Cessna 170 versus Maule M4-145

GAD · Post by **GAD** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:42 am

I just learned that the early Maule M4 had a 0-300 engine with a fixwed pitch prop and wondered if any of you have had experience with this plane and would like to comment on how it compares to the Cessna 170? How about a Maule with a CS prop?

I hope Maule is not a bad word around here now that I have used it three times

Thanks for the feedback about the "bad shopping experience." And, yes it is part of the reason I am asking questions about Maule!

Happy New Year!

Greg

MayflyPFG · Post by **MayflyPFG** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:07 am

Scout insurance early. According to my underwriter, insuring a Maule can be prohibitive.

blueldr · Post by **blueldr** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:08 am

Maules ae OK. Cows will eat any part of them except the wings.

Post by **GAHorn** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:03 am

Flying a Maule is like dating someone really ugly.
It's fun and it's cheap, but you don't go around bragging about it.

GAD · Post by **GAD** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:25 am

I will look into the insurance aspect but was thinking I would just get liability when the time comes. After all, itâ€™ll never happen to me!

As far as cows eating the plane, that should no longer be a problem as I shipped my last animals last week. Plus, only a MAD cow would eat a plane and we donâ€™t have any of those in North America!!!!

If I understand correctly, gahorn thinks a Maule is fun and cheap but ugly? I expected a certain amount of bias but was hoping for something a little more productive. Not that I mind the jokes but I really was hoping for some more insight.

Thanks, Greg

Post by **GAHorn** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:38 am

Sorry, Greg. You're correct. You deserve something more than bad humor.
The Maule's have a pretty good reputation for quality and performance. They're a family-production airplane and they're still pretty much hand-made. Compared to others in their class, they are a bit more affordable...very competitive in price for what you get.
But they are a bit "angular" as you can see. There was a Consumer's Guide type Buyer's Guide article on them many years ago. Not much has changed except for avionics and a few engine choices. I believe they enjoy a good reputation if you can live with their idiosyncracies. (Clumsy to get into/out of.)
The insurance thing can be expensive depending on the number of seats for which the specific model is certified. (Even liability issues come up when it regards injury.) Removing a seat or two does not change that...you are still charged per the number of seats for which the airplane is certified. (If you state less seats it may reduce your premium, but when a claim is made the underwriter may balk at protecting you and take the position that you mis-stated the facts on your application. It's similar to buying a 205/206/210 type airplane, but the Maule is usually less expensive to buy.... not to maintain.)

russfarris · Post by **russfarris** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:39 am

Well, I've flown a Maule some - it's an OK airplane. One reason I think the insurance would be higher is that some people regard it as some kind of superplane - which I don't think it is. That famous picture of a Maule taking-off right in front of the hanger it started the roll from inside is probably responsible for more accidents than any other aviation picture I can think of. A Cessna 180 will outperform a Maule on every level. IMHO.

It's a soup-uped Piper Pacer, basically. Keep looking for a NICE 170, they are out there...Russ Farris

P.S. Susan Maule, daughter of BD Maule the founder, is one of our pilots, but I've never actually met her.

flat country pilot · Post by **flat country pilot** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:49 pm

Greg,

If you really want a 170, keep looking for a 170. I was in your position and started to get very discouraged.

My second choices were 120, 140, J3 or vintage square tail 172. If I couldn't find a 170, my plan B was to buy a second choice and continue looking for a 170.

My wife, in all her infinite wisdom, kept me grounded and on track for the 170 because she knew that was what I REALLY wanted.

It took 18 months to buy one. Two bad experiences, and one that slipped through my fingers because I moved too slow. Finally the perfect plane came along, and I have to say, with the perfect seller.

Not easy, but worth the wait. Tough to do, but be patient.

Bill

Post by **Bruce Fenstermacher** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:44 pm

Greg stop using the m word. Cussing is not allowed at the forum.

I have limited experience with a M4 and an 0-300 which a friend owned.

He didn't have the correct pitch prop on it so it wouldn't accelerate fast enough to fly the way it should. I could out perform him in every category with my Piper Cherokee.

This aircraft I'm sure did not perform as it was capable because of the prop

Having said that the many Sunday breakfast flights we flew in it where pleasant and unremarkable. The plane seems to be sturdy and workable. I have another friend who just loves his M7 with a 180 but that really is a different airplane.

When you are comparing planes there are so many areas to to it.

If you want an all metal airplane the M4 doesn't fit. If fabric is OK then there are more airplanes to consider with the Maule such as the Piper PA16 or 20/22 and the Stinson 108 family. Each and everyone has pros and cons. If I was considering a fabric aircraft the M4 would be one of them.

Roesbery · Post by **Roesbery** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:18 am

Go sit in a Maule and see what you can see, then sit in a c-170 and see what you can see. Watched a 0-300 powered maule take off of a bush strip a few years ago used about 1500 feet of a 1200 foot strip. Wobbled into the air and managed to stay there. Probably scared me as much as the two guys in it.

lowNslow · Post by **lowNslow** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:36 pm

I did some glider towing with a Maule, and while it flew well and towed well, I found the visibility lacking. This was very disconcerting as the glider port was located in a high traffic area. It's hard to beat the visibility out of the 170. As Roesbery mentions, go sit in a Maule and see what ya think.

kbbell · Post by **kbbell** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 4:23 pm

I've got a '52 170B and a Maule M5/235. If you need a 145hp airplane, get a 170 or a Sedan. Maules are useful when overpowered, then you can overlook the ugly tail, visibility and egress issues.

Nothing I've flown has the visibility of a 170. Not many planes provide forward visibility when the tailwheel's touching. Sit in a 195 sometime.

-Bill

iowa · Post by **iowa** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 7:03 pm

at one time i considered buying a maule.
it was inbetween my c140 and c170.
i flew with a guy in carroll, ia,
and for many of the above stated reasons,
decided to go with the 170.
i have never regretted it.
i have never flown in a 195,
but would like to sometime.
iowa

GAD · Post by **GAD** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:46 pm

Thanks for constructive responses.

Roesbery - by way of comparison, how do you think a 145 hp C170 would have done of that 1200 ft strip with the same load?

What attribute gives the 170 better visibility? Are the front seats taller and do they move farther forward? It doesn't appear as if the slope of the nose is much different.

doug8082a · Post by **doug8082a** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:06 pm

GAD wrote: What attribute gives the 170 better visibility? Are the front seats taller and do they move farther forward? It doesn't appear as if the slope of the nose is much different.

The top of the panel is considerably lower than in, say a 172. Imagine removing the top 3"-4" of panel in a 172 and that's what you've got. In addition, the cowling slopes down from the windshield to the nose further increasing visibility.