Maule for trainer

[RT]

I have been looking for a 172 to train my kids to fly in. Seen a 180hp tricycle gear maule that caught my eye. My question is do you think the tri maule would be as dosile to train kids in? A 172 is super easy to fly so that's what I was looking for. I still need a 4 place for some cross country's beside just training. Any advice is welcome.
Thanks

[maules.com]

Your kids are new to the concept so can learn in any type of plane.
They can learn in the M7-235 taildragger and be successful. Ive proven that.
The question is; how competent is the instructor.
Is she/he on top of flying a wing, any wing, that is the limitation.
Henderson State University has a fleet of trigear Maules for their training program.
The CAP trains students in MT7-235s
In answer to your question, yes the MXT7-180 or 180A is an excellent trainer.

[bobguhr]

I trained in a 172/180hp. Upon completion I bought a MXT-7 Tri-Gear. The insurance co. wanted time in make and model so I got instruction from Ray Maule at the factory. Ray pointed to an M4 180V and said preflight it and then we'll fly. I told him I needed time in the tri gear not the tail wheel his response was If you can fly this you can fly any of them.
I quickly realized that I had never learned how to use my feet in the 172. I got the tail wheel endorsement from Ray and flew an hour in a tri gear as well just to be on the up and up. My point is the MXT was much more sensitive to crosswinds then the 172 I had trained in, not a bad thing just the way it was. You need to use your feet to fly and land the Maule properly which transitioned well to the M6 that I now fly.
I had a blast with the MXT, I had 8.50's on the mains and a 7.00 on the nose, I landed on snow, slush, mud grass etc etc I kept the nose light and landed it almost exclusively in a 3 pointish stance. The 172 was a more forgiving plane, it was more comfortable for taller larger pilots, (I'm 6'2" the Maule gets tight with a right seater aboard.) The 172 cruised faster, took off slighter longer and landed faster(longer). If traveling is what you want, the 172 is the way to go, if you want to have fun flying and learn how to use your feet the MXT would be my choice, I put 800hrs on mine before I sold it, then I bought another Maule. Either way they're both good planes but I think you'll get a better initial education with the Maule.

[maules.com]

The sad story is that rudder use is not taught properly in most flight teaching.
It Should be taught in C172 C150 and all planes trigear or taildragger but is seriously lacking.

[Mountain Doctor]

The MXT7-180 would be a good trainer.

Harder to fly (well) than a 172 but that will create better skills, IMHO.

[22Tango]

I support what has been said.
Learnt to fly 172 and later MXT 7. The Maule was harder to fly - but way more fun. And yes, rudder is required. Possibly a better trainer than a 172.

[Hottshot]

100% agree with what has been said so far, I learned in a MX7 180 and would recommend to anyone with proper instruction.

[TomD]

MX vs MTX Maule

It is sort of like learning to drive in a stick shift car vs automatic. If you can drive a stick shift, you can drive an automatic. Same w/ tw vs tricycle.

As pointed out the need to use your feet in a tw will pay off in a trike but lazy feet developed in a trike will bit you in the rear in a tw. Don't ask how I know



TD

[Mountain Doctor]

Good analogy, Tom.

Funny you mention it. I've been thinking of getting a new(er) car and most of the higher performance cars I've been looking at (Porsche/BMW/MB/Jaguar) ALL come with automatics! How the times have changed.

Same deal as most airplanes nowadays, what few are made, are trigears.

[Alaska Bug]

One clarification: The CAP does not offer flight training. They provide the opportunity for licensed pilots to advance their skills, such as high-performance aircraft, and the MT7-235 would be a good choice for that.

They offer non-powered instruction, typically for cadets, in gliders, and the MT7-235 is used to tow gliders.

[maules.com]

AkBug, thanks for that, I now know what I suspected.
Each time I have dealt with a CAP MT7 that was damaged, on enquiry I was always told a student was to blame.

[captnkirk]

I once had a student that had bought a Bonanza did a lot of his primary training in it. I soloed him in a 172 but most of his time after that was in the bonanza. His insurance was pretty steep but he was able to get coverage. He also got an instrument rating quickly there after and moved up to a Barron. As I remember he was in real estate and traveled a lot so it was a business expense but a sharp guy. I wasn't in the service but both my brothers where, that program goes from 0 to 1,2 mach in about 250 hours. So it can be done just have to plan the training accordingly.

[aero101]

Having been an instructor for many years now, I'd first like to say that younger kids catch on and learn extremely quickly. They also tend to start out with NO BAD habits to break as some of us older guys have been doing for years, so you're starting out with a clean slate so to speak. I have done many kids back in my earlier primary instruction days, and frankly the more difficult to fly TW airplanes make great trainers for them, are more challenging for them, and contribute to making them much better pilots in the long run. The bottom line is I would train my kids, and be comfortable in most any aircraft, not limiting them to a C150-172 where they will fly with flight instructors who are no more then time builders, have poor habits which transfer to students automatically, and so EASY to fly that kids also develop bad habits which are much harder to break then to teach correctly during initial training. The whole key is to find a GOOD professional Flight Instructor who is doing the job because he enjoys it, who has a broad background in all types of aircraft, not some younger kid, building time for the airline job as majority are. Over the years, I have befriended some of my early instructors, occasionally still fly with them, and they still teach me some good tricks. There just is no substitute for that experience, and those instructors are a dying breed, but they're still around if you shop. Bottom line is that the instructor selection is much more important then what kind of airplane is used, as with proper training youngsters will learn in anything you train them in more quickly then you would think possible.

[captnkirk]

I agree with that Jim I enjoyed flight instruction and will probably go back to do some in retirement. Finding a good instructor is key.

[Brenton C]

Good analogy, Tom.

Funny you mention it. I've been thinking of getting a new(er) car and most of the higher performance cars I've been looking at (Porsche/BMW/MB/Jaguar) ALL come with automatics! How the times have changed.

Same deal as most airplanes nowadays, what few are made, are trigears.

The sports cars are automatics, the planes are "land-o-matics."

Doc, if I may suggest it, Porsches between the years 1979 and 1989 (911SC through the Carreras) I believe would be particularly well-suited to your tastes. This was before they became computer controlled, and overly refined. Still had some grit and growl, and seat-of-the-pants feel that's been "refined" out of newer generations. Read Pete Zimmerman's book thr Used 911 Story for a captivating read about the strengths and weaknesses (and essential pre purchase checks) for each generation of 911.

Other brands I don't know about. Sorry.