Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 129

Thread: Have been eyeballing Maules for float work.

  1. #41
    nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,633
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Last edited by nanook; 01-28-2018 at 04:02 PM.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    512
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Likes Bowie liked this post

  3. #43
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,029
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    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.
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  4. #44
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by S2D View Post
    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 points

    Nope, no weak points on the cubs at all!

    (and how about the box brace in the tail?)
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

  5. #45
    nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,633
    Post Thanks / Like
    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...

  6. #46
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,029
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    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.
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  7. #47
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,290
    Post Thanks / Like
    Delete

  8. #48
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,290
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
    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
    Thanks Randyk thanked for this post

  9. #49
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,290
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aktango58 View Post
    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
    Thanks aktango58, Randyk thanked for this post
    Likes BC12D-4-85 liked this post

  10. #50
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,448
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  11. #51

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    512
    Post Thanks / Like
    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..
    Likes Bowie liked this post

  12. #52

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    512
    Post Thanks / Like
    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..😉

  13. #53
    cubflier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    1,267
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here is the NTSB report of the accident referred to above.

    https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/NTSB.A...01FA084&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
    If it looks smooth...it might be

    If it looks rough...it is!!

  14. #54
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,290
    Post Thanks / Like
    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
    Thanks Oliver thanked for this post

  15. #55
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,290
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cubflier View Post
    Here is the NTSB report of the accident referred to above.

    https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/NTSB.A...01FA084&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

  16. #56
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,448
    Post Thanks / Like
    Maule does offer (http://mauleairinc.com/maule-air-tec...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

  17. #57
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
    Thanks RaisedByWolves thanked for this post
    Likes Bowie, StuporCruiser liked this post

  18. #58
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,448
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  19. #59
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,961
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    N1PA

  20. #60
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by BC12D-4-85 View Post
    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.
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
    Likes 62E liked this post

  21. #61
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,448
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aktango58 View Post
    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

  22. #62
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,961
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    N1PA
    Thanks BC12D-4-85 thanked for this post
    Likes Dave Calkins liked this post

  23. #63
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
    Thanks BC12D-4-85 thanked for this post

  24. #64

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    512
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aktango58 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Oliver; 01-29-2018 at 09:28 PM.
    Thanks BC12D-4-85 thanked for this post

  25. #65
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,448
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    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

  26. #66
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,961
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    N1PA

  27. #67
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,448
    Post Thanks / Like
    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-tec...and-documents/

    Gary

  28. #68
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,463
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion View Post
    ..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.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  29. #69
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,290
    Post Thanks / Like
    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
    Last edited by mvivion; 01-30-2018 at 02:48 PM.

  30. #70

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southern NH
    Posts
    451
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  31. #71
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion View Post

    "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

    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 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.
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
    Thanks Bowie thanked for this post

  32. #72
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,448
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  33. #73

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Talkeetna Alaska
    Posts
    253
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  34. #74

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Talkeetna Alaska
    Posts
    253
    Post Thanks / Like
    Senior moment - cub has two header tanks.

    RK

  35. #75
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    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!
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

  36. #76

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Talkeetna Alaska
    Posts
    253
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aktango58 View Post
    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

  37. #77
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

  38. #78

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Talkeetna Alaska
    Posts
    253
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aktango58 View Post
    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

  39. #79
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,448
    Post Thanks / Like
    Look: http://www.anythingaboutaviation.com...5-1975_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?pa...dule_id=160324.

    Gary

  40. #80
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,961
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by BC12D-4-85 View Post
    ...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.
    N1PA
    Thanks BC12D-4-85 thanked for this post

Similar Threads

  1. Take your cub to work day
    By Scouter in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-10-2017, 11:25 PM
  2. I Don't Want To Work
    By Henny in forum Video Vault
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-30-2013, 09:13 PM
  3. Float problem? How to determine if your float is metal?
    By Aviator13 in forum Super Cub Sick Bay
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-30-2011, 08:02 PM
  4. Hull Float Speed and a few other float questions......
    By behindpropellers in forum Tips and Tricks
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-30-2004, 11:01 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •