PDA

View Full Version : Have been eyeballing Maules for float work.



Alex Clark
01-24-2018, 04:08 AM
I sold the PA-11 Cub a while back and sold the 172n on floats in October. I have been shopping around for my next plane or planes for my float business. Back when I was not really looking there were affordable Maules here and there. Now they are all in hidding . M7-235s are kinda scarce right now and not all M6s had the float mod frames. Not so sure how am MX7-235 would be on floats. Probably a lot like an M5-235.

Mush
01-24-2018, 09:06 PM
I did my seaplane rating with Rich Hensch of Florida Seaplanes years ago in a MX7-235. I think he is ready to retire, but his son David is taking over operations. They would both be a wealth of knowledge on the MX7. Check them out here http://www.flyfloatplanes.com/

S2D
01-24-2018, 09:37 PM
Not so sure how am MX7-235 would be on floats. Probably a lot like an M5-235.

Cant remember the exact lineage but the later MX-7s wings were only slightly shorter than the M-7. Not short like the M5

aktango58
01-24-2018, 10:39 PM
There used to be an operator out of Kotz my friends flew with. Was great for all they did.

I do know where an M-5-201 on floats is for sale.

Everyone that has flown them say great things about them.

BC12D-4-85
01-25-2018, 12:16 AM
Might as well throw this out as a local starter Maule: http://alaskaslist.com/1/posts/10_Transportation/59_Aircraft/503562_Maule_M_4_210C.html

Probably 2-3 soul fishing fool in the right hands.

Gary

Alex Clark
01-25-2018, 12:42 AM
It has been for sale for awhile. Most of my experience with Maules has been M7s and M6s on floats. a little (maybe 40 hours) with M5s on wheels .
Not interested in a 4, The prices on long wing 7s has gone up enough that I might as well just buy a nice 180s or older 185.

Just ruled out one M5 I liked due to some concerns I have, hope to hear from another owner tomorrow. Thought I had a line on a MX7-235 in Georgia but the guy never got back to me when I stated asking questions.

So far it seems to me there are two types of Maule Owners.
1. Those who know everything about Maules and how to flying them.
2. Those who do not know much about their own plane and were talked into buying a Maule by somebody in group 1.

BC12D-4-85
01-25-2018, 01:41 AM
I owned an M-5-235 40 yrs ago but never on floats. And yes I'd want a longer wing than an M-4 or 5. They were popular once on Fiberfloats but that soon soured when the floats' rigging started to unravel. Aqua 2400's seem popular. EDO 2440's are around too. I see you posted on the Maule Forum so maybe the experienced will offer advice and a source.

I flew the C-180 some but mostly the C-185 for three engines. If I had to choose I'd not screw around and just get a 185 some older pilot hates to sell but has to and pay and play it out. You know these matters so that's nothing new.

Gary

aktango58
01-25-2018, 11:21 AM
The M-7s do cost a bit, that is for sure, but find a 185 in the same condition and then measure prices, condition makes a big difference.

My mechanic told me the average owner flies a maule between 50-150 hours total, or over 1,000. Group one scares themselves and will never get in it again, (mine came from such an owner), the other learns to fly it and finds they can do most everything they desire while carrying the kitchen sink.

One advantage of them is price of parts. Just your average Cessna part starts at $1,000, my tail steering fork was less than $200.

The short wings do reduce lift, so we compensate with lots of power. Admittedly I am not any great with the plane yet, but it is coming. They do not fly like the Cessna, or cub. Until it becomes natural to fly them like a Maule they will not seem to perform.

The M-5 210 I was instructing a guy in we had two BIG guys in front, and one average in back and lots of fuel. Impressive out of the water on a calm day. Again, you need to fly it different than the Cessna.

There seem to be people that hate the aircraft without much knowledge- usually parrot from others; there are also those that got bit by one in the past that dislike them due to their past experience- they do not suffer fools lightly, nor do pacers.

I don't know what your goal is, but the M-5 is not super expensive, and will do well for performance.

Are you looking to continue instructing? Or have another gig up your sleeve?

BC12D-4-85
01-25-2018, 12:36 PM
I hadn't considered parts support as haven't owned Maule for a long time or Cessna ever. Same for maintenance expenses. A&P's that maintain them would know the expected issues. Hope it works ok eventually.

Gary

TcraftF21
01-25-2018, 01:05 PM
I have a friend who has a Maule on straight Baumanna. It just sits in his hangar all pickled and sitting for three years. It is in upstate New Your. Maybe he will want to sell it?

Jim

TcraftF21
01-25-2018, 01:06 PM
Oh yes. It is an M7.

Jim

Alex Clark
01-25-2018, 02:57 PM
Oh Hubba Hubba...a pickeled 7..

I looked at a 5 the other day which I really liked, until I saw the engine log books, compressions and how it had sat for a few years outside. The price was ok and I have cash in my account. But,, little warning klaxons were going off in my head.

I may hear from another 5 owner today. Hopefully. He is pretty busy.

There is a wonderful 6 down in Texas, but the seller does not think it has the float reenforced framework. ( the triangular piece under where the passenger door and cargo door meet. )

The lower horsepower MX7s have the 32.11 universal wing, but for some reason or another the older MX7-235s had the shorter (30.10) square tip wings. But at least they have the 4 notch torque tube flap system and not the 2 notch M5 cable system for the flaps.

Alex Clark
01-25-2018, 04:10 PM
AKTANGO 58 I sent you a PM.

Alaska_Rallyer
01-25-2018, 05:19 PM
Just curious what the 172 wasn’t doing for ya? Seems like it would be fine for sea level float ratings. Obviously the airplanes your looking at are a huge step above the 172 in some ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alex Clark
01-25-2018, 08:39 PM
AlaskaRallyer: The 172 was great for float ratings and was the best step-turn plane on floats I have flown.
But,,, I also used it for family flying and fishing trips. The legal load was too limited and some of the smaller lakes needed more climb angle. It would get out of the water pretty fast with two people and half fuel, but the angle of climb at up lake distance pretty fast.

algonquin
01-25-2018, 10:59 PM
Hi Alex, this fall I flew a M-7-260 on 3000 wip amph's. Very nice airplane with maybe 300 tt. Flew it several times in 30kts of wind and it seemed to do better than the 230 hp M-7 I was flying. I can't say anything bad about it but wasn't hauling anything or working hard. With two in it it got off the water very well and climbed good.

Alex Clark
01-25-2018, 11:59 PM
I have some time in an M7-260 on straight floats. It was a real zippy bird.
Sometimes fuel injection while on floats can be something to think about.

mit greb
01-26-2018, 01:09 AM
I have no use for Maules of any model!

kg
01-26-2018, 07:28 AM
FWIW... Brown's Seaplane Base in Winterhaven, FL now has a M-7-235 they are using for training. They might have some leads or info.

RoddyM
01-26-2018, 10:21 AM
Funny, I’ve never owned or flown a Maule, however, watching a couple of them at Greenville was impressive.
Long time steady company making planes through thick and thin. Not even the best known light aircraft of all time, the Super Cub, has that kind of “same company” track record. Bankrupt, bought, sold, modified, modified some more, renamed, etc. It’s all good though. Mostly. Can you even buy a certified Super Cub now? Oh, a Top Cub. Is that a Super Cub? Yes no maybe kinda. Point being, I’d like to know whats wrong with a Maule...
Roddy

RoddyM
01-26-2018, 10:25 AM
Sorry, I was asking Mit Greb.
Roddy

mit greb
01-26-2018, 10:00 PM
sorry, i was asking mit greb.
Roddy

long long story......

G44
01-26-2018, 11:19 PM
long long story......


Ive got all night.....

Randyk
01-27-2018, 12:05 AM
I'm in the same camp as Mit. For starters, count the rivets in the top of the Maule wing and compare that to, oh, a Cessna wing. Or the number of stitches in a Cub wing.

RK

BC12D-4-85
01-27-2018, 01:22 AM
What might be considered is longevity and retained value. Put $$$$$$ into an airplane and where will your investment plus accrued maintenance be down the flight line? Airplanes aren't investments....they're tools, or for some toys, that wear out or loose value. Some unfortunately more than others.

We all know some that have gone west in a plane that apparently failed them. Something to think about when buying.

Gary

Indabush
01-27-2018, 09:40 AM
Ask a mechanic that worked on Maules, what they think of Maules.

Bowie
01-27-2018, 03:42 PM
Ask a mechanic that worked on Maules, what they think of Maules.

You guys are harsh I'm on my second Maule I've got 1200 hrs between the two I'm not saying they're the epitome of fit and finish, but they are an honest airplane I fly the hell out of mine and love it.


Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=93960)

Dave Calkins
01-27-2018, 04:04 PM
Havent worked on one for years. Not all fond memories, but it was nitpicky design things I didnt like

FWIW, mechanics opinions are opinions.

Hopefully we all deal with mechanics who can separate their opinions from facts and data. Hopefully I can do that!

Oliver
01-27-2018, 04:51 PM
I’m with Bowie,
ive owned 2 M7s with about 750 hrs combined.
They’re a bit of a black sheep in the GA world but an honest plane that does exactly what it was designed to do.
Mentioned earlier; 2 camps - pilots that are scared of them, and pilots that love em.
if you haven’t scared the crap out of yourself in the first 10 hrs, and stick with it, you’ll start to appreciate how capable they are. 100 hrs seems to be the magic number before you’re “wearing” the plane.
Yes, mechanics bitch about them a lot, but once you’ve learned the idiosyncrasies of how they come apart and go back together for annual, no big deal. Parts? Theyre still in business, without the Univair sticker shock.
Bang for your buck? Twice the plane as a cub for the same$

stewartb
01-27-2018, 07:00 PM
Wup Winn seems to like them. His Back Country Connection web pics include a lot of good looking Maules. Not my first choice but I respect that is is for some guys.

http://www.backcountryconnection.com/about/

Oliver
01-27-2018, 09:21 PM
long long story......

K, just finished dinner, got a fire going in the fireplace.
Im listening...

cubflier
01-27-2018, 11:35 PM
This thread may be relevant.

http://www.supercub.org/forum/showthread.php?26154-Which-Model-Maule

aktango58
01-28-2018, 12:37 AM
Some time just for fun, pull a 185 and a Maule side by side and lay out a pallet of moose antlers or large drums of fuel. Go ahead and start loading and see which plane is easier!

Nothing like having the entire side open up for making loading easy!

BC12D-4-85
01-28-2018, 12:42 AM
I'd go fly one now on floats...like in Florida at Brown's, Florida Seaplanes mentioned earlier, or wherever the water's warm and wet? Ask about maintenance and explore the envelope. Maybe find a similar Cessna and test it too. Nothing like back to back to end the speculation.

Gary

nanook
01-28-2018, 02:35 AM
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?

BC12D-4-85
01-28-2018, 04:46 AM
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

Bowie
01-28-2018, 09:04 AM
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?

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 (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=93960)

Oliver
01-28-2018, 10:02 AM
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

One incident of structural failure, well documented here already.
The other, I believe, was attributed to poor maintenance - wing strut corrosion was the culprit, also well documented.
(the wing folded up when the pilot did a low flyby over his cabin)

mvivion
01-28-2018, 10:48 AM
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 (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=93960)

That NTSB report was based largely on testimony of a couple of non pilots who probably couldn’t tell a 20 mph wind from a 80mph wind. And completely ignored the testimony of two people the pilots left on a lake nearby, who testified the wind there was virtually calm. 80 mph winds and extreme turbulence just a few miles from where the winds were virtually calm.

It also ignored the fact that the accident airplane wS in fact the flight test prototype for the M-7 design. Which means that airplane had been subjected by the factory to stresses in all probability beyond “normal” limits, before it was sold.

After this accident,in which top wing skins departed the aircraft (as opposed to a wing coming off), an FAA Inspector examined a number of Maules and noted smoking rivets in top wing skins.....some would call that a “clue”. But, that Inspector was told to stop looking, and NTSB never mentioned this, nor did they follow up.

The Maule M-5 accident Gary mentioned at Sithleminkat Lake was called a stall/spin loss of control accident by NTSB, even though there were clear skid marks down the hill preceding the crash site. The NTSB chose to ignore pertinent information developed by the husband of the pilot of that airplane......information which has the potential for saving a life.

That was when I stopped taking NTSB reports as gospel. If it’s a report about an airliner accident, they pull out all the stops and try to get to the actual cause. In general aviation accidents, the NTSB seems to at least occasionally be satisfied to ignore potentially important data, on their way to a “pilot error” conclusion. There is no doubt that in the latter case I noted that pilot error was the proximate cause of the accident, but there was no stall/spin, and there was information presented that was ignored. Information which could be a factor in future accidents.

MTV

aktango58
01-28-2018, 11:55 AM
MTV,

I would like to hear more about the 'Life Saving Information' you mention; Might be my life I save.

Any aircraft has the potential to kill us, as can any automobile.

I agree that if you look at almost any Maule with some time on it, you can find a smoking rivet or two on the top of the wing, on most Cessna 180/185 and piper Six series aircraft you will find cracked skins along the spar line after some time- the six in a few thousand hours, the cessnas usually take a little longer.

Our forums are full of questions about stuff that will kill us not working correctly. How many fuel system questions have we had about Cessnas not working correctly? Locally we had a 207 last fall hit the water due to a fuel issue.

How many engine troubles have been asked about in all types of aircraft?

Bottom line, no matter who made it and how new or old your aircraft is, taking the time to inspect it, money and effort to maintain it, and flying within it's envelope can save lives- maybe your own.

nanook
01-28-2018, 12:12 PM
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 after one fails...To each his own, I won't work on or fly them.

Oliver
01-28-2018, 12:22 PM
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.

S2D
01-28-2018, 12:35 PM
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.

aktango58
01-28-2018, 02:06 PM
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.

Let's not get to the rabbit hole of landing gear beef ups, x brace on top and seat belt attach points8)

Nope, no weak points on the cubs at all!:wink:

(and how about the box brace in the tail?)

nanook
01-28-2018, 02:25 PM
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...

S2D
01-28-2018, 02:49 PM
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...

No argument from me on that. I still trust the original Cubs. One big issue I had with the original Husky's too. Too many Pop Rivets. Can't believe the FAA even allows that.
So there is now a whole industry waiting out there to rework Maules, like there is Tricking out Cubs.

mvivion
01-28-2018, 04:27 PM
Delete

mvivion
01-28-2018, 04:29 PM
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.

My primary point earlier was simply that when people start citing NTSB reports, a lot of folks take those as gospel. I for one have seen these two that happened to be Maules, and a couple others, where the NTSB clearly erred in at least some of their conclusions.

In the Maule accident where the wing came apart, the wing itself didn't "fail", the top wing skin literally departed the aircraft. That airplane would have been subjected to Vd dives during it's flight test life, and was then sold to a customer.

Look carefully at the top skins on any Maule that has many hours on it. Those wings are essentially "metalized fabric covered wings". The spars are tough, no doubt, but the earlier Maules have very thin wing skins. Now, take a look at the rivet spacing on those top skins.....those rivets are a long ways apart. Those skins are thin, and the rivet spacing is HUGE.

A friend of mine owned an M-7, and worked it pretty hard. He essentially doubled the number of rivets in the wing skins.....a lot of work, but he knew those gents that were killed in the accident we've been discussing.

I have flown Maules, and I'm sure not afraid of them. They perform great, no doubt. As others have noted, one needs to maintain them. Duh.

The fuselage and tail surface fabric work from the factory is pretty poor, though they've improved a bit in recent years. I've flown a few Maules that've had the fuselage re-covered and repainted, and those are generally really nice airplanes.

Most of my Maule time is on floats, and they typically don't have a lot of useful load in that configuration.....either gas or cabin load, but not lots of both. That's not a criticism, just a comment. Neither does a stock Cub.

They can be great airplanes, and as I noted, they really perform well. Just keep an eye on those top wing skins......

MTV

mvivion
01-28-2018, 04:57 PM
MTV,

I would like to hear more about the 'Life Saving Information' you mention; Might be my life I save.

George,

It's a very long story. The engine failed in that aircraft, in a pretty bad place and situation. It failed because water was delivered into the fuel system.

Specifically, as is often the case, the wing tip tanks were filled at a different time than the main tanks. The bulk tank had fuel delivered between these two fillings, and the lid was left off this stand mounted tank. It rained buckets for several days between the bulk tank fill up and the pilot filling the outboards with fuel, which turned out to be contaminated with water (samples were taken from the hose, which had a lot of water in it).

The pilot flew family members to a lake where they had a fuel cache in cans. It was verified that the cache was intact after the accident.....none had been used. After takeoff from the lake, the pilot was climbing out from the lake (which sits in a bowl) when the engine failed. They negotiated a 180 degree turn while attempting an engine restart, but impacted the surface before reaching the lake. There were clear skid marks where the floats slid on the hill side, but the airplane stubbed, and wound up inverted. There were no survivors.

The co-owner of the airplane arrived on the scene while NTSB was examining the wreckage, and the NTSB rep. released the wreckage to him when they were done with the exam.

The owner examined the wreckage and found that both aux tank pumps had been energized when the accident occurred. The fuel tanks had been ruptured during the accident, but the fuel lines from the aux tanks to the mains were crimped and cut out, and tested. They both contained water.

So, apparently, the pilot had fueled the tip tanks on the day of the accident. On climb out from their stop over, the pilot energized both outboard fuel pumps simultaneously, which is consistent with recommendations in the Maule POH.

This information, plus pictures showing the skid marks leading to the wreckage were presented to the NTSB. They ignored it, and their final determination was, incredibly, a stall/spin.

After this episode, when I fly a Maule and intend to use the outboard tanks, I pump one main down first, switch the selector to the other main, then pump SOME fuel from the outboard on the side I just fed fuel from to the main. Then I shut off the outboard transfer, and switch back to that main.....while cocked and locked, and ready for an engine failure, and ready to switch the fuel selector back to the other main. In this case, the pilot inadvertently contaminated ALL fuel tanks by energizing both transfer pumps at once.

Now, understand that I don't consider this a Maule "Deficiency". I (and the co-owner of the plane in question) just feel like there should be a cautionary note in the POH about this.

There was no way to verify that the pilot sumped the outboards after they were filled that day....that can be a pain on floats, but a few people who knew the pilot (including me) had seen the pilot do so on other occasions. In any case, I have had water in fuel tanks that was REALLY hard to get out via the sump drains. Consider that the new Cessna 172s have over a dozen sump drains in their fuel system.... So, it's quite possible that the sumps were drained, but not all the water was removed, especially on floats, where the plane may or may not be totally level while sumping.

To me, the take away from this accident is to NOT energize both tip tank pumps at once. Verify you're getting clean fuel from one tip before you transfer fuel from the other.

Granted, the likelihood of duplicating this accident is really low, but an engine failure any time can lead to really bad consequences.

MTV

BC12D-4-85
01-28-2018, 05:22 PM
It's been 40 yrs since my M-5 but I recall the outboard fuel tank transfer pumps (2) had a removable filter screen on their bottom. It took a socket wrench and some turning or just a twist-off maneuver. I think there were both aux and of course main tank sump drains. There may have been a low point in the fuel line drain(s-?). Never flew one on floats but it may have been a chore to remove debris and water from the outboard.....and who pulls the pump screen routinely? Once water mixes in with fuel then what to do? Sad deal.

My upper wing rivets on mine smoked during flight in rain and the paint flaked off. But the big oops was the fuel line under the seat that got crushed by the flap lever when pulled. I think they fixed that in later S/N's.

Sure was fun to fly. We put whole cleaned mulligan moose inside w/o the legs, innards, and head attached.

Gary

Oliver
01-28-2018, 08:23 PM
To me, the take away from this accident is to NOT energize both tip tank pumps at once. Verify you're getting clean fuel from one tip before you transfer fuel from the other.

Granted, the likelihood of duplicating this accident is really low, but an engine failure any time can lead to really bad consequences.

MTV[/QUOTE]

Very unfortunate for the folks involved.
To me the takeaway from this accident is to avoid contaminated fuel, sump all tanks prior to flight and following refueling. Being on floats does not excuse one from sumping outboard tanks, especially if your life depends on the fuel in them.
Not sure why this has any bearing on a specific make and model of aircraft, Cubs dont run well on water either.
Can we move on now..

Oliver
01-28-2018, 08:39 PM
Sorry to rant,
i own a cub now and love it. Tired of all the bashing Maule’s have taken over the years.
Like I said earlier, if you don’t like them don’t get in them, pretty simple.
You wouldn’t catch me dead in a Husky though..😉

cubflier
01-28-2018, 09:17 PM
Here is the NTSB report of the accident referred to above.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/NTSB.Aviation/brief2.aspx?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

mvivion
01-28-2018, 09:20 PM
Oliver,

That accident was mentioned earlier by another poster. I noted that it was not a mechanical failure. I was then asked to explain the cause of that accident by a current Maule owner, which I did.

You are correct about dumping tanks. That said, try sumping those tip tanks properly with the plane on floats, it can be a losing task, unless you happen to have a dock handy, and sometimes even then.....

But, my point was not to point any fingers at Maules. And not trying to put that accident on the airplane. Mistakes were made, and the consequences were fatal. I don’t know about you, but I too have made mistakes in an airplane, but I was fortunate to survive. If I were to perish in an airplane, I sincerely hope someone would try to find out what went wrong and learn from it.

As a side note, I had a conversation via email about Maules with Alex before he started this thread. I offered him my perspective there on Maules, and as I recall, I suggested the airplane might work well for his operation.

In general, I don’t bad mouth airplanes. I ascribe to the philosophy about favorite airplanes shared by Adolph Galland, the famous fighter general of the Luftwaffe, with a reporter years after the war. The reporter asked Galland what his favorite airplane was. The General’s response was: “The airplane I was flying that day.”

A good philosophy.

MTV

mvivion
01-28-2018, 09:38 PM
Here is the NTSB report of the accident referred to above.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/NTSB.Aviation/brief2.aspx?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

Jerry,

That is indeed the report for the accident in question. That said, the fuel lines between the mains and tip tanks contained water, both fuel transfer switches were energized, the engine was not running, and the pilot was attempting a restart with the key switch. We could only assume that the gascolator had been purged of water, but not in time to complete a restart.

The report also notes: "On August 9, 2001, an engine examination and disassembly was conducted at Chena Marina Air Service, Inc., in Fairbanks. No preimpact mechanical anomalies were noted during the examination of the engine, or engine accessories." So, the engine failed, but not for any detected mechanical reason.

I'll leave this here. This was a tragedy, no doubt. I lost a lot of faith in the NTSB over this one.

MTV

BC12D-4-85
01-28-2018, 11:24 PM
Maule does offer (http://mauleairinc.com/maule-air-technical-manuals-and-documents/) online copies of their various model specific flight and service documents like manuals plus historic bulletins, letters, and supplements. Prospective owners might want to review them to discuss with pre-purchase or service personnel and flight check airmen.

Gary

aktango58
01-29-2018, 12:15 AM
Side track:

I believe another thread could be opened to discuss fuel and contamination issues.

As instructors we teach sumping fuel; but do we do it justice by showing what really to look for? We often show a small bubble of water separated from the fuel, but what about when sumping and the water has not separated?

What about when you sump and all that comes out is actually water? Do we show that to our students?

Water and contaminates are a bad thing, and many of us get lazy when we pull up to the fuel pumps with all the fancy filters thinking what we put in our tanks is just fine- once in a while it is not.

Water block filters are important and great- but nothing is foolproof.

Almost every large turbine in the world has multiple tanks and must move fuel from one to the other in flight- not rocket science here. But it is very important to ensure your fuel is clean going into the tank.

If you are flying a plane with your fuel tank inside the cabin, (champs, Tcraft, J-3), every time in the winter you warm the cabin and tank you create moisture in your tank through condensation, let her sit and get below freezing that condensation becomes ice. If you park outside and sump your tanks in the morning you will get no impurities, but once the tank is warm that ice becomes liquid... Moral is to sump at the end of the day!

Thank you MTV for the information. I will change how I transfer fuel, sounds like good advice for any aircraft with multiple tanks.

BC12D-4-85
01-29-2018, 12:44 AM
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

skywagon8a
01-29-2018, 06:29 AM
Alex, Have you considered a 172XP which has a higher gross than your old 172N? I had one on EDO 2440s for a while, it could carry a load with good performance. My wife used it for teaching seaplane ratings.

aktango58
01-29-2018, 03:40 PM
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

Mine only has Left, Right and off, no both.

Transfer pumps only transfer from tips (Aux) tanks to mains. Gravity and engine pump I believe pump in normal operations, but if pressure drops the electric pump will increase pressure between gascolater and the carb.

My fuel line from right tank runs under the seat, but up and out of the way of the flap handle. I will look again, but seems it is well out of the way.

BC12D-4-85
01-29-2018, 03:51 PM
Mine only has Left, Right and off, no both.

Transfer pumps only transfer from tips (Aux) tanks to mains. Gravity and engine pump I believe pump in normal operations, but if pressure drops the electric pump will increase pressure between gascolater and the carb.

My fuel line from right tank runs under the seat, but up and out of the way of the flap handle. I will look again, but seems it is well out of the way.

Thanks for the reply. What year and model is yours?

There must be a reason Maule installed an electric backup pump for the engine. Like when switching tanks if the engine temporarily burps due to fuel supply interruption, or the main mechanical pump looses function or leaks due to diaphragm problems like the second accident Maule did to the previous owner according to the FAA's records. The electric pump emergency activation procedure and fuel tank selection evolved in the Flight Manuals over time. Just a thought for prospective owners to note any change orders or revisions.

A previous SB should have covered that fuel line near the flap. Mine got dented and replaced before the SB.

Gary

skywagon8a
01-29-2018, 04:01 PM
Gary, It's possible that the pump was installed because of the steep angle of climb with the bigger engines to ensure that they have adequate fuel flow when the tanks are at minimum fuel.

aktango58
01-29-2018, 04:06 PM
Electric pump is only used as a back up for mechanical failure.

Mine is a M-5-235, 1978 with 1300 hours on it now.

I don't fly it enough yet to be good with it, was flying full time until this winter and got other stuff going. Will get better with it this spring when I can fly for fun and be ready for fall.

Oliver
01-29-2018, 10:03 PM
Electric pump is only used as a back up for mechanical failure.

Mine is a M-5-235, 1978 with 1300 hours on it now.

I don't fly it enough yet to be good with it, was flying full time until this winter and got other stuff going. Will get better with it this spring when I can fly for fun and be ready for fall.

POH went with the sale of my last Maule. If memory serves me, electric fuel pump "as required" (?). Pretty sure a faulty mechanical pump will still allow fuel to gravity flow to carb. Maybe not 24 gph as required a sea level wot operation though.


Maybe mentioned earlier, Jeremy Ainsworth, "maules.com" is a walking encyclopedia of all things Maule, a great resource if you are in need of info. He was involved with the company for a number of years, up thru the development of the turbine M9. Now independent, brokers Maules on his own.

BC12D-4-85
01-29-2018, 10:13 PM
Gary, It's possible that the pump was installed because of the steep angle of climb with the bigger engines to ensure that they have adequate fuel flow when the tanks are at minimum fuel.

Well then the Flight Manual is pretty weak on purpose and emergency procedures. We know that from other planes with fuel injection and engine upgrades that require an aux pump to feed the beast within. But someone flying heavy on a low tank and climbing, maybe turning a bit uncoordinated with the selected tank down without a header tank, especially on floats, might not grasp the significance of the panel switch in time to restart. It's in my muscle memory from 185's but it has to get there first for others.

Gary

skywagon8a
01-30-2018, 06:51 AM
I have no idea of how the flight manual for the Maule is written. As to Oliver's comment of "as required", the pilot ought to know his engine has a fuel pump and that if the engine pump fails the electric pump is "as required". Judging by the way the Maules are simply put together and the regulations which were in effect at the time of the original certification, this is likely all that is said in the manual.

For certification purposes adequate fuel must flow for the engine to operate when carrying minimum fuel. On low wing airplanes with fuel in the wings, generally a pump is needed. On high wing airplanes in most cases gravity does the job. If the plane has a high powered engine which holds the nose high in the air above the fuel tanks (such as Maule's famous hangar take off picture), an engine driven pump would be required. If there is an engine driven pump required then there will also be an auxiliary emergency pump of some sort installed. It could be a hand wobble pump or more preferably in modern times an electric pump with a toggle switch.

If the engine is fuel injected a pump would be required in either a high or low wing installation for a different reason than a carburetor engine.

BC12D-4-85
01-30-2018, 12:01 PM
For reference the various Maule Flight Manuals are available online at Maule's site: http://mauleairinc.com/flight-manuals/ Have a look at the standard and emergency procedures. I read some starting with the M-5's then later M-6 and -7's to learn about their recommendations. They mention using the aux fuel pump if the engine fails (when switching tanks I assume to maintain or boost fuel line pressure) but don't suggest applying carb heat if carb equipped. They may in later or current Manuals.

Over the years there have been Revision Levels for some (http://mauleairinc.com/pdf/flight_maint_rev_level.pdf). For the M-5-235C the Revisions are also shown on page ii early in the Manual. They can be significant. Then the question becomes how does the owner or subsequent owners keep track? Guess they'd have to go where I linked.

The overall manuals and Documents link is here: http://mauleairinc.com/maule-air-technical-manuals-and-documents/

Gary

hotrod180
01-30-2018, 12:48 PM
..That is indeed the report for the accident in question. That said, the fuel lines between the mains and tip tanks contained water, both fuel transfer switches were energized, the engine was not running, and the pilot was attempting a restart with the key switch. We could only assume that the gascolator had been purged of water, but not in time to complete a restart. ...

So, water detected between the aux & main tanks, but none detected where the rubber meets the road-- the gascolator and more importantly the carb.
The FAA / NTSB tore into the airplane, and do this investigation stuff for a living, but despite their findings
you seem convinced that it was water in the fuel.

Depending on eye-witnesses to figure out what happened isn't always an exact science.
We had a fatal Seabee crash near here years ago,
there were three eyewitness accounts -- none of which agreed with the others.

FWIW maybe it had nothing (or everything) to do with the accident,
but it seems to me that monkeying around with the aux tank pumps when taking off and/or early in the climb-out is a poor idea.
I know of several airplanes that were force-landed / crashed due to (shall we say) fuel mismanagement because the pilot switched tanks at an altitude which was too low to allow a re-start when the engine quit. At least one switched tanks on climbout, and several while approaching to land.

mvivion
01-30-2018, 01:52 PM
Hotrod,

The NTSB did NOT tear into the plane. In fact, they did a quick examination at the accident site, then released the wreck to the owner. The NTSB never looked at the plane again, other than the engine. In addition, there were clear skid marks leading downhill, caused by the aircraft's floats, leading to the wreckage. The airplane apparently slid, skipped, slid, then tumbled. Yet, the proximate cause of the accident was listed as:

"Probable Cause and Findings

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

The pilot's inadvertent stall of the airplane during an unknown phase of flight."



MTV

mam90
01-30-2018, 04:43 PM
Remember the Anchorage NTSB office was the subject of a short lived series on Discovery (Or one of the cable networks). While I am NOT disparaging them or their work, watch an episode or two and see what you think of their investigative process.

aktango58
01-30-2018, 05:32 PM
"Probable Cause and Findings

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

The pilot's inadvertent stall of the airplane during an unknown phase of flight."



MTV

From that I will consider the 'skip' to be a phase of flight:evil:

Aux tank pumps can run at any time. I have turned mine on in taxi, and left them on until cruise. Sounds funky, but I use fuel to balance the plane on trips when alone, as my light 120 lb :wink: body tends to want to tip the plane left. (maybe I weigh more;-))

Electric fuel pumps seem fairly standard for the big six cylinders. The 180 is one of the few that doesn't use one, but as said above all injected motors have the back up.

I believe all of us can benefit by sitting in our plane and running through the emergency procedures a couple of times- reaching with our eyes closed; no matter what airplane you are flying.

I have no idea how long the O-540 would run with fuel off, (popped tank), or how long to get fuel back into it. Maybe I will check that out one of these days when I have some runway in front of me... Do a fuel shut off at 10 feet over Yakutat runway and see how long it runs, then how long it takes to come back. I wonder if it would get off the ground if you turned off the fuel and went full power?

How many of us know our plane well enough to answer that question? Add water into the mix and it would not be good.

BC12D-4-85
01-30-2018, 07:00 PM
I used to request the check instructor make it part of a Flight Review. To actually do the fuel starve and switch maneuver. At least review the muscle procedure, and on occasion selecting Off then back On with whatever goes with that. At altitude it's informative and time slows during the quiet time.

Cold drilling (and especially at night) emergency procedures works but only if the pilot wants it to. Same deal with Cubs in continuous wing down turns feeding mostly off header tanks...how long before THAT happens? Better yet don't turn then too long and practice a 90-270* series instead of a continuous 360*.

If I had a Maule again I'd know the answer to all this before the question came up.

Gary

Randyk
01-30-2018, 07:52 PM
I have no idea how long the O-540 would run with fuel off, (popped tank), or how long to get fuel back into it. Maybe I will check that out one of these days when I have some runway in front of me... Do a fuel shut off at 10 feet over Yakutat runway and see how long it runs, then how long it takes to come back. I wonder if it would get off the ground if you turned off the fuel and went full power?

First I would suggest running that experiment at, oh, say several thousand feet........agl.

Don't know about the Maule, but I can tell you about a stock C-185. With fuel shut off before starting the engine, it will not only take off but keep running at 25 squared for 45 seconds because of the header tank. Turning on a tank and going to high boost will restart it in about 2 seconds.

I have it on good information the cub will restart after popping a tank in a couple seconds even with a header tank and no boost pump.

Randyk
01-30-2018, 07:54 PM
Senior moment - cub has two header tanks.

RK

aktango58
01-31-2018, 01:16 AM
I know the 207 has header tanks under the front floor, but don't have one in the Maule.

185 I don't believe has one either, so that makes a difference.

If I do try an 'off' fuel position I will be sure to have lots of room in front of me!

Randyk
01-31-2018, 01:20 AM
I know the 207 has header tanks under the front floor, but don't have one in the Maule.

185 I don't believe has one either, so that makes a difference.

If I do try an 'off' fuel position I will be sure to have lots of room in front of me!

185 has a header tank.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=93960)

aktango58
01-31-2018, 01:41 AM
Why it is important to review every so often to confirm you remember what you are flying!!!

Do all models of 185 have headers? I don't have access to the books right now and can not recall.

Randyk
01-31-2018, 01:42 AM
Why it is important to review every so often to confirm you remember what you are flying!!!

Do all models of 185 have headers? I don't have access to the books right now and can not recall.

Pretty sure


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=93960)

BC12D-4-85
01-31-2018, 04:24 AM
Look: http://www.anythingaboutaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cessna_C185-1975_POH.pdf

In the C-185 there's a fuel collector tank that might be construed to be a header (not sure of the potential fuel volume)...but it's in the floor and might not have sufficient head pressure to feed the IO-*** beast w/o the engine or activated aux pump (left hand memory) pressure when called for: http://skywagons.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=669928&module_id=160324.

Gary

skywagon8a
01-31-2018, 06:20 AM
...but it's in the floor
It's actually between the lower part of the control column and the firewall. It serves two purposes. One to keep an amount of fuel available for the electric fuel pump and the other is as a fuel/air separator. Excess fuel in the fuel control unit flows into this tank. Any air in the fuel and excess fuel is then returned out of the top back to the right wing tank. Air mixing with fuel flow creates a rough running engine. Air in the fuel lines and fuel injected engines is not a happy engine.

You can see it if you look under the instrument panel.

On hot days when your fuel injected engine is running rough while at low or idle power there is air in the fuel injection lines. Turning on the electric pump pressurizes the lines squeezing out the air bubbles. This is more common with the Lycoming engines than the Continental perhaps due to the "header" tank acting as a fuel/air separator. The Lycoming system doesn't flow back to the main tanks.

stewartb
01-31-2018, 10:22 AM
That tank in a Cessna is called an accumulator tank. It's required with the Continental fuel injection, which has a fuel return line to manage line pressure. I don't believe fuel supply is it's primary purpose. Fuel collection from the return line is.

aktango58
01-31-2018, 09:25 PM
Thanks guys, I was positive that there were not two headers, and now that the word 'Accumulator' comes out it sparked my memory.

One note in the system about that 1 way valve to feed fuel from the electric pump to the engine: If your 1 way valve goes bad, and there is almost no way to test without disconnecting it, and you lose your fuel pump and need fuel from the electric pump you will only get a couple of minutes of run time before starving the engine.

This happened to our Chief Pilot- took a while for the mechanics to figure out what was going on.

Shucks! Maules back to Cessnas... How about that Grumman Goose?

skywagon8a
02-01-2018, 05:33 AM
One note in the system about that 1 way valve to feed fuel from the electric pump to the engine: If your 1 way valve goes bad, and there is almost no way to test without disconnecting it, and you lose your fuel pump and need fuel from the electric pump you will only get a couple of minutes of run time before starving the engine.
What type of airplane George? The electric pump in a 185 is in series between the accumulator tank and the engine driven pump.

aktango58
02-01-2018, 09:47 AM
It was the 185. I should ask the mechanic again about it, but the 1 way valve that allows excess fuel to return back failed and that caused the fuel to quit flowing. After the engine would die fuel would gravity feed and the engine would start again and run after a bit... then die again.

Not a great feeling when you are over ocean capes I can tell you that!

cubflier
02-01-2018, 01:52 PM
It was the 185. I should ask the mechanic again about it, but the 1 way valve that allows excess fuel to return back failed and that caused the fuel to quit flowing. After the engine would die fuel would gravity feed and the engine would start again and run after a bit... then die again.

Not a great feeling when you are over ocean capes I can tell you that!

You won't have that problem in a Maule. That's not to say it doesn't have other lesser issues such as it's venting etc. Bottom line is it pays to know your fuel system.

Here (http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2009/a09c0167/a09c0167.asp) is a link to a fuel system 185 accident. It not related to what's said above but gives the schematic routing of the 185 fuel system as it pertains to this discussion. A confusing part for me is the contention that the Cessna 185 will takeoff and run for 45 seconds in a climb with the fuel shutoff closed because of available fuel in the header/accumulator tank. I must be reading that wrong or don't understand the 185 schematic.

The Maule will not run very long at all if you shutoff the fuel because the only fuel between that valve and the engine is the gascolator. I think there is safety in that sort of design. I have not experimented with how long it will run with the fuel shut off because one of the weak aspects of Maule that has not been mentioned is the Muffler system and it's propensity to crap a baffle at the hint of a back fire. Atlee's version of the Maule muffler rectified this to an extent and my baffle life span went from 80 hours to around 500 hours.

Jerry

skywagon8a
02-01-2018, 02:02 PM
"It was the 185."

Found it! It's between the fire wall and the top of the accumulator tank in the return line from the fuel control. Mine was removed and routed up high to a T into the feed line from the front of the right tank when the turbo system was installed 30+ years ago. At the time I was told that there was sometimes trouble in that return line. I just did not know what it was.

Thanks, I learned something today.

Randyk
02-01-2018, 03:16 PM
You won't have that problem in a Maule. That's not to say it doesn't have other lesser issues such as it's venting etc. Bottom line is it pays to know your fuel system.

Here (http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2009/a09c0167/a09c0167.asp) is a link to a fuel system 185 accident. It not related to what's said above but gives the schematic routing of the 185 fuel system as it pertains to this discussion. A confusing part for me is the contention that the Cessna 185 will takeoff and run for 45 seconds in a climb with the fuel shutoff closed because of available fuel in the header/accumulator tank. I must be reading that wrong or don't understand the 185 schematic.

The Maule will not run very long at all if you shutoff the fuel because the only fuel between that valve and the engine is the gascolator. I think there is safety in that sort of design. I have not experimented with how long it will run with the fuel shut off because one of the weak aspects of Maule that has not been mentioned is the Muffler system and it's propensity to crap a baffle at the hint of a back fire. Atlee's version of the Maule muffler rectified this to an extent and my baffle life span went from 80 hours to around 500 hours.

Jerry

I was the pilot. It not have been 45 seconds, but it was over a mile of flight. Reason was an incorrect fuel tank selector valve was installed after an accident. The four-position valve was out of a 182 and the stem was not "keyed". 185 valves have three positions and the stem has three flat sides and a fourth 'half moon'. During a hundred hour inspection the 185 selector handle was removed and replaced 90* out of position. When 'Both' was selected, only one tank fed the engine. The first flight after the inspection (to a remote airstrip) depleted that tank. After landing the aircraft came to a stop sitting one wing low. The selector was moved to another position to prevent cross feed. The valve was then actually in 'both', allowing the depleted tank to empty into the opposite wing tank. At startup, the handle was moved to 'Both' which actually selected the now empty tank and isolated the tank with fuel. There was enough fuel remaining in the line and header tank to get a mile down the valley before engine shutoff. The rest is a long story with a safe ending.

stewartb
02-01-2018, 04:18 PM
According to the Cessna Service Manual on my desktop the fuel selector valve was optional. Don't confuse that with the fuel shutoff that's downstream of the accumulator. The selector is upstream.




http://www.supercub.org/forum/blob:http://www.supercub.org/d94ce1ab-2e03-418e-9930-cf6ca6a7e127https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180201/e3dcb1da76c8374521ee2f7ca7503c3b.heichttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180201/9947cc12c9301459e67e770699278597.heic

mvivion
02-01-2018, 04:49 PM
I have flown a 185 with no fuel selector, a 1967 model, that was ordered by the owner without the selector to “keep it light”. Nice airplane, and a real rocket ship indeed. Never missed the selector, in any case.

MTV

algonquin
02-01-2018, 05:07 PM
I'm with MTV, besides the gas stuff isn't in the tanks long enough to be a problem,lol.

Alex Clark
02-01-2018, 05:12 PM
From the little I know and have seen, the designs improved as they went along.
Although several folks have said that the best Maules are those which have been wrecked and rebuilt.
There is also the ongoing problem of Cessna comparisons with C-185s or C-180s.
The most Maules empty weights are more in line with a C-172, 175 or a C170.

ALL MAULE Accidents in last 40 years. World-wide.( at least in the NTSB system)
627 total accidents and incidents
71 fatal accidents in last 40 years.

MAULE Accidents By Type since Jan 1978 World Wide:
M4= 9 fatal out of 81 total accidents and incidents.......11.2% fatal.
M5= 31 fatal out of 218 total............ 14.25 % fatal
M6= 7 fatal out of 38 total ........ 18.5% fatal
M7= 5 fatal out of 77 total accidents and incidents..... 6.5% fatal
MX7= 2 fatal out of 59 total accidents and incidents ..... 3.5% fatal
MXT7 = 0 fatal out of 6 accidents and incidents...... 0% fatal


Cessna 180 during same period:
1261 total with 107 fatal 8.5 % fatal

Cessna 185 during same period
1050 total with 114 fatal 10.9% fatal


MAULE M6 summaries:
Non Fatal:
Ran off runway during landing roll-out.
Lost control on T/O due to improper flap rigging
Under-shot runway, hit ground.
Hit trees on go-around.
Cross wind landing, nose over.
20-30 knot wind, lost control on landing.
Ground loop, nose over.
Hit fence post on slush covered runway.
Over-loaded landing gear failure.
Cross-wind, tail wind wing drag, nose over.
Hit powerlines after early rotation on T/O
Cross-wind, nose over on landing
Hit fence, destroyed plane on take-off.
Flipped plane after prop strike on sod strip
Tailwind landing, lost control hit fence.
Excessive crosswind, looped and nose over on landing.
High wind landing, cartwheeled plane.
Ground looped, drag wing on landing first flight.
Stall mush into ground in foggy conditions.
Ground loop and gear collapse with 40 hr pilot and 3 passengers.
Landing bounce, followed by steep climb and stall into ground.
Long landing, hit brakes went into ditch.
Water in fuel, failure to restart , botched forced landing.
Low Maule time pilot hit tree branch on float take-off.
Occupants hit heads during evasion maneuvering
Water take-off with 8 to 15 knot tail-wind, followed by stall.
Landing bounce, veered off runway into parked planes.
10 knot x-wind, ground loop gear collapse.
Ran off runway, nose over, during go around.
6 knot x-wind, veered off runway into soft ground, nose over.






FATAL M6 Accidents:
1. Flew into radio tower in bad weather.
2. VMC into IFR, hit mountain in box canyon.
3. Banner Tow, snagged powerlines.
4. Pitch up and stall during aborted banner snag.
5. Hit ATV on beach during landing. Killed person on ATV
6. Stall spin into ground, mountain terrain. No Witnesses,
7. Stall after take-off with excessive nose up pitch and high density alt.


MAULE M7 fatals
08/25/17 ; M7-260C airplane, Kazakhstan registration UP-ML003, impacted terrain during a forced landing near Zhideli, Kazakhstan. The pilot was fatally injured

12/07/08 A Brazilian M-7-235 floatplane with 5 on board impacted trees after take-off.

07/07/05: Near Seward AK, M7-235 on floats stalled too high on glassy water landing, smashing float gear and sinking the plane. One passenger drowned. 1,740 hour Comm pilot with 370hr is M7-235.

08/23/96: M7, Near Barrow AK, 11,800 hr comm pilot last seen low flying over river in winds exceeding 60 mph. According to one witness but calm air according to another. Wreckage later discovered on river bar, evidence of wing skin overload and separation.

05/02/94 M7-235 South Dakota. 1,300 hr VFR pilot flew into increasing fog and mist on long cross country. Impacted terrain.

Randyk
02-01-2018, 05:20 PM
Lots of differences in 185 fuel systems, especially the early models- some had the fuel shutoff push-pull on the control panel near the throttle. In my incident, the shutoff valve was open, the selector valve was the problem.

Alex Clark
02-01-2018, 05:56 PM
Alex, Have you considered a 172XP which has a higher gross than your old 172N? I had one on EDO 2440s for a while, it could carry a load with good performance. My wife used it for teaching seaplane ratings.

They might have a wee bit higher gross weight , but they weigh more empty. I could regularly beat XPs off the lake with my Power Flowed N model, with similar loads and floats.

aktango58
02-01-2018, 06:22 PM
Good info Alex.

Lots of issues with directional control on the ground. I wonder how much that is guys jumping from the 172 into a maule and not getting good instruction, they are a pussy cat until you let it get out a bit then become a roaring mad tiger. on the ground.

When I bought the Maule my friend told me to not make an opinion until I had 50 hours in it. He told me it would take that long to shed my 180/185 view and reactions and learn how to fly it.

140 hours or so in it and I still am learning. It does not fly like a Cessna, nor a cub. If you jab power with tires touching you better be on the right brake or have lots of room left. For landing at all short you need to come in very controlled and burst power on the flare, otherwise you need lots of room. If you dip the nose on final, your speed gain is 10mph right now.

I would love to have floats on her part of the year, they are a great plane on floats.

Mine is quite heavy in my opinion. Mostly factory with IFR panel, 31" bushwheels and Bordello red Maule plush interior, float kit and still plywood with carpet flooring.. 1570 or there-abouts. Gross is 2,500.

stewartb
02-01-2018, 06:44 PM
They might have a wee bit higher gross weight , but they weigh more empty. I could regularly beat XPs off the lake with my Power Flowed N model, with similar loads and floats.

Something must have been wrong with them. 210hp and an 80" constant speed turns a 172 into a fun airplane. Great float planes on PK B2300s. I liked mine right up unti I had to by an IO360KB from the factory. That hurt.

BC12D-4-85
02-01-2018, 06:56 PM
It's a Maule thread but Alex have you looked at C-175's with a bigger engine? Stoots Aviation in Fairbanks has STC's and had a few around on floats. One was for sale last Fall. They perform.

Gary

cubflier
02-01-2018, 08:18 PM
As clumsy as I can be walking around on floats with a moose quarter or rack I sure am happy to open the rear door and fall into the plane with what ever load that I'm carrying. Hauled two full hundred lb propane bottles by myself to my cabin this summer. Just dragged them on the float, stood them up and tipped them in. The rear doors are a feature in the plus column. I have Aqua 2400 on mine and feel it's under floated at the heavier loads but it still takes me to plenty of good places.

34987

Jerry

Beaverpilot
02-02-2018, 01:37 AM
I have always wanted to try a maule. Almost had one but the wife was there- sitting in the 7ECA with a grumpy face.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

mvivion
02-02-2018, 09:46 AM
As clumsy as I can be walking around on floats with a moose quarter or rack I sure am happy to open the rear door and fall into the plane with what ever load that I'm carrying. Hauled two full hundred lb propane bottles by myself to my cabin this summer. Just dragged them on the float, stood them up and tipped them in. The rear doors are a feature in the plus column. I have Aqua 2400 on mine and feel it's under floated at the heavier loads but it still takes me to plenty of good places.

34987

Jerry

On the Aqua floats, you have to pay attention during taxi when fairly light.....hold that yoke back, or you’ll look out and see water coming over tops of the noses of the floats and we’ll back on the decks. But those floats perform well, even when fairly heavy. I suspect they just mounted the plane a little too far forward on the floats.

I liked the Aquas a lot, the EDO 2440s are also great floats, but scarce. But the Baumanns were the floats the Maule always wanted.

MTV

cubflier
02-02-2018, 01:47 PM
That's an interesting theory on the mounting location of the Aqua 2400. Too bad you can't scoot them back and forth to test. Over time I have written it off as a nose heavy plane on floats that need more floatation. I think the rare Baumanns might be a better fit but my bigger curiosity has been what the straight Whip 3000's would be like. Almost went that route till my wallet chickened out. I really think that a set of Aerocets would be the ticket but when I asked the factory rep at the trade show if they had any plans for developing floats for Maules white foam started coming out of his mouth. I think he has rabies. For grins I ask him that every time I attend the show to induce an attack. Eventually he caught on an now he keeps a box of tissues under the counter.

Something that I'm not so fond of is the three bladed prop I put on it when I upgraded to the 260hp. It looks so cool that I almost started using hair gel but as far a performance goes I just don't see it. The wallets lighter and the front end is heavier.

Jerry

skywagon8a
02-02-2018, 02:23 PM
cubflier,

On the Aqua floats, you have to pay attention during taxi when fairly light.....hold that yoke back, or you’ll look out and see water coming over tops of the noses of the floats and we’ll back on the decks. But those floats perform well, even when fairly heavy. I suspect they just mounted the plane a little too far forward on the floats.
This is prompting thread creep from Alex's original questions. I'll refrain, unless you want to get into the weeds. We appear to need to discuss loaded CG and step position in relation to the CG as it applies to the Maule.

Alex Clark
02-11-2018, 05:09 PM
I have now looked at more than a few Maules as part of my new plane quest. One thing to really jumps out is that Maule prices have jumped up like crazy ion the past two years. Particularly with the M6 and M7 series.
This had led some old M5 owners to become very delusional as well.
I have always seen the Maules as an interim step ( load-range wise) between a souped up 180-210hp C170B/172 or 180hp Sedan... and the C-180/85 series.
So back when they were $50,000 to $75,000 planes, a buyer could rationalize the purchase. However there are now M6s going for 120K and M7s have gone crazy.
At those prices, the reason to buy a M6 or M7 instead of a 180/85 slips away.
Can a heavily modified $120,000 M-6 do much more on wheels than a C-180 /85?? Yes it can,,, just like a tricked out Carbon Cub can beat a stock 1960 PA-18 with original tires.

I suspect that the reason Maules have jumped in price is the same reason Super Cubs jumped up 20 years ago. The market for utility buyers / owners was long since full up, but they became popular in the sport-weekend-adventure market with non utility operators. A boutique market of sorts.

BC12D-4-85
02-11-2018, 07:09 PM
Have you considered Post #96?

Gary

Alex Clark
02-11-2018, 08:16 PM
The American Legion Post 96 PO Box 5096 Lima, Ohio 45802

Bowie
02-11-2018, 08:45 PM
I have now looked at more than a few Maules as part of my new plane quest. One thing to really jumps out is that Maule prices have jumped up like crazy ion the past two years. Particularly with the M6 and M7 series.
This had led some old M5 owners to become very delusional as well.
I have always seen the Maules as an interim step ( load-range wise) between a souped up 180-210hp C170B/172 or 180hp Sedan... and the C-180/85 series.
So back when they were $50,000 to $75,000 planes, a buyer could rationalize the purchase. However there are now M6s going for 120K and M7s have gone crazy.
At those prices, the reason to buy a M6 or M7 instead of a 180/85 slips away.
Can a heavily modified $120,000 M-6 do much more on wheels than a C-180 /85?? Yes it can,,, just like a tricked out Carbon Cub can beat a stock 1960 PA-18 with original tires.

I suspect that the reason Maules have jumped in price is the same reason Super Cubs jumped up 20 years ago. The market for utility buyers / owners was long since full up, but they became popular in the sport-weekend-adventure market with non utility operators. A boutique market of sorts.

I don't see the $120,000 M6 that's for sale as heavily modified. If anything I'd call it nicely rebuilt. New fabric, paint and glass plus decent avionics. The flaps update/mod kit is the current production wing used by Maule. Bushwheels and extended gear were installed. Actually everything on that M6 aside from the MT propeller is available on a factory new Maule except for the price, I bet a new M7 with the same specs would be North of $300K. To me, heavily modified means something along the lines of "Bushwacker" from long props or Bill Duncans "Super Maule" both one offs. I also think Maules and 180/185's are an apples and oranges comparison. No wrong choice just different animals. The $120K M6 also falls into pay now or pay later, price out new paint,glass,fabric,avionics,gear, bushwheels, mt prop and modern wings to see were you end up. You won't get that on anything for low budget money. I have no connection to the M6 for sale just my 2 cents.


Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=93960)

aktango58
02-11-2018, 08:49 PM
The M-5 is a solid plane. I have the heavy Lycoming on the front, and can imagine with nothing in the back it would be nose heavy on floats; solution is to put weight in the back when empty...

Oh, wait- fly with 40 lbs in the back of the baggage when empty and she is better on wheels also!

mvivion
02-11-2018, 09:38 PM
There is a REALLY nice looking C-180 with 260 hp on Barnstormers right now for $120 K. Looks like a sweet machine. I’d take that any day over a comparably priced Maule, assuming it is indeed a good clean machine. And I like Maules.

MTV

Alex Clark
02-11-2018, 09:42 PM
Bowie: there are 3 M6s in that price range. Nice planes, just lots more than they were two or three years ago. As the old saying goes, the best Maules have been rebuilt ( at least the older ones from back in the 70s-80s) We agree that the Maule to 180/185 comparison is apples and oranges. As I said, in my mind they are in between a 185 and the lighter load aircraft.

Alex Clark
02-11-2018, 09:43 PM
MTV, I have sent you a PM and an email today.

gregory
02-11-2018, 09:51 PM
There is a REALLY nice looking C-180 with 260 hp on Barnstormers right now for $120 K. Looks like a sweet machine. I’d take that any day over a comparably priced Maule, assuming it is indeed a good clean machine. And I like Maules.

MTV

That is a nice looking 180, Bet it won’t be for sale long....

Alex Clark
02-11-2018, 09:59 PM
1971 cessna 180h skywagon • $130,000 • sold in two days!! thanks to barnstormers •

Bill.Brine
02-11-2018, 10:08 PM
That is a nice looking 180, Bet it won’t be for sale long....

Sold.
Not to me.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=93960)

Bowie
02-12-2018, 06:42 AM
There is a REALLY nice looking C-180 with 260 hp on Barnstormers right now for $120 K. Looks like a sweet machine. I’d take that any day over a comparably priced Maule, assuming it is indeed a good clean machine. And I like Maules.

MTV

I took a look at the 180 on Barnstormers. It sure does look nice. I am partial to Maules, but that being said I have zero 180 time so maybe I take MTV's hint and try one on, although my only point was that any solid aircraft with some bells and whistles costs $$ and I agree that used Maules specifically seem to have jumped in price. Now off to work so I can afford to feed the beast $5/gall Avgas for a fun ride to eat my $100 hamburger,

Alex Clark
02-14-2018, 08:09 PM
A couple days ago I was contacted by an M5-235 owner who has decided to sell. He saw my ( looking to buy ) ad. After a very long phone call he basically had a rebuilt M5 without any floats. He then decided that is was worth $125,000 because that was how much he had sunk into her over the years. He will owning it for a while longer.

aktango58
02-14-2018, 09:36 PM
When I was shopping I found one I liked, but the price was at $67,000. A year later same plane, same picture was advertised at $55,000.

Don't give up hope, often these sit for a while until owners get real.

If we lose a dog, maybe I should sell you mine...

Alex Clark
02-14-2018, 11:44 PM
My problem is that my business planes for the summer are on hold until I find another plane.
I looked at an M5 a couple months ago that I really liked. Very clean, extended gear, floats and a very nice panel.
Plus the owner is a super nice guy.
I was hung up on some log book issues and an odd compression history.

skywagon8a
02-15-2018, 05:48 AM
I was hung up on some log book issues and an odd compression history.
Alex, If you like this plane, wouldn't it be easy enough to correct those discrepancies?

Alex Clark
02-15-2018, 02:30 PM
I will send you a PM.

cubdriver2
02-21-2018, 11:43 AM
STINSON 108-2 180 HP (https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1342035_Stinson+108-2+180+HP.html) • $55,000 • AVAILABLE FOR SALE • 1947 Stinson 108-2 55,000 With univair lycoming conversion 180 HP 2854.9 TT on airframe 399.1TSN on lycoming engine 0-360-a4m new sensenich prop and spinner 74 em8-0-56 cleveland disc brakes VG kit new headliner and shoulder harness. New panel wired with approach fast stack system with garmin 480 was gps with remote gtx 33 es with ads-b out transponder, garmin 340 audio panel to much to list over 100K in parts call David Marshall 508 237 1095 • Contact David R. Marshall (https://www.barnstormers.com/contact_seller.php?to=87682&id=1342035&title=Stinson+108-2+180+HP&return=%2FAntique-Classic%2520Classifieds.html), Owner - located Wolfeboro, NH USA • Telephone: 508 237 1095 . • Posted February 19, 2018 • Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser (https://www.barnstormers.com/listing.php?mode=usersearch&user=87682) • Recommend This Ad to a Friend (https://www.barnstormers.com/recommend.php?id=1342035&title=Stinson+108-2+180+HP) • Email Advertiser (https://www.barnstormers.com/contact_seller.php?to=87682&id=1342035&title=Stinson+108-2+180+HP&return=%2FAntique-Classic%2520Classifieds.html) • Save to Watchlist (https://www.barnstormers.com/ad_manager/watchlist.php?ADD=1342035) • Report This Ad (https://www.barnstormers.com/report_ad.php?id=1342035&title=Stinson+108-2+180+HP) • View Larger Pictures (https://www.barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?ID=1342035&go_to_images=1)

https://www.barnstormers.com/eg_classified_files/87682/1342035/159627/watermark.jpg?modified=1519076468

aktango58
02-21-2018, 08:26 PM
I know where there is a set of floats for that Stinson, on the road system in Alaska

mam90
02-21-2018, 08:29 PM
I know where there is a set of floats for that Stinson, on the road system in Alaska

2425’s?? I need a set.....

aktango58
02-21-2018, 08:32 PM
Yeppers. My buddy has them, and the Stinson went away last summer.

Send a pm if you want more info

mam90
02-21-2018, 08:55 PM
PM sent

skywagon8a
02-22-2018, 06:52 AM
Welding required: http://www.univair.com/stinson/modification/108-3901001-stinson-float-fitting-kit/ and Auxiliary fin (No. 108-3901002)

Be aware that 2425 floats have a reputation for leaks due to cracks, thin bottom skins.

mam90
02-22-2018, 07:12 AM
Welding required: http://www.univair.com/stinson/modification/108-3901001-stinson-float-fitting-kit/ and Auxiliary fin (No. 108-3901002 (tel:108-3901002))

Be aware that 2425 floats have a reputation for leaks due to cracks, thin bottom skins.

Yep, I’m aware Pete we installed the float kit on ours. Do you know of any other float options for the -2? The STC’s for other floats seem to only apply to the -3. Eddie Peck or his brother is going to be down here later this month and I’m planning on meeting with him or discuss other options..

skywagon8a
02-22-2018, 07:34 AM
I've no specific knowledge of other floats except that I've heard that 2440s have been used on Stinsons. Say hello to Eddie for me. He is a cousin to my late uncle.

skywagon8a
02-22-2018, 08:05 AM
Yep, I’m aware Pete we installed the float kit on ours. Do you know of any other float options for the -2? The STC’s for other floats seem to only apply to the -3. Eddie Peck or his brother is going to be down here later this month and I’m planning on meeting with him or discuss other options..
This is the STC for 2440s on the -2 and -3. It does mention that it is approved only with the Continental engine. It seems to me that you could work around this limitation with your FSDO guy.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/1A1727654FACB4D986257E60007BCE3A?OpenDocument

cubdriver2
02-22-2018, 08:25 AM
I've no specific knowledge of other floats except that I've heard that 2440s have been used on Stinsons. Say hello to Eddie for me. He is a cousin to my late uncle.

Say hi for me also. I drove him and his brother nuts when I got my Champ on floats with questions

Glenn

mam90
02-22-2018, 08:40 AM
Say hi for me also. I drove him and his brother nuts when I got my Champ on floats with questions

Glenn

Will do Glenn - and Pete. Looks like Brinley will be the one coming down to swap some damaged floats off of a Champ.