long long story......
K, just finished dinner, got a fire going in the fireplace.
Im listening...
long long story......
Ive got all night.....
A friend of his was killed by a Maule, structural failure. They are a cheaply made aircraft, not sure how they were certificated that way?
At least a couple were in a question about structural failure...one near the Etiviluk River/North Brooks Range and one near Sithlymenkat Lake near the Yukon River/Pipeline crossing. Both experienced pilots. Nothing more to add and it's history not to be repeated. Some talk about certification stress tests prior, turbulence, or fuel and whatever. Airport chatter. Knew them both but it happens and not sure why. Just my recollection.
Gary
There are limitations to any aircraft. Borrowing from an older post I copied and pasted the NTSB Number below. 80mph winds with higher gusts, float plane, two occupants not certain on how much fuel and gear aka gross weight at the time.
ASF Accident Details
8/23/1996
NTSB Number: ANC96FA131
Aircraft and Flight Information
Make/Model MAULE / M-4/5/6/7
Tail Number N5656A
Airport N/A
Light Conditions Day
Basic WX Conditions VMC
Phase of Flight Cruise
As an FYI I don't believe that Maule wing skins are considered structural. I'm very sorry to hear friends were lost, I'm pretty sure that the majority of us have had one or two "But for the Grace of God Moments" planes are machines and they have limits, Maules are certified through the same FAA process as all the rest. when we push those limits we're test pilots. Lots of factors here that I think are unknown. Here's the definition of severe and extreme turbulence:
The definition for severe turbulence includes the sentence: “Aircraft may be momentarily out of control.” Extreme turbulence is defined as “turbulence in which the aircraft is violently tossed about and is practically impossible to control. It may cause structural damage.
This is my opinion, I realize there's others.
Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org mobile app
The wing skins on a maule are too thin, they all crack in the prop wash area... Not sure why they are made this way? Maybe weight saving is more important to them than keeping a lift surface intact. Not a pretty picture picture after one fails...To each his own, I won't work on or fly them.
So maybe, like everyone replacing fuselages and struts on a Supercub, people should be more diligent about replacing the skins on the Maule wings with thicker metal and better rivets.
My cub went almost 40 years out of the factory before rebuild. Don't try that with a maule, she ain't no Georgia peach...
We could cherry pick incidents where just about every make and model of aircraft has fallen out of the sky.
Off airport is a tough environment, often stressing ac beyond design limitations. Seemingly harmless
cumulative stresses can add up and result in unexpected failure during mundane ops.
Ultimately up to the PIC to consider maintenance history and conditions AC has been subjected to.
Maule was purpose built for hauling big loads into short strips, as such, most have had the crap beat out of them. They need to be maintained and inspected accordingly. Last two Maule’s I had would carry more fuel in the wings than a Cubs total useful load, half of that weight was in outboard tanks. Built like a truck.
If you are not comfortable getting in a Maule then don’t.
MTV,
I would like to hear more about the 'Life Saving Information' you mention; Might be my life I save.
Here is the NTSB report of the accident referred to above.
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/NTSB....ev_id=20010813X01678&ntsbno=ANC01FA084&akey=1
Some parts of it are as follows:
The engine cowling, fuselage firewall, and the instrument panel were crushed and displaced aft. The engine was partially buried in the soft, tundra-covered terrain. The engine sustained extensive impact damage to the underside, and lower front portion. The carburetor assembly was broken free from the mounting plate. An internal examination of the carburetor bowl contents revealed about 10 cc of clean, uncontaminated fuel. The fuel sample collected from the carburetor bowl tested negative when subjected to water detecting paste.
The firewall mounted, glass, gascolator bowl was found intact and was completely full of clean, uncontaminated fuel. The fuel sample collected from the firewall mounted gascolator tested negative when subjected to water detecting paste. The gascolator screen was free of contaminants.
It's worth a read in light of what is being said.
Jerry
A couple questions please for current owners before we leave regarding M-5-235 carb or similar.
The fuel selector has 4 positions...L/R/Both/Off. The Flight Manual info has changed over time for takeoff and landing on the fullest tank to the later option for both if they are similar level. What's the latest procedure for fuel tank selection?
There's both an engine driven and electric aux main fuel boost pressure or transfer pump (from memory but may be wrong). What's the latest procedure for maintaining adequate minimum fuel pressure (0.5 psi in the SM I believe) during extended full power climbs at minimum fuel or during a mechanical fuel pump failure?
And that old fuel line behind the activated flap handle SB to watch for crushing and reduced fuel flow was the right tank to fuel selector line I think. Haven't seen a fuel system diagram yet. Switching to a fuller tank on engine hesitation is common and often accompanied by activating the electric boost pump even for carbs.
Some early Maules came with 1/8" NPT plugs where the quick drains could later be installed in the fuel tanks.
Gary