Cessna 170 versus Maule M4-145

mit · Post by **mit** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:20 pm

I don't like Maules.

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:00 am

mit wrote:I don't like Maules.

Well that's certainly direct. And I hate hate, just hate it

mit · Post by **mit** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:02 am

Dave Clark wrote:
mit wrote:I don't like Maules.
Well that's certainly direct. And I hate hate, just hate it

Thank You

Roesbery · Post by **Roesbery** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:23 am

Been a long time since I flew a stock 170. The one I had was probably a little better than average for getting off the ground, slower in flight. And I was new at flying. I only flew it one season in Alaska, then bought a 180 hp one. That strip with the maule was sloping over about a thousand feet, maybe 10 to 15 feet, then rose steeper maybe 30 to 50 feet higher on the upper end. Some barrel cactus* off the lower end 2 to 3 ft high, the upper end was a rounded ridge sloping down from left to right going toward it, then a small stream along the other side. the wind was about 10 Kt +- 5 Kt. A little gusty. The choice was go downhill with a tailwind or up hill into the wind. The pilot asked me what I would do and I said he new his maule better than I did. He decided to go into the wind, and turned out probably the best, since he made it. Would a stock 170B have done any better? I wouldn't bet either way on that. But at least you could see where you were going to crash. Had my share of times just getting in the air in ground effect and fighting the gusts and down drafts trying to gain airspeed. That is why I bought a 180 hp 170B, takes a lot of wondering out of the picture. In low country with long runways the stock 170 is about as good as you are going to get. But in mountains and high altitudes the extra hp of the conversions makes a real work horse out of the 170. I am tall in the body and short in the legs, sitting in a M7 ( I think) on the ground was like sitting on the floor with my feet up with a back rest. and all I could see was instrument pannel and sky. In the 170 you sit like in a chair and look down the cowling and see the ground a few feet in front of the plane. Dodging rocks, ditches, stumps, logs, bushes, etc is a lot easier when you can see them.

dodd · Post by **dodd** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:17 pm

Greg,

I have wanted to become a tailwheel guy for long time.
I just sold my comanche250 and bought a 170/180hp.
I did not necessarly have a bias although I looked at 170s some time
ago, and kept comming back to them.
Fixed costs and performance were my criteria.
I spend time in NE New Mexico, and need altitude performance.
One will never go wrong having a little more HP.
I had a long talk with my insurance company.
2 things I learned. First, insurance can triple when your HP goes over
200. That seems to be the break point. Now I have 950 hours but no tail
wheel time. Second, Maul insurance is very high compared to my new 170. Maul ins. is high cuz of the accidents. I was told that many times
there are accidents when the airplane is purchased and flown home,
and have a wreck on arrival home.

Good Luck on your search.

Dennis--8018A

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 2:57 pm

Hey Dennis good to see you here. Hope the plane is working well and that you're getting some time to use it.

dodd · Post by **dodd** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:53 pm

Hi Dave,

Good to hear from you. Not flying as much as I would like.
The holidays keep everyone busy.
All good things take time.

I do have some great, very experienced, guys helping me.

I thrive on anticipation. Learningl to fly 8018 is going to be great.
After all, one has to like what what one does to earn a living, but it is what
I do when I get off work that makes my life.
I am planning to fly out to see how your new project is going next summer.

Dennis-8018A