1953 C180

Yep, M5-235. I don’t love Maule after tinkering with this one but they do perform.
A lot of people say that and I've not really been around them a lot to go one way or another, but they still make them and they support them really well. When the last C180/185 is crashed, there'll be 1000 Maule's still flying. They're also priced a lot better than a new Cessna of lesser utility.
So until Cessna puts tailwheels back into production or even starts to put float kits on the 182 at the factory.......
 
Nice set up, but looks like a heavy Maule. I don’t know why anyone would want to do single engine piston IFR in AK.
She’s a little chunky. Would make more sense to dump the KX175 and old audio panel and save about 10 lbs, but I guess he wants the backup *shrug*
 
A lot of people say that and I've not really been around them a lot to go one way or another, but they still make them and they support them really well. When the last C180/185 is crashed, there'll be 1000 Maule's still flying. They're also priced a lot better than a new Cessna of lesser utility.
So until Cessna puts tailwheels back into production or even starts to put float kits on the 182 at the factory.......
Their documentation is fantastic. Wire diagrams etc. and every upgrade they’ve made to a production Maule is available via the factory drawings if you want to do it to an older aircraft.
 
Nice set up, but looks like a heavy Maule. I don’t know why anyone would want to do single engine piston IFR in AK.
I put minimal IFR capability in my new airplane. The only weight penalty was a nav antenna and the coax going to it.

I've had far too many days where everything would be so much safer if we just climbed and flew the ILS. Chances of the engine quitting over the inlet are minimal compared to the chances of CFIT in 300ft overcast and a mile.
 
just curious what you don’t like about the Maule? I’ve pretty much settled on either a Maule or C170 but there’s a LOT more Maules available than 170’s.
They’re built kind of chintzy. Little stuff. Wingtips use rivnuts instead of nutplates. There’s an access panel for the fuel tank, but it only comes undone on 3 sides and you have to bend it open for fuel bay access. Switches and such are cheap and plasticky. That kind of stuff.
 
They’re built kind of chintzy. Little stuff. Wingtips use rivnuts instead of nutplates. There’s an access panel for the fuel tank, but it only comes undone on 3 sides and you have to bend it open for fuel bay access. Switches and such are cheap and plasticky. That kind of stuff.
They MIG their 4130 fuselages.

That said, if EAB didn't exist I'm pretty sure I'd own a Maule. I mean if you're a pacer fan aren't you obligated to be a Maule fan?
 
Only because I can’t afford Airframes four place cub.
Eh, Metal wings are vastly superior to fabric. The extra 40kts over a cub is nice to. Also the payload. So.... everything except it takes 75ft more to land and take off. Pretty good trade off.
I would rather own a new M7 than any cub variant. A 180 as well.

Look how much adding a cessna wing improved a cub
 
Last edited:
Eh, Metal wings are vastly superior to fabric. The extra 40kts over a cub is nice to. Also the payload. So.... everything except it takes 75ft more to land and take off. Pretty good trade off.
I would rather own a new M7 than any cub variant. A 180 as well.

Look how much adding a cessna wing improved a cub
That’s hardly a cub anymore! If I could only have one plane it’d probably be a lightweight M7 on extended gear and 35s, but someday I’ll hopefully have a Pacer AND a cub.
 
just curious what you don’t like about the Maule? I’ve pretty much settled on either a Maule or C170 but there’s a LOT more Maules available than 170’s.
Do a research on Maules. They are fascinating airplanes, but M5 vs M6 vs M7 vs MX7 are all very different animals.
Can only vouch for M7-235 and MX7-180B as those were the only ones I ever flew (MX7 on 26 ak bushwheels was wicked the first time. I didn’t know the first thing about flying those and neither did the A&p who half a dozen too many psi of air in there. I bounced right back to the pattern altitude. Fun times) but the M4-180V remake they did a few years back looked sweeeeeeet
 
Do a research on Maules. They are fascinating airplanes, but M5 vs M6 vs M7 vs MX7 are all very different animals.
Can only vouch for M7-235 and MX7-180B as those were the only ones I ever flew (MX7 on 26 ak bushwheels was wicked the first time. I didn’t know the first thing about flying those and neither did the A&p who half a dozen too many psi of air in there. I bounced right back to the pattern altitude. Fun times) but the M4-180V remake they did a few years back looked sweeeeeeet
The m4-180v is dumb because it doesnt have the cargo door. That's like 50% of the reason to get a maule.
The best performing maule is an m6-235. Unless you can get it with 260. You can also put m6 wings on an m5.

I have no idea what maule's fascination with the 235hp 540 is. Turd of an engine power to weight ratio wise. Especially when the 260hp parallel valve weighs exactly the same.
 
The m4-180v is dumb because it doesnt have the cargo door. That's like 50% of the reason to get a maule.
The best performing maule is an m6-235. Unless you can get it with 260. You can also put m6 wings on an m5.

I have no idea what maule's fascination with the 235hp 540 is. Turd of an engine power to weight ratio wise. Especially when the 260hp parallel valve weighs exactly the same.
Dang it, now I don’t want it anymore. Cargo door is 50% on the Maule.

I can tell you what my fascination with a fairly rare breed of carbureted M7-235 was - lack of 100LL in Siberia at the time. Throw an el cheapo fuel pump in to keep the fuel system pressurized and run it on mogas.

I heard M6 handles like a truck and M7 wings were an improvement - what’s your take on that?
 
Dang it, now I don’t want it anymore. Cargo door is 50% on the Maule.

I can tell you what my fascination with a fairly rare breed of carbureted M7-235 was - lack of 100LL in Siberia at the time. Throw an el cheapo fuel pump in to keep the fuel system pressurized and run it on mogas.

I heard M6 handles like a truck and M7 wings were an improvement - what’s your take on that?
It depends on the year of the M7. Since roughly 1995 the M7 has a slightly longer wing. The problem is the empty on the M7 is higher.
And yes the m6 without the aileron extension(which they incorporated into the last handful), is truck like.

Check this site out - Maule AK Worldwide - Home

Autogas is a good reason to go with the 235hp, but not all 235 are the same. I'm not sure which sub models maule has used. There's some that are still 8.5:1 compression but have a 2400rpm red line to limit it to 235. Other's have 7.2:1 pistons and spin at 2525rpm. The latter would be what you want, and they were certified on 80 octane. It's the O-540-B series.
That said lycoming service instruction 1070 shows you can use appropriate auto fuel in the other engines just fine.
https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1070AA Specified Fuels.pdf
 
Last edited:
Back
Top