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.
Didn't it place in Bush class?
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 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.
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.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.
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?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?
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.
In this case, it was all hype and no show.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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?