• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Airframes extended gear poor fit.

Dog

SPONSOR
Just installed Heavy duty extended gear on a Maule MX7 gear had to be ground to fit airframe and the bolt holes did not line up very well.

The gear is too toed in on both wheels but worse on the right side. The aircraft has no damage history and the original gear was straight as an arrow.

After measuring an other Maule M5 with the same gear we found the exact same discrepancy (towed in the identical amount with the right side gear more so than the left). The owner of the shop who did the installation said the mechanics hated both installs that they did. Neither gear fit between the gear fittings on the fuselage and had to be ground down, as well as the alignment was to toed in as mentioned before. That is the same issue on 3 aircraft.
What is every ones experience with the extended heavy gear on the Maule? Particularly fit and alignment
 
The M6 I maintain with extended gear just left. I didn't install the gear but have noticed no evidence of grinding from the install that was done many years ago.
 
My old M5 required a lot of grinding and swearing to get the extended gear to fit. The guy who installed it said that it's pretty normal. You know, custom made like a Coupe de ville.
 
I had a similar problem about 5 years ago on the Maule HD Gear. It did not require too much but it was not perfect.....Neither is a Maule....
 
I figured its a business deal excessive toe in wears bush-wheels faster guaranties sales for Bushwheels.

A more sinister way to look at it. :)
 
My old boss use to say "Maules are built by a bunch of farmers in Georgia". ;)
Your boss was right! When I was in the Navy I bought a brand new M4-220C from B.D. himself in Moultrie. $15,000 and of course everyone told me they could have gotten it for me cheaper! Mig welded, lots of overlapping skins, and pop rivets everywhere. Instruments were scattered on the panel. But it was a rugged, reliable airplane, and I flew it on retractable skis in the winter. Traded it (with some boot) for one of the last Comanches built, a 1971 Turbo 260C. 226 true at 25,000 feet. Wish I still had it.
 
Yes I had several Maules and always come back to them. About as close to the Swiss army knife of aircraft as it gets.

They are build like a cheap tractor but are just as reliable and cheap to maintain.

The Lycomings are about as bullet proofed as it gets so what is not to like.

This is the first extended gear I did install on one. Looking for more angle of attack on skis mainly.
 
A mechanic I know did a repair job on a ground-looped Maule.
He said he was surprised at how cheap the factory parts were compared to a Cessna.
Told me later that he realized why when nothing fit.
Sounds like they are built one at a time, and individually fitted--
great for a custom rifle, but maybe not so much for an airplane,
esp one that's subject to being in need of repair.
 
People love them or hate them -- I fall into the first category.

Once you know the pitfalls its easy to negotiate. The Basic Airframe is tough and all the wear items are cheap.

Late models are better build quality but much heavier.
 
Back
Top