M-7-180C Versus M-7-235C

[G-Force]

I am new to the tail dragger scene so forgive me for any ignorance that my be typed here. However I was reviewing specifications between these two Maules and the only difference I could see was that the 235 obviously has the bigger motor the O-540, but to what real advantage? The 235 has a better Climb rate and cruise that's it right nothing more? I was really set on the 235 until I started reading about the 180, it has more usable load, by 100 pounds, has better range by 160 miles and only eats 9 GPH. So you sacrifice a not so good climb rate, and cruise. Why isn't Maule charging more for the 180! Of coarse I know the answer to that, but the real question is where can the 235 go that the 180 cant, that's for you experienced guys to answer. Little of subject but are there mods for the 180 for better climb rate and cruise?

Most information retrieved from: http://maules.com/Models.htm

[mauleace]

I have an M5-235C. I have never flown a Maule with a 180, so there are guys like Jeremy who have flown everything.

But, from my flying experience with other planes, and for that matter other equipment, size matters. The 235 will probably out climb the 180 and does have better performance at altitude. I live in the west so there are mountains everywhere I go. DA is an issue and the cubic inches makes a difference in a naturally aspirated engine at higher elevations.

So, if you are going to be in the flatlands the 180 is a great choice. A great compromise with better fuel mileage.

[AK Mauler]

Welcome to the forum. I expect a lot of opinions on this topic. I am a MX7-180AC driver, fixed pitch and spring gear. The 180 is a good airplane and handles most missions well. I have flown with 4 on board with 5 hrs fuel a few times (definitely at gross). At my skill level, I would not consider any airports <2000 ft operating at max. gross. If you are light, then the 1000 ft strips are no problem. The 6 cyl. Maules really are a much more capable airplane than the numbers suggest, compared to the 180. This is especially true on floats and operating at gross. If you fly 90% of the time with one or two on board and are always on 1000' strips, the 180 would do just fine. I would recommend the CS prop over the FP as this greatly improves TO performance. If you plan to fly every week a few hours on the weekend, the lower fuel burn can help pay for the $100 burgers. Remember there really is no substitute for bigger engines and you can never have too much power.

[a64pilot]

If there were one superior Maule, then there would be only one model. If I were in the new airplane market, I would look hard at the 180B model, I believe. Whichever one that does not have the 5th seat and extra windows and hump in the airframe.
Newer Maules are heavier with all of the "extras" and don't have the useful load they used to. It's why there is a need for an M-9.
A 180 and a 235 flown side by side at the same speed will burn almost the same fuel. The 180 isn't really more efficient than the 235. It does have 1/3 fewer cylinders, so therefore less friction, but it's spinning faster than say the IO-235 which makes up some of the difference. If you get in a hurry, you can turn up the power (and fuel flow) in a 235 and go, you can't in a 180. You haven't felt a smooth engine until you have felt a six cylinder spinning a three blade prop. The 180 does weigh less and does have a higher useful load, but you need to be careful where you put it or you can be out of CG aft. The 235 is nose heavy and therefore harder to load out of CG. The 180 is making more power per cubic inch than the 235 so all things being equal the 235 will out live the 180. It does cost more to overhaul a 235 though.
At high DA or a short field or obstacles the extra 55 HP is nice to have. I believe the 235 re-sells better too.
Call Jeremy, the person that owns that link you posted. He won't steer you wrong.

[rjb]

I have a 2006 MX7-180C because I bought new, I wanted an IFR package, and money ran out. Specs are deceiving; the MX7-180C ceiling is 15000 feet. For me, I'm getting antsy at 10k about its climb rate; when it's not that hot; probably that's just my inexperience about not pushing the plane to its limits.

The Weathermeister forecaested density altitude for the Bridgeport gathering was 9600 DA. Landing was OK by me, but taking off... (The primary reason I didn't try was I would get up at the latest 5 to make a 9:30 breakfast.)

You won't have these concerns with a 235. Power is good; gap seals are good; VGs are good; oh well, 2 of 3.

-Dick

[G-Force]

Ok, very good info, thanks for the replies. I didnt think of the fuel burn factor being equal if both planes are traveling at the same speed. So if you reduce power on the 235 you should get better range than what is posted.

[Skystrider]

Hey G-Force, I have a 1980 M5 180C. I regularly see 7 GPH for a burn rate. I usually fly with one, sometimes two other people, in the plane out of a turf field with no problems. The 235 is definitley a livelier plane and indispensible in the mountains of the west. However, for eastern PA in the Poconos I have never had a problem with power or climb rate. For my mission the 180 was the way to go.

[a64pilot]

So if you reduce power on the 235 you should get better range than what is posted.

Be careful, as with most airplanes, I would say the numbers are a little "optomistic". The 235 will burn more fuel than a 180, just if loads and speeds are equal, it's not much more, but it IS more.

[YELLOWMAULE]

Sorry, no apples to apples here but as far as the few extra ponies go my experience was relevant; I have flown in the company of the esteemed TomD and his better half and while I have a slightly lighter A/C he is an M-5 235 w/ the three-bladed prop. On paper we should be right there. 210hp vs. 235hp and a couple hundred pounds in my favor. At altitude crossing the Cascades, he walked away from me by maybe 12-15 mph. I can get down to 9.3-9.5 gph while he will be slightly higher. But there is no substitute for cubic inches!