A Maule Found Me...

AWACSEng

AWACSEng

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
1,055
Location
Maryland
Display Name
Display name:
Bill
... and I need unbiased opinions. Here's the skinny on the craft:

1967 M4 210C 2191TT
Cont. IO360 2191TT 840 SMOH
CS Prop 2191TT 840 SMOH
Recovered in 1981 w/ Ceconite (still in good shape pending punch test)
NDH, Needs annual (2 yrs expired), paint, and interior
Looks like original panel and components. All avionics work.
All AD's C/W

Oh, yeah, did I mention it is on EDO 2440 floats and comes with 850 wheels and Landis 2500 skis?

And the most enticing part...

All for the whopping shocking price of $28000 out the door.

Decisions, decisions. I'm close to pulling the trigger, but don't know if I want to deal with the expense of getting her into shape. My A+P friend (who would also do the annual/pre buy, and yes I trust him) says if it can past muster, the rest is all cosmetic and if he had the cash, he'd buy it today. I don't want a float plane so I am thinking about buying it and selling the floats and skis to fund the cosmetic upgrades, or at least a portion of them.

As many of you know, I am a fairly new PP, with just over 60 hrs in the book with no TW and no HP time. Is a Maule the way to go to pick up a TW endorsment? The other reason I'd want to put it on wheels is for insurance purposes. Ins. in AK ain't cheap, and being on floats doesn't help matters.

Please discuss this dilema...
 
AWACSEng said:
... and I need unbiased opinions. Here's the skinny on the craft:

1967 M4 210C 2191TT
Cont. IO360 2191TT 840 SMOH
CS Prop 2191TT 840 SMOH
Recovered in 1981 w/ Ceconite (still in good shape pending punch test)NDH, Needs annual (2 yrs expired), paint, and interior
Looks like original panel and components. All avionics work.
All AD's C/W

Oh, yeah, did I mention it is on EDO 2440 floats and comes with 850 wheels and Landis 2500 skis?

And the most enticing part...

All for the whopping shocking price of $28000 out the door.

Decisions, decisions. I'm close to pulling the trigger, but don't know if I want to deal with the expense of getting her into shape. My A+P friend (who would also do the annual/pre buy, and yes I trust him) says if it can past muster, the rest is all cosmetic and if he had the cash, he'd buy it today. I don't want a float plane so I am thinking about buying it and selling the floats and skis to fund the cosmetic upgrades, or at least a portion of them.

As many of you know, I am a fairly new PP, with just over 60 hrs in the book with no TW and no HP time. Is a Maule the way to go to pick up a TW endorsment? The other reason I'd want to put it on wheels is for insurance purposes. Ins. in AK ain't cheap, and being on floats doesn't help matters.

Please discuss this dilema...
Click to expand...

There is no punch test for ceonite, Read the instructions for the maule fabric tester, it says COTTON not ceconite. Ceconite never fails, only the paint fails.
 
Ahhh, how come? I know just about nothing when it comes to the ole rag an' tube aeroplanes. Guess with a deal I better learn.
 
AWACSEng said:
Ahhh, how come? I know just about nothing when it comes to the ole rag an' tube aeroplanes. Guess with a deal I better learn.
Click to expand...

That Maule should have the Ceconite and dope system as per the old Ceconite manual. that system was one of the best ever placed on aircraft, it can be rejuvenated over and over again.

Just be sure it aint the Razorbac system. (maule was the manufacturer that used it) that is the only covering system that has an AD. read the logs see which it has. better yet look inside see what color it is, it should be light blue or pink.
 
Talk to your insurance company. Maule's even M4s are known to be touchy.
I know an Airline Pilot with over hundreds of hrs of tail wheel time in some touchy aircraft and still had to find a Maule experienced CFI that the insurance company would accept to complete 5 hours of dual in the Maule for his M4. Just remember, anything can be had for the right insurance premium.

Check the W&B closely without the Float Gear. This is one lightweight Airline pilot, and with him flying solo, he still had to put 25# of ballast in the rear cargo to get a decent landing. Yes he was within limits, but barely inside the forward CG when flying solo. Made for some dicey landings until he added the rear weights.

Based on what you've said, I'd pick up a M4 at that price in a heartbeat, I know an M4 owner CFI that now qualifies to check me out and I've got 300hrs of recent tailwheel time.
 
Keep the floats and skis until you get a chance to try them out - Otherwise, you may find later that you wish you hadn't sold 'em! Especially the skis, those do not require any additional ratings, endorsements, or anything.
 
Price is TOO low for all that stuff plus plane, even if it is old.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Price is TOO low for all that stuff plus plane, even if it is old.
Click to expand...

It is a good deal, the floats are worth about 25k with rigging. But I'd leave it on floats, that is the easiest way to land it.

amphibs?

Skis----- worth about 1500-3500 per set, dependig upon type and rigging.


aircraft is worth the difference.
 
NC19143 said:
It is a good deal, the floats are worth about 25k with rigging. But I'd leave it on floats, that is the easiest way to land it.

amphibs?

Skis----- worth about 1500-3500 per set, dependig upon type and rigging.


aircraft is worth the difference.
Click to expand...

At that rate it sounds like it's a free plane, equipment extra!
 
that is pretty much what i thought. still dont know if its the right plane for me, but it may be too good of a deal to pass up.
 
If you don't buy it I will I need a float plane, and this sounds like it will do the job. Don't worry about the TW training where your at. Someone there will be able to help you out with the endorsement. It's almost the perfect plane for a beginner in AK. Later on, you'l want something that hauls more weight but for now, it's sounds ideal.

I'm not kidding, if you don't buy it, send the info my way, and I'll take a chance on it. I'm sure Tom could whip it into shape for me in a few weeks. Ferry permit, next stop Oak Harbor! Cash baby........
 
Rotor&Wing said:
And what "reason" is that?
Click to expand...

Because they cheaply built, and have a very high accident rate, because they won't do what most owners think they will. Plus they are rag and tube which many pilots think must be kept in a hangar.

How ever, this seams like a good deal, with the equipment that comes with the aircraft. If I were you, I'd get it, have it anualed, share time with your A&P and get your SES rating.

then sell it as you first entended.
 
NC19143 said:
Because they cheaply built, and have a very high accident rate, because they won't do what most owners think they will. Plus they are rag and tube which many pilots think must be kept in a hangar.
Click to expand...

So define "cheaply built"? I've got alot of experience in various Maules and have found the workmanship acceptable for a rag and tube airframe.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
So define "cheaply built"? I've got alot of experience in various Maules and have found the workmanship acceptable for a rag and tube airframe.
Click to expand...

It does seem like a lot of Maules come to grief in landing accidents. Any thoughts on why? Are they really harder to manage than a 170 or similar?


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
It does seem like a lot of Maules come to grief in landing accidents. Any thoughts on why? Are they really harder to manage than a 170 or similar?


Trapper John
Click to expand...

The gear collapses on take off, because lift off speed is greater than a piper or C-170/175.. You can't see over the nose as well as the 170.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
So define "cheaply built"?
Click to expand...

Two AS 9320-4 washers welded on each side of a piece of 4320 steel sheet serving as a door hinge.

or

a fuselage that will sag to a point the doors won't open or close when the aircraft is at gross weight.
 
NC19143 said:
The gear collapses on take off, because lift off speed is greater than a piper or C-170/175.. You can't see over the nose as well as the 170.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm a bit confused...

The gear collapses on takeoff? Are we talking about Maules with the bungee main gear, or the spring (like Cessna) type main gear?

And why would it collapse on takeoff at higher speed?


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
Sorry, I'm a bit confused...

The gear collapses on takeoff? Are we talking about Maules with the bungee main gear, or the spring (like Cessna) type main gear?

And why would it collapse on takeoff at higher speed?


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Both of the two I looked at for salvage had the gear failded upon takeoff, by hitting a bump/chuck hole, / some thing.
 
NC19143 said:
Both of the two I looked at for salvage had the gear failded upon takeoff, by hitting a bump/chuck hole, / some thing.
Click to expand...

So, using your "logic" this could only happen to a Maule? Seems I've seen several Cessna taildraggers with bent landing gear carry through boxes after hitting obstructions on the runway. I also once repaired a gear leg on a PA20 that hit a "bump/chuck hole/ something" on take off and got bent. Guess that makes them "cheap built" also. :frown2:
 
Apparently the insurance co thinks they are too much for a newbie. They want 50hrs TW time before they will write a policy. The search continues.
 
AWACSEng said:
Apparently the insurance co thinks they are too much for a newbie. They want 50hrs TW time before they will write a policy. The search continues.
Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of the Maule just because I don't like the way they fly (and I would agree with the poor fit and finish comments - at least on the ones I've seen), but I sure don't see anything difficult about landing or taking off in one. I wonder what tailwheel airplane your insurance company would insure with less than 50 hours TW time?
 
Since this was my first venture into airplane/tailwheel ownership, is it pretty standard for insurance companies to was a certain amount of tw time before insuring any tw aircraft? If so, it makes sense but it is going to suck trying to build 50 hrs without being able to buy one. The only person I know with a TW airplane can not let me fly in it because of...you guessed it, insurance. I'm a little dissapointed because this was a great deal, but i'll keep searching probably for a nose dragger a la cherokee or 152/172 as a time builder and pick up a few TW hours here and there just to pad the logbook. Thanks for all of the opinions!
 
gibbons said:
I wonder what tailwheel airplane your insurance company would insure with less than 50 hours TW time?
Click to expand...
I had no problem insuring a brand new 7GCAA Citabria when I had 15 hours of taildragger time in a different 7GCAA. No additional checkout/transition required. The premium was perhaps slightly high -- $2200 on a $92K hull value -- but the next year it went down to $1400 and stayed there.
 
Ken Ibold said:
I had no problem insuring a brand new 7GCAA Citabria when I had 15 hours of taildragger time in a different 7GCAA. No additional checkout/transition required. The premium was perhaps slightly high -- $2200 on a $92K hull value -- but the next year it went down to $1400 and stayed there.
Click to expand...

But what was your TT at that point. A low TT new pilot, with no TW time, will probably face greater hurdles.

Ironic that the TW is such an issue, given the reason it's called "conventional" gear, isn't it??!!
 
Ken Ibold said:
I had no problem insuring a brand new 7GCAA Citabria when I had 15 hours of taildragger time in a different 7GCAA. No additional checkout/transition required. The premium was perhaps slightly high -- $2200 on a $92K hull value -- but the next year it went down to $1400 and stayed there.
Click to expand...

Yea, but you're KEN IBOLD - pilot extraudinaire. :) Rules for mortal pilots don't apply.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
So, using your "logic"
Click to expand...

Using my logic or not the junk yards are full of them with broken gear that tore out the lower fuselage when they ripped off.

The gear is narow, the wings are short so they turn quickly, once it gets started you can't catch up. as it ground loops it tears the gear off. and quick stops the engine.

If you don't have an engine or fuselage your totaled

If they were a great aircraft why don't we see Antique maule flyins?
 
NC19143 said:
The gear is narow, the wings are short so they turn quickly, once it gets started you can't catch up. as it ground loops it tears the gear off. and quick stops the engine.
Click to expand...
There's a pilot at KFRM who just bought one that groundlooped three times in its less than 1100 hour life. The gear didn't get removed any of the three times, but the engine got rebuilt all three. He's having it put on floats.
 
jmaynard said:
There's a pilot at KFRM who just bought one that groundlooped three times in its less than 1100 hour life. The gear didn't get removed any of the three times, but the engine got rebuilt all three. He's having it put on floats.
Click to expand...

Is there such a thing as a "waterloop"? :p


Trapper John
 
NC19143 said:
Using my logic or not the junk yards are full of them with broken gear that tore out the lower fuselage when they ripped off.

The gear is narow, the wings are short so they turn quickly, once it gets started you can't catch up. as it ground loops it tears the gear off. and quick stops the engine.

If you don't have an engine or fuselage your totaled

If they were a great aircraft why don't we see Antique maule flyins?
Click to expand...

So you just described a short wing Piper groundlooping also. :rolleyes: You can "tear the gear off" virtually any tail dragger if the conditions are right in a groundloop.

As far as the "antique Maule Fly-ins" most Maule's are utility aircraft, work horses instead of pleasure aircraft (although I know a few people that use them for personal aircraft)
 
jmaynard said:
There's a pilot at KFRM who just bought one that groundlooped three times in its less than 1100 hour life. The gear didn't get removed any of the three times, but the engine got rebuilt all three. He's having it put on floats.
Click to expand...

The airplane doesn't cause the ground loop, the pilot does.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
So you just described a short wing Piper groundlooping also. :rolleyes: You can "tear the gear off" virtually any tail dragger if the conditions are right in a groundloop.

As far as the "antique Maule Fly-ins" most Maule's are utility aircraft, work horses instead of pleasure aircraft (although I know a few people that use them for personal aircraft)
Click to expand...

It requires a hell of a lot more forse to pull the gear off a Cessna 170/180/185or super cub, than it does any maule or pacer.

After all a maule is nothing more than an over powered pacer, cheaply built to be light, and short winged which allows it to turn quick, compounded by a narrow gear, it will get away from you quicker than any tail wheel aircraft I know of.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
The airplane doesn't cause the ground loop, the pilot does.
Click to expand...

If you are going to fly a Maule you are going to maintain a higher proficiency than all other tail wheel pilots or you are going to have an accident.

the Fairchild 24 being the exception to the rule. but the 24 doesn't trash its self when it ground loops.
 
NC19143 said:
It requires a hell of a lot more forse to pull the gear off a Cessna 170/180/185or super cub, than it does any maule or pacer.

After all a maule is nothing more than an over powered pacer, cheaply built to be light, and short winged which allows it to turn quick, compounded by a narrow gear, it will get away from you quicker than any tail wheel aircraft I know of.
Click to expand...

I've seen alot of TW Cessna's with bent carry through landing gear boxes, which is a bear to fix. Same result, if you bend that area the plane is wrecked.

NC19143 said:
it will get away from you quicker than any tail wheel aircraft I know of.
Click to expand...

Luscombe, Pitts, any short wing Piper TW airplane, Waco, etc.........Of all I flown I actually thought the Maule was rather tame, and I use to teach TW.
 
Luscombe scared the snot out of me a few times. I don't have any time landing a Maule, so can't judge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top