From: aboyd@quantum.qnx.com (Andrew Boyd)
Subject: Re: Info on Maule MX-7?
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 03:16:01 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems, Ltd.

In article <1993Jan22.230920.25672@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> 
patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.210032.5414@ccad.uiowa.edu> yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu
(Yiannis Papelis) writes:
>>... an ad for a maule mx-7 at $45K .. w/o avionics.
>>
>>So I'm thinking, $45 + $10 for avionics and radios = C172 performance.
>>Something sounds too good to be true ... any ideas or experiences
>>with the plane ???
>
>Just from reading. Maules have metal wings and fabric covered (fiberglass)
>fuselages. Maule owners report that the cruise speeds are lower than
>advertised. The Mx-7 has a bigger engine than any stock 172, so it's
>thirstier with about the same size tanks. Maules are STOL aircraft; TO
>over 50' obstacle is around 500' (versus over 1,300 for a 172).

um, I suspect that this is the "special run" of maules which is using 
the low-power 160HP lycoming O-320 engine w/fixed pitch prop, which 
ought to sound familiar to the 172 drivers.

Ordinarily, the smallest engine you can get in a maule is the 180HP
lycoming O-360.  More typical is the 235HP O-540, and a 420 HP allison
turbine is optional.  Maules (with the bigger engines, anyway) are nice
that way - you don't have to sweat the density altitude, or the load.
Just push all the knobs into the dash, and point the nose at the clouds.

Maules used to use "razorback" fabric (on the fuselage only - wings are
metal, cowl is fiberglas).  These days I'm pretty sure the factory uses 
(cheaper & lighter) ceconite, though there's nothing wrong with the 
fiberglas razorback - I own a rather vintage (1967) M4 with a 210HP 
IO-360 + CS/prop, which has been in the family since 1971, and has 
factory original razorback fabric & paint.  Hangared since new, natch.

Also, hardly any AD's.  I think there are five in total on the airframe,
a couple pretty silly, nothing recurring.  I don't think there's been one
issued in the last 10 years on my M4.

>Maules are reportedly noisier and ride slightly rougher than 172s. Other
>performance (load, speed, etc.) is within the same ballpark as a 172.

My M4 weighs 1240 lbs empty, 2100 lbs max.  Carries 42 gallons.  I don't
have the long range tanks, which add another 23 gallons, for a total of
65 gallons, which is too much for my bladder at 10 GPH  :-)

In my experience, the M4 is faster than the 172 - it ought to, with 50 
extra horses and a C/S prop.  120 knot flight plan works for me.

Maules sure are noisy, that's for sure.  Headsets & ICS are a must.

I disagree that they ride "rougher" ... I instruct on the 172, and I
find the airframe very flexible, which drives me nuts.  The maule
is based on a 4130 chrome-moly tube fuselage, and does not flex
anywhere near as much as the 172.  It's a personal thing, I guess.

My pseronal fav is the pitts, which is pretty close to a flying bridge
truss in terms of rigidity.

>Access to the plane is much better than a 172; essentially the entire
>right side of the cockpit is door.

Yup, there are three doors on the right hand side: two normal doors
for the front and rear passengers, and the full-size cargo door is 
hinged at the rear, making loading cargo a breeze.  The hinged rear 
passenger bench seat comes out if you pull two pins, which is great
for loading camping stuff for oshkosh, I've found.

>Another thing I've heard is that you'll either love it or hate it - it's
>a unique aircraft.

For sure.  One nice thing that I'd hate to give up is the incredible
factory support - first name basis, and very very reasonable prices.

In my humble opinion, maule needs to do two things:

    1) metallize the fuselage.  Flying schools hate fabric.  They
       don't want to have to hangar their a/c, and UV is not good
       for fabric.  Fabric is also perceived as being old-fashioned,
       too, which is silly, but that's the way it is.  It's much
       cheaper to repair tube & fabric than monocoque, plus it
       tends to be lighter and stronger, in my experience.

    2) certify the maule in the utility category so that it can
       be used for spin training.  Techie types will be interested
       that my M4 has a Vs of 60MPH, and a Va of 125 MPH.  Limit 
       load factor of 4.4Gs, anyone?

Combined with the (blech) nosewheel, and the 160HP O-320 powerplant
w/fixed pitch prop, I think we would have a pretty good trainer & 
private a/c, at a bargain price.

Maule, curiously enough, doesn't seem to sweat the liability bullsh*t,
despite the fact that it's existing fleet is almost entirely tailwheel,
which seem to invariably cause problems for low-time, low-skill pilots,
which would appear on the surface to be a shark's, excuse me, a lawyer's
wet dream.

Perhaps it's that the maules aren't rich, and as we know, lawyers are 
interested in manipulating the legal (not justice) system as a means of
collecting money from any blameless (but rich) folk - kinda like highway 
robbery in a three-piece suit.

It would be curious what cessna would want for a new 172, if it
restarted production ... I feel sure that it would be more than $45K,
more likely $100K, given that cessna would have to ante up $30K per a/c
liability insurance.

----
#include <std.disclaimer>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning