Talk:Maule M-7

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Change specs to new model[edit]

Why is there a need to change the specifications to a different model? - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The information you have is incorrect, and the source I have on hand which I know is correct (I pulled it out of my Maule M-7-235B sitting in my hangar, then found a PDF on Maule Aero's website) is for the M-7-235B. Further, I have never seen an M-7-235. Maule made very few M-7-235s compared to the -235B/C and MX-7 variants of the aircraft. The -235 is also no longer in prouduction, while the M-7-235B is still being produced (see Maule's website for 2020 models). It makes far more sense to use a known, correct source from a more recent date than something from the mid-1980s that is just plain wrong. Consider the figure for cruise speed. That would put the cruise speed at 140 knots indicated airspeed. Max speed (Vne) is 156 kts in the M-7-235, not mentioning it's not really possible to get a Maule to do much over 120 KIAS in level flight anyway, so there's no way that figure could be considered correct in the first place. Further, my source is better than Jane's is since it is an FAA approved, manufacturer produced document. Alpha122596 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that you hadn't noticed that cruise speeds are true airspeed, while Vne is in indicated airspeed? Okay, fine I will clean it up as per the source cited. - Ahunt (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have added the flight manual as a ref and re-sourced all the specs from it from scratch, as most of the numbers you had entered are not mentioned in that ref. As a supplement I added the FAA type certificate data sheet , which has a few more numbers, but it is still far less information than the previous data from Janes. - Ahunt (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the manual for fuel is per side, not total and is not specified in the FM, so for correct fuel capacity values, multiply by 2. Further, the usable fuel table actually has a typo on it, in the A tank configuration, only 20 gallons of fuel would be usable in the inboards, with the full 10 usable on the outboard tanks. To my knowledge, the typo has not been corrected in later versions of the FM. Alpha122596 (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth mentioning that when discussing aircraft performance, numbers given in a vacuum are assumed to be IAS rather than TAS, and if TAS is listed, it will usually be accompanied by altitude information. May be worth going back and retroactively listing speeds as such if they are true. Alpha122596 (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to note that the FM gives no cruise data, no range or endurance data, and as you note, the fuel capacity is wrong. I'll correct it in the article from the TCDS cited, as it specifies fuel capacity. I have to admit I have read probably 100 aircraft FMs and this one is one of the most incomplete. I have a copy of the Lockheed SR-71 FM and it runs to almost 1,000 pages. - Ahunt (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Ahunt (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]