ugly, horrible flying airplanes that do one thing right; take off and land short. I have 20 hours in a Tri Gear 260 hp version. The autopilot flies the roll off the rudder cables if that tells you anything. Worst flying airplane I've flown.

The guy that owned it had me land in a 1000 foot polo field to pick him up; kinda cool but that's about all it did well.

I bought one once to get to a specific, remote construction site.

Remember that plain, quiet, homely girl that you would call for a date in high school when all the pretty ones were "busy"? She was always available and was actually pretty good company. You just didn't look forward to kissing her when you took her home.

That's the Maule.

Jgreen

I flew a 180hp tail dragger once that belonged to a friend. At the time, I thought it was about the easiest TD to land I'd ever tried. I didn't notice any poor handling. Maybe the lighter engine/prop made a diff?

Hard to get into the front seats for taller folks. No stick, yokes. Seems kind of sluggish, not overpowered at all. Back seats are nice. But the ones I have flown seemed no better for backcountry than my old 182. But I don't really sneer at them I just wouldn't buy one.

Craig, you need to fly a bearhawk, you will be impressed

I flew a M-7-235 on straight floats a couple years ago. In that model they spun the 0-540 to 2700 rpm. Climbed like a freight elevator on steroids...

I asked AVEMCO for a quote on a hypothetical C-180 and a hypothetical Maule just today. Same coverage, the premium for the Maule was over 30% higher.

Just a datum. No idea what it means.

That's because Maule's are cheap, low time pilots buy them and they get ground looped and otherwise wrecked with regularity. Therefore insurance is higher. Same thing goes for the 210 vs Bonanza. They are wrecked a lot more frequently than Bo's and as such cost a lot more to insure.

I've heard different - the flaps on a Bo take most of the beating on a gear up and the 210 grinds the whole belly off. $$$$

I've always had an interest in Maule's since they are one of the most affordable new aircraft available. I have also always thought of them as more of a Jeep Warngler of airplanes - different than most other things on the road and appealing to some but not to most.

I think the quality issue is more around fit and finish than real quality. Earlier ones had a bad reputation for poor factory paint jobs and they use hardware that looks like it was off the shelf from Lowes. On the other hand there are VERY few airframe AD's.

The other reason I think these airplanes are less popular is the fact that the fuselage is mostly fabric covered as opposed to their Cessna counterparts.

The absolute number of accidents is low which reflects the small number in the fleet, but the percentage of fatals among total accidents is extremely low looking at the NTSB database which I believe reflects a light weight aircraft that moves slowly (i.e. low energy).

I've been told that the guy with the Maule gets the job of hauling everyone else's stuff to the back county. I flew an M7 back when Moby Dick was a minnow and thought it was pretty cool but clunky.
I think I could want a Bearhawk pretty easy.

The reason this all started was a good buddy is looking for a 172...was going to show him this listing for a Maule:

https://www.controller.com/listings/air ... e-mx7-180a

Seemed like a lot of plane to me for the money...I didn't know if there's a hidden gotcha with Maules. $49K asking price really doesn't buy you much of a 172 these days.

I helped rebuild a Maule a few years ago, '75 M5-210C. We did a bunch of flying in the backcountry when it was done. It was then sold and headed back East.

When you get into the airframe internals you'll swear it was built by some backyard 'Bubbas in Georgia... and you'd be correct. Sloppy welds, left side doesn't match the right, rivets pulling through their bases... just kind of bush-league quality. Not fit to shine the shoes of a Beech. When you call up to buy some windows, you get a " Oh Lord, on Maules you better just send us your old stuff and we'll try to match it... sorry it's the best we can do- "

However there may be a method to their madness. They are easy to fix and/or rebuild after being wadded up - which will be normal in the life of a Maule. When you call with questions, you may well get the president of Maule on the phone, who may be holding his welding torch while he cheerfully answers your questions. Way helpful. I like them (the Company) and their planes. We can't all be built like Mercedes or Beechcraft

As for flying them, they aren't a dream. They are tight to get into, they leak air all over, generally crude.... If need to get in and out short plus haul some stuff, they are great. Thats what they do. Function over form.

I have seen a few late model Maules and they seem to have upped their game some.

I owned a 74 M5-210C from 1992-1998. Its cheap and gives good performance for takeoff and landing, not very fast. Like other said they are rough, crude, cold, loud and drafty. Once you load them to gross they are even slower.
They are cheap to maintained as most parts can be bought at Tractor Supply.

Lets say that after I flown in a C185 I wanted one so I sold the Maule.

If your buddy is looking for a 172, he won't like a Maule, entirely different plane built for a different purpose altogether, a bit like looking for a Honda Civic and buying a Jeep Wrangler.

The Maule is a specialty built aircraft that has been optimised for utility and construction economy over most all else. Yes, there are tri-gear Mauls with autopilots out there but that is a satisfy the airplane equivalent of the Hummer buyer... Wanna-be Bush Pilot?? I have no idea. Anyone that is considering buying a tri-gear should do themselves a favor and buy a 182 or a Cherokee.

For those who criticize the flight characteristics, I can only say, consider the mission design was short field performance and load carrying ability. Not handling, and it shows. A lot of purpose built aircraft fly like sh*t, my Lake amphibian for example, is just as happy flying sidewise as forward. Any slip or skid will send it off requiring a boot of rudder to bring it back. The yaw damper on the autopilot tries valiantly for a while and then just gives up. Flying it in turbulent IMC is a real workout.

The Maule can and does, work out of rough short landing sites that would render better handling aircraft unusable after the first landing, and yes that includes the venerable Cessna 180/185. There is a reason that the Maule and Cub are the mainstays of the real boony-stomping crowd, they are some of the few airplanes that can do it routinely without the need for a rescue helicopter. Yes, there are a few others, The Helio Courier is one, but getting it turned around by hand requires a stout individual indeed, and you better have a thick wallet should you bend it. Same goes for the 185. I can buy a Maule for less than a lower cowling and gear-box replacement on my 185!

For the sake of full disclosure, I do not own a Maule so I have no dog in this fight. I do know the breed quite well and a number of my friends operate them out of places I wouldn't consider taking my 185... but I am a bit of a chicken, that crashing bit scares me.

Jeff