don't get me wrong not kicking the 210 at all just trying to make sure all the thoughts are here in plane sight, as I had to do this several times with my 180 while I watched the 235's claw their way over the tops with out having to "Burn less fuel" Remember the 20gph for 3 min that you see while you are climbing out is .9 gal per min with the 235 and the 18 gph you see with the 180 for the 5 min climb is 1.5gpm...... It all pretty much equals out by the time you land to refuel. Now to the solutions for having the big 6 on the nose.... Lighten Up!! Light wt starter, light wt Alt, etc.... my 235 MX7 flys as close to the 180 as I could ask for with the lighter of the 540's (1A5D) and some wt savings from starter and alt. Would I take the 180hp back.... Hell yes..... Would I like to keep my 235...Hell yes... As long as it is a Maule I am happy and will do as needed to enjoy. At this time I am lucky enuff to have 3 different Maule's to fly and compare and as much as it baffles me they ALL fly a bit different being configured close to the same 235hp Long wing 540's as a fella can get.

Also for the thought of I am just your average joe and can afford to have only one bird and not two or three I would rather have the 235 if I could have only one but...... If I could have 2 or more I would love to have a "Bushwacker" lt wt "Toy" to play with and still have the family cruzer....

My .02... take it for what it's worth.

Hottshot wrote:So for those that give you the " It burns less fuel" line yes it is true but when you have to make twice the trips it tips the fuel goes the other way pretty quick.

I can make my 235 burn the same fuel as a 180. 76% power setting.

I can't make a 180 punch out of a hole the way the 235 can.

rw2 wrote:

Hottshot wrote:So for those that give you the " It burns less fuel" line yes it is true but when you have to make twice the trips it tips the fuel goes the other way pretty quick.

I can make my 235 burn the same fuel as a 180. 76% power setting.

I can't make a 180 punch out of a hole the way the 235 can.

Agreed, I pretty much Flight planned at 10 gph and burned 8.2 with the 180 and I FP 15 and burn 12 on the 235....butttt.... when I pull it back and run say 19/21 I burn 9.5 or a little less. My favorite saying is you can run a big motor little but you can't run a little motor big. HP is efficiency!

Here is the thing guys, it is not all about fuel burn. Everything thing I have read says the 235 maule has a solid 100# less useful than a 180 maule, that it huge to me. The people I have talked to say I'll never see over 1000# useful out of a 235 maule, probly won't see over 950; that right there makes it not an option. I'm only interested in LEGAL useful load.

Additionally, I don't want a 6-cylinder engine; I have to pay someone to work on my little C-85 I don't want to experience paying someone to work on a O-540.

I'm going to have to get some real world CG numbers for a 180hp maule and see how it works out with a 5th seat. You guys may be right and it just won't work. Anybody that has a 180hp M6 or M7 and is willing to share their empty weight and CG data with me I would appreciate it.

Tried to call you a couple times Hottshot but you were busy. Think your post pretty well explained how you feel about a 180 maule. After I check the CG stuff out I may give you a call anyways. Thanks.

The CG on the 180 hp is not to bad but it all comes down to placement, more against the back of the front seat. I hauled many things in the back and you had to be careful on the loading, still in CG but the load would effect flight characteristics very quick and if you are at the far end of the envelope and you loose power you will be a reverse lawn dart quick. Like I said I loved my 180 but for the loads you are looking at I would be weary. Are you looking at Commercial? No doubt it will haul the load but it isn't very comfortable in flight. Gimme a call when ever.... I am always busy so there is no way around that part...lol Also there is always a way around the 100# it just depends on if you wanna spend the coin. As for the cost on the 540 vs the 360 well it is all relative, spent more on repairs for the 360 do to how much that 4 will vibrate as apposed to the 6 and mine was Bal Bluprinted and flow matched and didn't shake near as much as some others I have seen. I can give you 50# savings on the 235 in a heart beat LEGAL but like I said it just takes $$$

Just for perspective: Airplane rides are something little kids tolerate snuggled up next to a familiar adult or older sibling. If you're seriously thinking the three year old can ride in the baggage compartment to accommodate YOUR aviation ideals, do yourself a favor and shitcan that idea now. Hauling little south Americans or Alaskans as a matter of necessity is one thing, recreating with little kindergartners is different. Be prepared for " F U uncle Whee, Im never riding in that hot, noisy, POS again!"

whee wrote:I'm going to have to get some real world CG numbers for a 180hp maule and see how it works out with a 5th seat. You guys may be right and it just won't work. Anybody that has a 180hp M6 or M7 and is willing to share their empty weight and CG data with me I would appreciate it.

Real weights from a recent fly-in:

M7-180B is 1524lbs with bushwheels, baby bushwheel & HD gear, weighed this month.(Hope you don't mind NZMaule!)
M6-235 is 50lbs heavier at about 1575lbs with bushwheels (again, real weight)


Lose the bushwheels and some carpets & upholstery in the 235, they'd weigh in so close as it doesn't matter. Go composite prop and save more etc. Remove tip tanks, etc. But then add another row of seating and it gets heavier etc etc etc - you cant make a Maule into a 185!

Speed and fuel burn aside, I just don't think you can consider useful load without considering the performance of hauling at max gross. You may have another 100 lbs useful with the O-360, but using it all would be miserable in terms of takeoff performance.

The O-540 on the other hand, maybe you haul a little less, but if you operate at max gross, it's going to be a lot more pleasant and safe.

Personally, I think I could get away with 180hp because I mainly enjoy flying alone, or with my wife. I rarely need a 3rd seat, what I need is cargo volume. We have no kids, but if we suddenly did it wouldn't require selling the plane.

Rode with Greg Miller on Sunday. He told me he's at about 1325 lbs empty. Unless you can get down to that with a certified Maule, I think the only easy way to make up performance is with engine choice at buy time.

Whee - forgot to mention - NZMaule told me his CG was already further back than he'd like it with the baby bushwheel at the back. I don't know the " from the datum sorry.

I would love to know what Greg removed to save all that weight. Everything, I suppose!

I'll have to call Greg and see what he has done that could also be done to a certified plane.

Performance at gross is a big part of the equation. The guy I spoke with at the Maule factory said a M6-180 at 2500# will outperform my 85hp Luscombe at 1400#. I'm happy with how my Luscombe performs at gross; the places I'd be flying the Maule with my family are places I'm willing to take my Luscombe. With a light load I'd be able to play on the local gravel bars.

Nosedragger, I hear what you are saying and I imagine most kids are that way. However, my 2y/o loves airplanes and going for rides. She may not like the back seat in a maule but I'll never know till I try. By the time the 5th seat would be needed, if ever, she'll be old enough to sit back there on her own.

Zzz wrote:
Personally, I think I could get away with 180hp because I mainly enjoy flying alone, or with my wife. I rarely need a 3rd seat, what I need is cargo volume. We have no kids, but if we suddenly did it wouldn't require selling the plane.

Rode with Greg Miller on Sunday. He told me he's at about 1325 lbs empty. Unless you can get down to that with a certified Maule, I think the only easy way to make up performance is with engine choice at buy time.

M4 220
Empty weight: 1280 lb (581 kg)
Gross weight: 2300 lb (1043 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Franklin 6A-350, 220 hp (164 kW)

Only 1020 lbs usefull??

GT

M6RV6 wrote:M4 220
Empty weight: 1280 lb (581 kg)
Gross weight: 2300 lb (1043 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Franklin 6A-350, 220 hp (164 kW)

Only 1020 lbs usefull??

GT

But no mogas

Whee, take a look at the table of weights that has been recently compiled on maulepilots . com for ideas.
The resuting PP number does not take into account prop thrust etc but is more an idea of practical usability.
There are 235hp Maules with 1000 useful. I sold a rebuilt and mild IFR M5 a couple years ago that showed over 1100lbs.

Pm me if you're going through st.a. I'll show you a cool 5th seat.

Whee, my Mx7180b has an arm of 13.38 weighed a couple of weeks ago as Battson has alluded to. Download the Maule manual for the 180 hp and add in my weights and arm - you'll soon see that having the extra usable weight over the 235hp is not really useful if carrying passengers. Mine left the factory with an arm of 12.2 but even this figure only gives you a wee bit more rearward luggage. I use mine on part 135 so have to do W&B for every flight - legally it is only really a pilot and 2 adult passenger plane. At the moment I can easily use it with wife and 2 kids and gear, but like Wup says kids grow and as much as I like my Maule I can see our family outgrowing it.
But hey it could be an ideal stepping stone while the family is young and light!
Other than the baby bushwheel I don't know what has caused the change in arm by so much.

Do the HD gear move the axle forward a couple of inches?? That would do it.

Or if it was weighed in the 3-point attitude instead of level flight attitude...

Anything forward of the datum should be beneficial shouldn't it? I've looked through my flight manual at all component weights and arms and apart from the baby bushwheel HD tail spring and a 406 ELT nothing has changed aft of datum.

Whee, you can have a play with these figures (other 180hp Maules MAY differ)

You have empty weight and arm from previous post
Fuel arm is 24
Pilot and co pilot arm is 20
Rear seat baggage is 42
Rear seat passengers is 56
Baggage area is 70

Weight x arm = moment
Max CG is 20.5