Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Super Cub vs. Maule

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska by way of Mobile, Alabama
    Posts
    158

    Default Super Cub vs. Maule

    We have someone who hangered his Maule at our aeroclub. It is a beauty. When I first saw it, I thought it was a Super Cub. What are the differences between the two?

  2. #2

    Default

    A Maule will ground-loop is a mega-second, you have to be real sharp to drive a Maule, It is short coupled, so stuff happens fast, Relative to the stupid cub. I was just smart enough to know that, I was too dimwitted to drive a Maule.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    chugiak, ak
    Posts
    630

    Default

    This is like apples and oranges. The cub is the ultimate short field aircraft that is very forgiving. It isn't all that fast, and it can be a little tight for big guys, but can carry an incredible load relatively speaking. The maule is short coupled, so it does have a tendancy to swap ends if your not paying atttention. Lots of people usually compare the maule to a C-180 with good reason. Similar speeds, loads, fuel burn...ect. Most maules have either 200hp, 230hp, and I have even seen a 300hp, all with constant speed prop. Most cubs have 150, 160 or 180hp with fixed pitch props. The cub is tantem, the maule is side by side seating. Like I said, LOTS of difference, I'll stop there.

  4. #4
    Member mit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    702

    Default

    The wings fall aprart on the M-7. Before they put thicker skin on them.
    Tim

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    262

    Default

    I own a cub and a Maule so have a good perspective on both and they are completely different machines. There is no place the Maule will go that the cub won't, but it will carry twice as much and get there almost twice as fast on the same fuel. The cub is way more fun to fly though and will get into places the Maule won't, but not by much. If on skis I much prefer the cub as it is easier to move around by hand in tight places if you have to land one way and take off the other. The Maule is more demanding on it's ground handling but with enough practice you get a pretty good feel for it. Landing a Maule is completely different as they glide like a set of car keys so for those used to cubs and Cessnas it is a whole different picture. Learn their secrets though and you'll be amazed at what you can get them to do.

  6. #6
    Member RocketRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ANC
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK Mauler View Post
    I own a cub and a Maule so have a good perspective on both and they are completely different machines. There is no place the Maule will go that the cub won't, but it will carry twice as much and get there almost twice as fast on the same fuel. The cub is way more fun to fly though and will get into places the Maule won't, but not by much. If on skis I much prefer the cub as it is easier to move around by hand in tight places if you have to land one way and take off the other. The Maule is more demanding on it's ground handling but with enough practice you get a pretty good feel for it. Landing a Maule is completely different as they glide like a set of car keys so for those used to cubs and Cessnas it is a whole different picture. Learn their secrets though and you'll be amazed at what you can get them to do.
    Well I took l lessons with Heidi in her Tayorcraft in 1983 and indeed it was squirrely. Why don't folk up here use them instead of the Cub for off strip work. Taylorcrafts are light.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    A Maule will ground-loop is a mega-second, you have to be real sharp to drive a Maule, It is short coupled, so stuff happens fast, Relative to the stupid cub. I was just smart enough to know that, I was too dimwitted to drive a Maule.
    You sound like a disgruntled PA-22 pilot ha!

  8. #8
    Member algonquin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seldovia, alaska
    Posts
    840

    Default

    I think the maule is a little better on the ground than the Pacer because it has a bigger rudder and lots of power to get flying quick when things get interesting. That said neither is undoable, and if you need to drop in over trees or rocks a shortwing is the ticket, 3-400' ldgs all day. never flew a cub, but had two Pacers.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Semi-retired in Florida
    Posts
    483

    Default

    Like its predecessors, the Pacers and Tri-pacers, the short-coupled Maules always seemed to me to be a pain in the butt during long flights in turbulence. Being short, they lack a Cessna's longitudinal stability. A guy could get tired of pushing the pedals all day long. Super Cubs and the Cessna taildraggers don't have that wandering tendency.

    Flew a Maul for banner towing, and was reminded of its limited visibility, when compared to the Cessnas and PA-18s. Is a Maul a great airplane? Yes. Better than a C-180? Not ever . . . . .

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RocketRick View Post
    You sound like a disgruntled PA-22 pilot ha!
    Nope never drove a PA-22

  11. #11
    Member AKDoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Talkeetna
    Posts
    5,714

    Default

    Why don't folk up here use them instead of the Cub for off strip work. Taylorcrafts are light.
    Underpowered, not as much useful load, no flaps....... Great airplanes for fun, but not so much for work. My biggest gripe about T-crafts is that they are side by side planes. Big guys with broad shoulders have way more issues fitting into them than we do in Cubs.
    Bunny Boots and Bearcats: Utility Sled Mayhem

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Semi-retired in Florida
    Posts
    483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RocketRick View Post
    Well I took l lessons with Heidi in her Tayorcraft in 1983 and indeed it was squirrely. Why don't folk up here use them instead of the Cub for off strip work. Taylorcrafts are light.
    Great little airplane, but not for the bush! The 65-hp is overloaded with the pilot, one passenger, and a battery. A good friend had one some years ago. Was a fanatic when it came to duck hunting on the mud flats. Had a great black lab also, but couldn't carry one passenger and the dog on the same flight. One PAX and a couple ducks grossed it out. Like the Piper J-3, it's still a grand fun plane.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Semi-retired in Florida
    Posts
    483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by algonquin View Post
    I think the maule is a little better on the ground than the Pacer because it has a bigger rudder and lots of power to get flying quick when things get interesting. That said neither is undoable, and if you need to drop in over trees or rocks a shortwing is the ticket, 3-400' ldgs all day. never flew a cub, but had two Pacers.
    That 300' - 400' is equal to two strips laid end to end for a Super Cub, though. My last Super Cub (an agricultural model) was rebuilt to be full IFR, which made it heavier than most bush Cubs. Took 90' to get it off with full fuel and a reasonable load.

  14. #14
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,218

    Default

    I have flown and instructed in Maule M-5s, one M-6 and a couple M-7s.
    They are a four place (sorta) aircraft with a fairly short fuselage and long cord wings. .

    The M-5 Maule with a 210 or 235 horse engine has a fuselage that is 23 ft long and wings that have a 30 foot wing span. The standard wing area is 157.9 square feet. The empty weights on Maule's vary just like Super Cubs because of all the old crap and mods... But 1,400 to 1,450 pounds is a good empty weight for an M-5 (210 horse) on wheels. The last one I flew weighed 1,550 on PK 2300 floats. 2,300 pounds is the legal gross for the 210hp and I think 2,530 is the legal float gross for the 235 horse vesion.

    But the 235s I have flown run about 100 pounds heavier while empty. The much more powerful (They have an Lyc IO 540) M-7 Maule's have a 33 feet standard wingspan.

    (hey they even make a Turbine Maule that burns 25 gallons an hour)

    When you loose power with a Maule on Floats, it has the glide ratio of an anvil. But they have a very good power to weight ratio. But their wing loading at pounds per square ft of wing leave something to be desired if the prop stops turning.

    On the other hand,,,, the two seat tandem Super Cub (150-160 or 180 horse) has a standard wing area of 178.5 feet, a touch more area than a standard Cessna 180. Tip extensions and so on just add area to the standard 35 ft wing span. 200 square feet is not unheard-of...' The S.C. fuselage is about 22 ft long.
    The standard empty weight for an Alaskan Super Cub runs around 1,200 pounds. (light weight S.C.s for mountain flying go down to 1,000 pounds) The original legal gross weight was 1,750 pounds on wheels and 1,760 on floats. Various mods usually bring this up to 2,000 pounds on floats.

    A 180 hp Super Cub on floats with a big flat prop while cruise at 80-90 mph at 7.5 to 8 gallons an hour leaned. An M5 Maule 235hp on floats will cruise at 120 to 130 mph due to the constant speed prop and power. Burning another 3 to 4 gallons per hour.
    So on a 400 mile trip, the Maule will get there in about 3 hours and burn maybe 32-36 gallons. Meanwhile on the same long leg, the Super Cub will take around 4.7 hours to get there and burn 35-37 gallons of gas.

    My Cub Special PA-11, 90 horse (same wing size as a Super Cub but 400 pounds less weight) would take about 5 hours for that same trip and burn 20-22 gallons.
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

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
  •