I’m curious what kind of real world take off and landing performance the FXs get?
I'm curious too. I have a copy of the POH since I'm going to Tac Aero's 5 day FX3 course next week. We'll be flying around close to max gross a bunch at 4000 foot density altitudes though. I don't think they want the POH posted up public, else I would.
The takeoff and cruise performance chart numbers look very close to the CC-18 top cub at Max Gross vs Max Gross, which is public data
http://cubcrafters.com/c/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/TC10000AFM_Rev_U_-_Statement.pdf . 10%-15% edge in climb and speed to the FX3. It's a little difficult to compare the charts because both airplanes have different prop/gear configurations interspersed; a lot of the top cub charts are with a 76" sensenich cruise prop on 26's; I guess the top cub is actually pretty fast with that prop on it; there is a 129 mph TAS listed with that cruise prop!
Big exception is that the FX3's charted landing distances are about half the top cub's. FX3 stall speed with full flaps is about a 4-5 MPH lower calibrated airspeed, so that's probably why, maybe a by-product of the G-series flap redesign and 15% lower max weight compared to top cub (2000 vs 2300 lbs). FX3 published Stall speed with full flaps is 48 mph calibrated, again at 2000 lbs.
Takeoff numbers look close to a carbon cub SS if you only fly the the FX3 with 400 lbs of payload & Fuel combined like you legally are supposed to with the SS, which is to say football field-esque takeoff distances. Except with the FX3, you get the option to fill it up with people, stuff, and 5 hours worth of fuel if you can accept a couple of football fields worth of field length instead of 1.
I don't know how that all plays out in the real world with actual skilled pilots (i.e not me), and I'd love to compare it to a PA18 but we know how those POH's look. Obviously a lighter airplane without the heavy CS prop and structural reinforcements of the FX3 needed for 2k MTOW will be a better STOL machine. FX3 is more of a compromise cruiser/hauler than a STOL dragster. Plus you kinda need slats to be top tier at experimental STOL anymore. A big selling point on the FX3 for me as a bigger guy who lives life in the 230 lb range is that I can carry another big person in the back plus fill up the tanks and still have legal weight for as much cargo as I can fit in (150+ lbs of weight leftover for cargo with two 225 lb folks and full fuel). I know Alaskans laugh at weight and balance but I don't like flying that way. Cruising around at 7-8 gph and 110-120 mph TAS thanks to fuel injection and electronic ignition is also sounding nice in a world of $6.00 gas, speaking as someone who has een feeding an O-470 for a few years, even with the Mogas option exploited.
Anyhow, looking forward to flying one. I've taken a fair amount of crap from folks up here for getting one of these, especially from the backcountry cub crowd. I just wasn't into spending 3-5 years buiilding one myself and the whole builder-for-hire gray area stuff was a little diffuclt/weird to research, compared to the FX builder assist, which while still contraversial in some circles at least seems transparent and cut/dried in terms of FAA stuff.