Bearhawks & Maules

[kberger384]

I've long been a fan of Bearhawks, but also kept an eye on Maules. I got the opportunity to fly in an older Maule yesterday and, while it was a beautiful plane, I learned it's not going to meet my mission well.

• The one I flew was an older Maule, and pre-dated the sweet cargo setup. Hauling bikes from KC to Arkansas is a big part of why I'd want a Maule or Bearhawk. I'm certain this wouldn't be an issue with a Bearhawk
• I'm tall-ish (6'2" and long-legged). My knees were constantly in the way, and I was pretty folded up.
• I think it's likely that I was new to the plane, but it felt so twitchy, even when the owner was flying or landing it. While that was a lot of fun, it led the owner to tell me he'd never take it up at night. Not only would I like to take it up at night, I'd like to equip it for IFR to pop through low layers. I didn't get warm fuzzies about IFR in it.

I understand the Bearhawk is comfy for taller people. Can anyone confirm?

I see posts about night flight in the forum that make me feel like night landings should be doable. I've also seen at least one Bearhawk equipped for IFR. Does anyone take their bird into actual? How does it do?

What are other differences between Bearhawks and Maules? I still need to get into a Bearhawk for myself.

Thanks!

[jaredyates]

Chris In Milwaukee and mswain might have input. Maybe rv8bldr?

[mswain]

I've got a 1963 Maule M4, so it's the older flavor without the big cargo doors. I don't know your flight experience with various planes but I don't consider it twitchy. Like any tailwheel, you have to be paying attention on landing.....especially on pavement. I don't fly much at night anymore, so I can't speak to that. I wouldn't have an issue flying it at night if the need came about. I don't have a ton of Bearhawk time, but I don't think the Maule is any more challenging than the Bearhawk. Bearhawk definitely has more room, Maules are tight....especially for tall people.

[kberger384]

It's been a long time since I've been in a tailwheel, but I flew a Citabria and a Champ a lot and have a tiny amount of time in a Super Cub. Honestly, the "twitchy" adjective was a favorite of the owner in describing the plane, both in landing and in general flight characteristics.

Recently, I have a TON of time in a 172 and a Cutlass. The Maule definitely had a higher roll rate than the Cessnas (which was a blast) but it also felt like it took a little more attention to maintain straight and level flight.

[mswain]

I would describe the Maule and Bearhawk as having neutral stability whereas I consider most Cessnas and PA28 type pipers to be positive stability.

[Rollie]

Although most of my Bearhawk time is in my Patrol, I have about 50 hours in the Model 5 and around 25-30 in the 4 place. I'm 5'11" and fly with the seat adjusted to mid range on all of the models. There is lots of room for taller pilots.
I don't see any issue with flying any of them at night or IFR. My Patrol is set up for IFR and I take it in the clouds. It is plenty stable and flies fine whether I'm looking out the windshield or at the EFIS.

[jaredyates]

What is your geography like kberger384? Maybe there is a Bearhawk not too far away that you could visit.

[kberger384]

That would be great!

I’m right outside of Kansas City, on the eastern edge of Kansas. I’ve talked to Bill Anton, but he’s on the west side of Kansas - a 6 hour drive or 3 hour flight - and we haven’t been able to align schedules yet.

[jaredyates]

Collin Campbell is a couple of hours away and he might have a Five in progress you could check out?

[Bissetg]

My Maule flying is limited to the M5 235. I didn’t bond with it.

I’m a sniff under 6’4 and really didn’t fit very well, lack of head room, but generally too tight. Being uncomfortable isn’t a great thing but the real problem I had with it was the geometry.

It was on 850 tires and had standard gear legs. That gave an AoA of about 6 degrees sitting on the ramp, my Bearhawk 4 on 31 ABWs is about 12 degrees. The consequence of that was you tended to land tail first or fast .

On Takeoff on rough ground if you tried to rotate a little too soon the tail would hit the ground and bounce up killing your AofA and putting distance on your takeoff run. The result was it didn’t do STOL that well in my hands.

I wouldn’t describe it as twitchy to fly but I also wouldn’t describe it as delightful which I do my Bearhawk.

My buddy has an M7 on extended gear and 29 ABWs. It’s an altogether better set up. I’m sure there are other really good Maules that you could configure nicely for your mission but one of the things that appeals to me about my Bearhawk is that not being certified gives great flexibility around parts and maintenance etc. For me that and the other handling issues puts the Bearhawk way ahead.

[Chris In Milwaukee]

I had a Maule MX7-180A. It was on 850s in the summer, 600s and skis in the winter with standard gear legs. As a tall guy, I fit fine, but it's pretty narrow like most planes of that size. The yoke hit my knees when in heavy crosswinds. That's the thing I disliked, but everything else was fine. The stick in the BH is definitely a benefit. Dimensionally I don't find that there's much difference difference between a BH4 and an M(X)7. The tail is obviously a big difference. I don't have any experience with the M4 which sounds like what you were flying (round tail), but imagine it's kinda sorta close to the early BH4 with no cargo doors or maybe a Companion. The M4 might be a little smaller, but it's really just a guess.

Aside from the different airfoil, I think the BH4 and Maules are fairly interchangeable. Don't tell Bob I said that out loud. Of course, I'd choose a Bearhawk first. But if you're in the market for a plane now and don't have the time or patience to build, there are Maules out there (although the inventory is pretty small right now). And there are a lot more of them than there are Bearhawks on the market.

[Battson]

I understand the Bearhawk is comfy for taller people. Can anyone confirm?
...
What are other differences between Bearhawks and Maules? I still need to get into a Bearhawk for myself.

The Bearhawk series is definitely better for tall people than any Maule I have personally seen or flown (M4, M5, M6, M7, M9), but they do have a lot of models... The Maules also have considerable less room inside, in the back seats and cargo area too.

Only a very specific subset of factory Maules can compete with a Bearhawk in STOL and cruise speed at the same time, all other things being equal. The long wing Maules, such as M6-235 or M6-260 are such planes, provided they are properly equipped. The short wing M4s and M5s need considerably more runway at both ends (T/O and landing). Many are competitive at one end, but not the other.

To venture some personal preferences:

I personally find the yoke / aileron setup, and the interlinked yaw damper when fitted, more challenging and less fun to fly compared to a joystick in the Bearhawk. Maules seem considerably less responsive / maneuverable to me. Specifically the longer wing models can have a lack of aileron control at low speed.

I also struggle with the carb fitted to almost all common Maule models. Compared to injection, they burn a lot more fuel even when leaned hard, and are more dependent on fuel stops when we fly together, which restricts our options.

I do like the reflexed flaps idea, when fitted - but practically I have never been significantly outrun by a Maule... even with the 31" tires fitted... So I guess it's not a huge factor.

I would edit to add - and finish by saying - if I couldn't have a Bearhawk for any reason, I would select an M6-260 long wing variant and be happy that I have an equally good plane in many respects, but they are not equal. Many other Maule models do not compare favourably for my mission.

[kberger384]

Dang, I’m so glad I asked. Thank you all for your insights!