Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Maule 235hp or 260hp?

  1. #1

    Default Maule 235hp or 260hp?

    What would be better? The 235hp burns 11GPH and climbs at 1500fpm. The 260hp burns 15GPH and climbs at 1650fpm. I think the 235hp is plenty and it would be a little cheaper since it burns less fuel. What do you think?

  2. #2
    Member lab man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007


    What kind of Maule? I think they go all the way from M4 to M7. My dad used to have an M4 with a 220, and that plane had a pretty good power to weight ratio. The guys on this forum have been good about telling you that equiptment is going to vary greatly depending on what the plane is going to be used for.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Anchorage, Alaska



    I think I would rather be concerned with what will get off quicker with the bigger payload rather than be concerned with rate of climb. Maybe you should run those numbers. Being realistic, up here best angle of climb (greatest altitude gain in the shortest distance) makes a whole long more sense than a high rate of climb. just my opinion of course..

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2006


    Assuming the same airframe and the same (constant speed) prop.....the plane with more power will cruise faster. I'd bet that the 75% power miles per gallon figure between the two favors the fuel injected 260hp model. On the other hand, the higher powered model can be throttled back the the same power output as the lower powered model and the fuel consumption will be nearly identical at equal speeds. Again it may even favor the fuel injected model since you'd have more precise mixture control. For take-off? More power is always a good thing.

    If somebody pointed me at two M7s, one with 235 carbed power and the other with 260 fuel injected power? I'd take the 260 every time.

  5. #5

    Default 235 vs. 260

    Yes and no to both sides of the debate.
    Certain models of the 235 are STC'd for Mogas. At $4.50/gal for 100LL vs. $3.05 for Mogas, that's what 30% less? That the 260 burns about 20-25% more fuel makes this significant. Don't get me wrong, I have a few hours in this beast and it's really good, if you can afford to feed it. A friend runs one on wheels/skis for a 135 outfit and has TBO'd a couple of times now. Your speed while higher with the 260 will not be too significant as your drag is the same. One other benefit is that there are better (bigger) prop options on the 260.
    Another thought on this is to fly what you can afford and keep it as light as possible. I fly an old M-4 210 that has the orginal Razor back cover and weighs 1320# empty. In the next year or so I'll recover and make a couple of other changes. I think I can keep almost 100# out of it. I burn 9-10 @ 24/24. I was bemoaning the fact that when I bought her, 100LL was under $2.00/gal. I have a couple of friends with T-crates & Champs and they have no trouble getting here and there for hunting/fishing.
    Make the most of what you've got!

  6. #6


    Could back a 420hp turbine down to about 260hp or 235hp and fly fine until you need to climb?

  7. #7


    Anyone know if you I could back a turbine down and fly fine burning less fuel?

  8. #8
    Member Toddler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006


    I know the PT 6 is available in various horsepower but I think that is done at the factory with the size of the fuel nozzles or in the gearing to the Prop, just guessing on this. I do know that the T-34C with a PT6 has 3 recommended cruise power settings 1 Normal cruise @ 750 ft/lbs TQ, 2 Max cruise @ 900 ft/lbs TQ and 3 Instructor cruise at 1015 ft/lbs TQ


Posting Permissions

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