• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

NX Cub Sighting today

Utah-Jay

MEMBER
Heber City, UT
Saw my first nose wheel Cub today, I gotta say it was not attractive…. But…. The DA was 9,100’ when I watched it make several takeoffs and it climbed like you can’t believe. That 215hp engine was impressive.
 
yeah it was super impressive at sea level at Valdez last month and kicked some serious.. oh wait, no it wasn't and no it didn't.
 
If the same pilot in the same airplane always places well in a STOL, or any other, contest it's reasonable to assume the pilot is good and so is the aircraft. I don't think one can reach any conclusion about the performance of an aircraft based on a very small number of takeoffs and landings in variable conditions.

On the other hand, CubCrafters advertises a ridiculous takeoff distance for the FX-3 that is unsupported by AFM performance data. Perhaps if they want to advertise one fortunate takeoff they should also be held to account for any that didn't work quite so well.
 
Didn't it place in Bush class?

didn't it have its butt handed to it by a 172?? :lol: For all the hype about this plane, its performance at the show was dismal at best not to mention it is even uglier than a zenith without the STOL capability of the zenith. Pretty tough to win an ugly contest against a zenith but it takes the prize.
 
If the same pilot in the same airplane always places well in a STOL, or any other, contest it's reasonable to assume the pilot is good and so is the aircraft. I don't think one can reach any conclusion about the performance of an aircraft based on a very small number of takeoffs and landings in variable conditions.

On the other hand, CubCrafters advertises a ridiculous takeoff distance for the FX-3 that is unsupported by AFM performance data. Perhaps if they want to advertise one fortunate takeoff they should also be held to account for any that didn't work quite so well.
That is called marketing. My Dad was an engineer at Cummins. They would change a manufacturing process and the marketing department would spin it into a product improvement. Engineers and marketing people are cut from different cloth for sure. :lol:
 
If the same pilot in the same airplane always places well in a STOL, or any other, contest it's reasonable to assume the pilot is good and so is the aircraft. I don't think one can reach any conclusion about the performance of an aircraft based on a very small number of takeoffs and landings in variable conditions.

On the other hand, CubCrafters advertises a ridiculous takeoff distance for the FX-3 that is unsupported by AFM performance data. Perhaps if they want to advertise one fortunate takeoff they should also be held to account for any that didn't work quite so well.

If the plane was all its said to be, even a novice pilot should be able to fly it well. If a factory is sending an airplane to a show to make a statement, you might want to make sure that the plane and pilot are up to making the statement you want heard.
 
didn't it have its butt handed to it by a 172?? :lol: For all the hype about this plane, its performance at the show was dismal at best not to mention it is even uglier than a zenith without the STOL capability of the zenith. Pretty tough to win an ugly contest against a zenith but it takes the prize.
Seems like everyone got beat by the 172. Ugly is all in the eye of the beholder. My wife thinks her Tri-Pacer is cute. ;)
 
If the plane was all its said to be, even a novice pilot should be able to fly it well. If a factory is sending an airplane to a show to make a statement, you might want to make sure that the plane and pilot are up to making the statement you want heard.
Brad is no novice pilot. Trying to figure out what I am missing, all I saw were the numbers and looks like he placed 2nd in his class or was it third?
 
Steven flys the hell outta that 172 and spends a lot of hours hanging it out on the edge and staying sharp. As I said, if a factory wants to showcase a plane and hype it up, they should make sure the pilot and plane are up to the task. In this case, it was all hype and no show.
 
How many were in that class. Numbers looked pretty good to me comparing the 1500 lbs to a bushed out Cub. Different mission and customer base in my mind, the successful business man can go out and have fun with NX and maybe not ball it up like all the Cubs I have seen them wreck.
 
How many were in that class. Numbers looked pretty good to me comparing the 1500 lbs to a bushed out Cub. Different mission and customer base in my mind, the successful business man can go out and have fun with NX and maybe not ball it up like all the Cubs I have seen them wreck.

One can justify it in their mind however they need to I suppose. My point is the hype around it and how it failed to live up to said hype. All the talk about how it could achieve greater AOA with no tail wheel and therefore get in the air quicker etc. didn't prove out. All that being said, in the right hands a lesser airplane can perform amazingly well and in less capable hands, a great airplane can be flown like crap. Either way, how ever you choose to look at it, the performance was not up to the hype.
 
I guess I didn't read the hype. I just see a nose wheel Cub that performs pretty well for guys that can't master a tailwheel and can afford it.
 
In this case, it was all hype and no show.


I must have missed all that. I thought it was CubCrafters goal to open up the "back country" experience for pilots who were not tail wheel qualified or proficient (and of course to take a share of that market). How did one STOL contest show they had failed at that goal?

I doubt that any competent tail wheel pilot is going to buy an NXCub. If they did they would probably immediately change it to tail wheel configuration and maybe later change it back to nose wheel to sell it. That still leaves you with the leaf spring gear though.

Over 3 years ago I talked to Brad about why they had built the first demo NXCub. At the time I doubted there was a market for it. Now I'm not so sure.
 
Over 3 years ago I talked to Brad about why they had built the first demo NXCub. At the time I doubted there was a market for it. Now I'm not so sure.
Yea, it was built out of a wrecked X Cub. Have seen some wrecked multiple times in short order. Kinda like P51s and other warbirds right after the was. People who could afford them didn't necessarily have the skills to fly them.
 
I got a kick out of Steve's post. Remember that post last month where a guy was quoted $33 grand for a year's insurance coverage? Wealthy folk are apparently wiping these things out on a regular basis.

I am not at all sure having a training wheel is going to help in that department. Going in and out of tight places will eat a nosewheel pretty quick.

But I agree - what an ugly apparition!
 
I am not at all sure having a training wheel is going to help in that department. Going in and out of tight places will eat a nosewheel pretty quick.

As as been pointed out several times before - most, if not all, FX-3 Carbon Cub accidents happen on wide paved runways. I have not studied the XCub accident history but I doubt it tells a different story.

As for insurance cost - the FX-3 loss rate is hurting all owners. I'm paying more with 200 hours on type than I did with 2 hours on type. At least they have not yet told me I'm too old to fly it.
 
The NX to me is like a lifted Jeep that's 2WD. It's just not right: 'that dog don't hunt'. And it was good to hear that others agree with the uglyness of the zenith.

I have not seen an NX yet which is surprizing as this area is pretty back country cub heavy.

Interesting comment on the insurance. Mine is due in September. I'm sure it will go up for my CC EX-2.
 
I maintain a couple of NX Cubs and the mission is a personal airplane to travel locally, fly into their ranch strips and take a trip once a year to Idaho or Arkansas. Where they go I don't see the nose wheel being an issue. Kinda like the mission of my 182, it will go to those places no problem and a lot faster than my Cub. I laugh at the "ugly" comments, my old Super Cub is ugly but I always tell everyone that I can't see it when I am flying it with a smile on my face. ;)
 
As as been pointed out several times before - most, if not all, FX-3 Carbon Cub accidents happen on wide paved runways. I have not studied the XCub accident history but I doubt it tells a different story.

As for insurance cost - the FX-3 loss rate is hurting all owners. I'm paying more with 200 hours on type than I did with 2 hours on type. At least they have not yet told me I'm too old to fly it.

I am going to guess that most of them that are wrecked on nice wide black top runways are on big tires that have never seen a runway that required tires bigger than 850s. But man did they look cool spinning down the runway on the high $$ cub with big tires.
 
I maintain a couple of NX Cubs and the mission is a personal airplane to travel locally, fly into their ranch strips and take a trip once a year to Idaho or Arkansas. Where they go I don't see the nose wheel being an issue. Kinda like the mission of my 182, it will go to those places no problem and a lot faster than my Cub. I laugh at the "ugly" comments, my old Super Cub is ugly but I always tell everyone that I can't see it when I am flying it with a smile on my face. ;)

My pacer is ugly too, but there is a difference between being ugly and being UGLY. I would take your old cub home any night of the week, My pacer after a couple beers. The NX or zenith isn't getting taken home from the bar unless its been a night of doing tequila shots and a case of chasers.
 
It is an interesting dynamic, some of them want to be able to master the tailwheel so bad but it just never clicks. Then some guy comes along with no experience and he gets it first rattle out of the box. I was never good at anything so I figure I would not be a good pilot. I probably am not but my issues have always been poor decision making not really bad piloting skills. ;)
 
It is an interesting dynamic, some of them want to be able to master the tailwheel so bad but it just never clicks. Then some guy comes along with no experience and he gets it first rattle out of the box. I was never good at anything so I figure I would not be a good pilot. I probably am not but my issues have always been poor decision making not really bad piloting skills. ;)

I can certainly relate to the last sentence! :lol:
 
My pacer is ugly too, but there is a difference between being ugly and being UGLY. I would take your old cub home any night of the week, My pacer after a couple beers. The NX or zenith isn't getting taken home from the bar unless its been a night of doing tequila shots and a case of chasers.
LOL, after flying them I wouldn't hesitate to take one home. Probably sell it pretty quick and buy several other airplanes with the proceeds but I ain't skeered to be seen in it.
PXL_20220403_213149121.jpg


1.jpg


2.jpg


3.jpg


4.jpg


5.jpg
 

Attachments

  • PXL_20220403_213149121.jpg
    PXL_20220403_213149121.jpg
    48.8 KB · Views: 1,111
  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    84.1 KB · Views: 1,116
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    83.1 KB · Views: 1,095
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    89.3 KB · Views: 1,095
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    105.3 KB · Views: 1,022
  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    113.4 KB · Views: 1,086
I had a buddy with a Zenith CH-750. He painted it yellow with small black polka dots. Whenever anyone asked about the paint scheme, he said "It's a yellow airplane. The black dots are from people touching it with 10-foot poles..." Always got a laugh. But those things do get off the ground pretty quickly! And according to him, they are pretty sweet-flying airplanes.
 
It is not as ugly as a Tri-Pacer.
I too thought the Pacer was not really all that attractive, but then Don Lee showed me how to fly a good 160 Pacer on skis - I remain forever impressed.
 
I maintain a couple of NX Cubs and the mission is a personal airplane to travel locally, fly into their ranch strips...

Steve, I'm curious about the main landing gear structure in the fuselage. There must be a considerable change from a standard Cub. The gear legs appear to be swept back a bit. Is it possible to swap the left and right legs, sweeping them forward and then adding a tailwheel? Or would it be a much bigger job to convert it?
 
There is actually the structure for both. In the tailwheel configuration the gear is mounted further forward. There is a cover over that structure that is easily removed.
 
Back
Top