Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Airplane???

  1. #1
    Member BARTFRNCS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    47

    Default Airplane???

    OK heres the 64 dollar ? Is the maule type airplane used much in AK. If so whats the general use and is it rugged enough for true off airport personal use?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    262

    Default

    Yup.......

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Sandpoint, ID
    Posts
    1,971

    Default

    Mauls are great planes. A friend of mine had one that I believe was a 235hp and it was a real horse. Unfortunately, he killed himself in it due to VFR into IMC. They are kinda short and I think kinda squirrely in the wind but other than that you just fill em up and go fly.

    The Mauler can give a better opinion since I"ve never owned one myself.
    Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    They aren't real popular up here. They have managed to kill quite a few people up here though. So I guess it is a good thing they aren't all that popular.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    In my opinion, they're short-coupled, making them a pain in the backside in turbulence, given their relatively poor directional stability. I've slown several Maules while banner towing. Visibility could be much better. They're a pretty good airplane [they started as modified Piper Pacers, I think], but they're not GREAT airplanes. Maule owners will tell you they are the answer to 4-place bush planes, but in my opinion they could never equal the success and abilities of the Cessna line of 4-place tail dragger models.

  6. #6
    Member mit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    702

    Default

    I've lost three good friends in them and have seen a couple of others crash...... Don't have a high opinion of them.
    Tim

  7. #7
    Member RocketRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ANC
    Posts
    410

    Default

    For some reason, they seem to have more then avg rock/gravel damage to the rear part of the fuselage and horiz stabilizer on off-field strips. At least that's what some pilots that fly them have related to me.

  8. #8
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,217

    Default

    I hate doing float ratings, tail-wheel endorsements and BFRs in Maules. All Engine, stubby wings, glide ratio like a anvil.
    BUT, real Maule drivers can do wonders with them...
    I think that at one time they were significantly less expensive than the comparible sized Cessna's ...

    Call an aircaft insurance agent to check on rates for various types of aircraft. The premium rates are based on accident ratios, parts cost and rebuild price. The reason I never bought a Lake Bucaneer.
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    262

    Default

    I've owned and flown Maules in Alaska for about ten years. I let a friend who used to fly em as a guide talk me into getting one to replace a 180 I'd had. I bought it down in California and just before I went down to pick it up he said make sure I fly it 50 hours before I get rid of it. I asked him what he meant and he said a lot of Cessna and Piper guys who've bought a Maule will fly it ten or twenty hours, decide it's a piece of junk and get rid of it.
    Sure enough, by the time I was clearing customs in Abbottsford I was ready to trade the Maule for a used Pinto. By the time I'd gotten it home though I was starting to think I might like it. At about the 30 hour mark I was starting to figure out its tricks and secrets and was starting to love it.
    I'm on my third Maule now and much prefer it to the 180 I previously had. It flys different though, and more than any other airplane I've had is totally different heavy vs light. It's shorter and more demanding on the ground but if you take the time to learn how to fly them they're a great plane.
    FP is right about the glide ratio though. Maule gets its performance from power not the wing.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Sandpoint, ID
    Posts
    1,971

    Default

    I gotta ask...what happened to your first 2 Maules?
    Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

  11. #11
    Member algonquin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seldovia, alaska
    Posts
    839

    Default

    I've been flying a M-7-235 on wipline Amph's. I like it very much but its a bit of handfull in high winds and turbulance. the floats are fun though, 3000's seem about right. It is a great handleing A/C on wheels, the Amph. tame the beast.

  12. #12
    Member faithnhim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Palmer Alaska
    Posts
    65

    Default

    BRTFRNCS, this is a hard question. Seems to evoke some real strong opinions from both sides. I have seen some Maule topics end up like gun control and I donít really get it. Fly whatever you want as long as you fly, thatís my opinion. If I see you out in the bush with a beat up Cessna 150, your still a pilot and I still want to visit with you and figure out how you did itJ I guess I just donít understand some of the strong opinions I see from time to time but alas, we are all entitled to our opinions. Not on this thread mind you, usually pretty civil.
    Some background on me so you can flavor my response and understand where I come from. Started training in a Cessna 150 like most. Before completion of my PPL, I purchased a Champion GCB. Cheap fun plane to log tailwheel time. In the last 12 years, I have owned 2 float equipped 180 HP 172ís a modified 175 tailwheel with 230 HP a few citabrias, an AMAZING light supercub and a loaded heavy cub and now a 235 HP M-6 Maule. As my family grew so did my need for more seats. I will say this, if I had my choice of any plane for just getting off the ground, I would have my light cub back. Someday when I get rich or when the kids are grown, I might have a cub back. Until then, I am a Maule driver and I love the versatility of this plane. Ask if the Maule is a bush capable plane and there are many things to consider. Are you talking about an M4,5,6 or 7? All Maules are not created equal. What prop, what gear, how many hours in M&M. Having said that, my buddy does more with his M4 than I can do with my M6 but I have also seen him do things that cub guys wonít do(maybe cuase they are too smart;-). He has a nice plane but in my opinion, itís all pilot that gets him wherever he wants to go. This guy also burns more gas in his plane than I do in my car.
    I am not going to argue with anyone that says the Cessna 180 is a better 4 place bushplane but I can say this from experience, I cannot do the same things with a 180 that I can do with my M6. The guys that have lots of time in a 180 will operate circles around me off airport. I think Paul Claus could fly a luscombe better than I can fly his supercub. I am sure you already know all this but pilot skill must be factored into what a plane can do. Now, here is my point in writing. At my skill level ( and it is limited) I have found that I can do more with my Maule than I could do with any other plane I have owned and that includes the cub. The cub was a rocket and it was off in less than 100 feet but I could not land the cub in less than 300 feet consistently which is close to where I am with the Maule moderately loaded. 300 Ď landing in a cub you might say??? Pilot skill. That plane was capable of way more than I was. As others have said, the Maule can be tricky on the ground and my opinion is that the 180 is probably easier to handle but I am not capable of doing the same things with the 180 as I am with the M6. Are they rugged enough for Alaska bush? I think they are if you have the heavy duty gear installed. Nothing matches the strength of the supercub gear but I am not sure how they would hold up with 2500 lbs. sitting on them either. The Maule gear still needs a safety cable design but the heavy gear seems to be pretty strong to me. I like what AK Mauler says about flying it 50 hours before you sell it and it does seem that the Maule has to grow on some owners. I was not that way. The Maule fit me well and I was off playing hard shortly after I owned . Jeremy Ainsworth ( very experience Maule driver) won the gulkana STOL competition with an M5 Maule. Good plane, great pilot! I lovingly refer to my plane as my air truck. Itís tough! It flies fast even with extended gear and 35ĒBWís and lands pretty darn short for such a big plane. Oh ya, and she climbs like a rocket!!!!! My vote is yes! The Maule is rugged enough for true off airport operations.
    Attachment 66533

  13. #13

    Default

    The proverbial can of worms...
    Not really. FiH is right, buy it, fly it, enjoy it and go into the airplane search with the attitude that every plane is a compromise. Just like every boat, truck or a pair of boots. Accept that as fact and you'll be fine. Having said that, I learned a long time ago to never criticize a man's wife, dog or plane. They're often emotional decisions.OK, first of all, the Maule does not fly like any other plane. You have to spend time in them and learn that they are unique. Not that they are exempt from physics that affect other AC just different than Cessnas or Cubs. Guy's will jump in them thinking they'll fly like a C180 and be bitterly disapointed.
    There are downsides; They have the fit and finish of a farm truck for one. Insurance is a telling story.
    Typically, the Maule costs less than a comprable AC. That attracts a different demographic. Typically lower time, less heeled pilots. Less time, more potential for accidents, more claims. Just my theory, take it with a grain of salt.
    They're not pretty but they're tough. A friend of mine mangeled his while on a sheep hunt. I was amazed at the abuse that fuselage took and both boys walked away. ~600', 10-15 degree slope @ 5,200' in a very tight canyon. (Sheep hunters aren't right in the head anyway) He screwed up. He'd amade that strip over a dozen times. I made several trips in there pulling them off the mountain. Capable, yeah, as much as any others I guess. As long as you fly it. Parts; Very available and a **** site cheaper than a Cessna. Maule refused early on to build in product liabilty. Old B.D. said that if the Lawyers came, he'd close the doors and reopen the next day with a new name. There were a few explecitives in there too. I bought a fuel selector valve for mine years ago. The guy next to me with a 182 bought his at the same time. On a bench, they were indicernable. Maule $93, Cessna $740. I believe a replacement wing skinned is ~$6,000. And then there's the cargo door. I have a Bravo short track with the cowl and skis off fits fine. A (appartment size) refridgerator fits with an inch all around.
    Remember, they're all a compromise, the safest thing you can buy for any plane is fuel, lots of it. Proficiency is measured in hours on the stick.
    Mit, sorry about your friends, the hurt never goes away.

  14. #14
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,217

    Default

    There are 195 MAULEs of all models registered in Alaska.
    Since January 1993, there have been 55 Maule accidents in Alaska. (28% of the Alaskan Maule Fleet ) Seven of those were fatal accidents. (20 year period.)
    (13% of all Alaskan Maule accidents were fatal)


    By way of comparison, there are 693 Cessna 180s (all models ) registered in ALASKA.
    During the same 20 year period, there were 159 Cessna 180 accidents in Alaska. ( 23% of the entire Cessna 180 fleet )
    Of those only 13 were fatal accidents during that 20 year period. (8% of Cessna 180 accidents were fatal )



    HERE IS ANOTHER COMPARISON:::

    There are 217 Piper J3s and PA-11s registered in Alaska. (they are on the same type certificate) A number similar to the number of Maules in Alaska.
    During the same 20 year period used above, there have been a total of 19 accidents in Alaska involving a J3s /PA11s ( 9 % of the Alaskan J3 / PA11 fleet)
    Only ONE accident is listed as fatal. 5.5% of all accidents. That is why I can afford flight instruction insurance in a PA-11.
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  15. #15

    Default

    My first plane was a pacer. Maule like just smaller and less power. I covered a fair bit of AK in it, just needed to make sure I had enough runway. There are lots of pacers and Maules flying around AK. The only real problem I see is if you bend a part in the bush not a lot of spare parts around. Lots of piper/cub gear hanging out in the bush and a fair amount of bent 180/185 parts. A maule with big tanks and the right driver can have a great time up here. Go out in the winter you see pacer guys flying all the time. It is all a lot of guys can afford and they are a blast to fly!! Bushwheels make up for some gear lightness. With respect to departed everyones friends Maule aircraft did not kill anybody, They can be a handfull on the ground and have to be respected. Whatever plane you have learn what it and you can do with it and don't go past that limit.
    Denny

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    actually you are wrong there boneguy, a good friend died in a M-7 when the top skin section failed. very cheaply made pieces of junk if you ask me. I don't have any problem saying that at all. look at the thin aluminum and pop rivets holding the wings together. They all crack out from behind the propblast area. I don't understand how they got them certificated. cheap junk and won't stand up to the bush....

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Eagle River,AK
    Posts
    1,494

    Default

    FT-was wondering if you could give the same stats for PA-18 super in would be. Interesting stuff..

  18. #18
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pipercub View Post
    I don't understand how they got them certificated.
    No Doubt! He HAD to have been a drinking buddy of someone at the FSDO.

  19. #19
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,217

    Default

    OK, by popular demand,

    There are @ 1,435 PA-18s (SUPER CUBS) registered in Alaska

    During the past 20 years there have been 425 SUPER CUB accidents in ALASKA alone. ( 29.6 % of the Super Cub population )

    Of those 425 accidents 32 were fatal. ( 7.5 % of All Alaskan SUPER CUB accidents were fatal during the last 20 years.)
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Eagle River,AK
    Posts
    1,494

    Default

    Thanks FP!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •