Will the NX Cub Eventually Help Bring Down Insurance Rates?

We had four NX Cubs visit yesterday here in Bentonville. The most I had ever seen in one place!

I have been intrigued by this airplane ever since Jim Richmond told me many years ago they were working on it, and have enjoyed flying them a few times. Now that there is a certified version, I think it will make a great backcountry trainer for those folks who just are not cut out for tailwheel (yes, they are out there).

This got me wondering - will getting folks into the right kind of plane for them rather than forcing them to become tailwheel pilots eventually help moderate the insurance market? Obviously, high hull value is going to still mean high rates.

Now that it has been around a while, I'm interested in folks thoughts about the NXCub.

sj

Interesting thought. Or could the perceived safety/security of a nose wheel cause mishaps as people try to go off road without proper back country experience?

On another note, love the looks of the CC products, but the NX is an ugly plane. Nothing against nose wheel planes, but ..... "that dog don't hunt"

aeroaddict said:

On another note, love the looks of the CC products, but the NX is an ugly plane. Nothing against nose wheel planes, but ..... "that dog don't hunt"

Click to expand...

Remember when the "new" Dodge Ram looked hideous?

I had not considered your other point - we already have that problem actually with 172s, Mooneys, etc.


sj

It would be nice but I don't think it will effect taildragger rates because it is a nose wheel. Now you do have that little thing that a converted to tailwheel nose wheel aircraft is sometimes still insured as a nose wheel In general I think we will have more than enough tailwheel aircraft getting bent to keep the insurance rates up. DENNY

The older I get the better a similar Tri-Pacer looks. I could get one to work for me even on skis. I recall building one from a plastic kit in the 1950's. Maybe it's residual from the glue I used.

Gary

Respectfully, if there are folks who aren’t cut out for tailwheel, are they cut out for flying? Honest question; genuinely interested in an explanation.

BC12D-4-85 said:

The older I get the better a similar Tri-Pacer looks. I could get one to work for me even on skis. I recall building one from a plastic kit in the 1950's. Maybe it's residual from the glue I used.

Gary

Click to expand...

I miss that glue.

Web

ak49flyer said:

Respectfully, if there are folks who aren’t cut out for tailwheel, are they cut out for flying? Honest question; genuinely interested in an explanation.

Click to expand...

Many pilots don't understand what a rudder is for. Many pilots are quite happy to land "somewhere" on a 100 ft wide 5,000 ft long runway. Many pilots don't know or don't care that they landed misaligned or with sideways drift. They don't mind because the airplane deals with it just fine (until you put the third wheel at the back).

On the other hand it's quite hard for people who have used a rudder for a few thousand hours to fly "big iron" and keep their feet on the floor. Feet on the floor works fine in the air and feet on the rudder pedals can cause the fin to depart the aircraft.

frequent_flyer said:

.... Feet on the floor works fine in the air and feet on the rudder pedals can cause the fin to depart the aircraft.

Click to expand...

A certain Airbus at JFK comes to mind!

ak49flyer said:

Respectfully, if there are folks who aren’t cut out for tailwheel, are they cut out for flying? Honest question; genuinely interested in an explanation.

Click to expand...

Guess they aren’t s$&t hot like the people that do fly them and constantly remind other pilots nose draggers suck. Just joking! But to honestly answer your question here are my thoughts.

After 20+ years of airline flying based in LAX,SEA and ANC on the Mad Dog and 737 (I would consider those planes light twins not heavy iron) as a FO and finally a captain. Cockpit talk always seems to end up on what do you like to do for fun and how did you get into aviation. My upbringing in rural Alaska as well as initial experience flying out there sparks lots of discussions and questions from inquisitive coworkers. From those discussions I’ve come to the conclusion 90% really have no interest in tailwheel flying at all. Save maybe getting a endorsement and asking questions it’s the minority that I’ve found that flies and is proficient in tailwheel planes. Many correctly assume my interest lies in TW planes but also I need that type of plane to go to the places I want AND it’s the only type of plane my family owns.

Not all the ANC based pilots own or fly GA planes on their time off. A majority don’t.

So are these non tailwheel flying pilots cut out for flying? Yes, they are cut out for being a pilot. Some just want a easy to fly plane to put around and take their family out and sight see. Some have cabins with strips that a nosewheel does just fine.

Some have come from aviation schools, done internships in commuter sized planes and their end goal is to fly big planes and make money without the proverbial ball busting small plane jobs to build time. I fly with many copilots in this category. Does their narrow experience mean they suck…….nope they are just proficient at flying a different plane. I find most of those pilots tend to hand fly quite a bit more than what people would think. But that’s a generalization of us airline pilots as all autopilot button pushers (some are unfortunately).

Many can’t say they are cut out to fly a tailwheel plane cause they never had the chance or never wanted to fly one in the first place. I’ve seen a couple that had issues in taildraggers that went on to be accomplished pilots of nosewheel planes and international heavy jet drivers.

Even in a nosewheel plane you still use the rudder.(never flown a eurcoupe though).

I knew some would think my response arrogant, but that’s not at all what I intended. I don’t think any less of nosewheel pilots; that’s a ridiculous, shallow thought process. My question was based on my own experience of time in both varieties- I’ve never felt like I put aside or don’t use certain skills when flying a nosewheel plane. Honestly if the community didn’t make such a big deal about it, I wouldn’t have ever thought it more significant than high wing vs low wing, just a different configuration. No difference in the inputs required to make them do exactly what they need to do...

The original question is valid.
But consider: did the 182 cause 180 insurance rates to drop? The 172? Or the Tri-Pacer?
If the answer to those are yes, then the tri-gear Cub will surely reduce the rates for the taildraggers.

My impression? You fly a taildragger - hull rates will be higher, all other factors equal.

To AK49 - without being arrogant about it - the local tailwheel pilots do not continuously ask for wind checks on final. The Cherokee and 150 drivers ask twice for each pass. That should tell you something.

bob turner said:

To AK49 - without being arrogant about it - the local tailwheel pilots do not continuously ask for wind checks on final. The Cherokee and 150 drivers ask twice for each pass. That should tell you something.

Click to expand...

Hey, I have asked for multiple wind checks at times! Might have been a little over 20kts gusting, and determining if I was going to land on the runway or across...

I don't think it will affect insurance rates. What it might do is offer folks without tailwheel ability to fly a cub like plane, and find the beauty in light plane flight that the previous Tri-champ and Tri-J3 that were out there before. Like it or not, there are individuals that don't have the reflexes or muscle control to handle tailwheel, but can handle other planes very well.

These might make it hard for the Zenith 700 series pilots and Cloudy though, paper bags might become even more hard to find. Sorry, couldn't resist

I guess I don’t see why yaw control is any more difficult than pitch control- If the nose goes left you push the right rudder pedal, if the nose goes down, you pull the stick back. Screw up either one, and you can bend metal…

Sometimes I think about getting a 56’ -60’ Cessna 182 and selling the 185. I don’t fly floats and can do about every thing with a properly set up 182 that I can do with the 185 for a whole bunch less ins. Money. I’m 73 and the rates are going up for me and looming 75 yo rate jump is coming too fast.
There are several Tri-gears that are back country ready also. Maule MXT is affordable in the market for instance.
The third way I look at is finally finishing my PA12 and not insure it and take what comes. There may be a market for cheap beaters that people don’t need to insure in the near future.

Steve,

Who is " forcing them to become tail drag pilots"?

No,the carbon stool will not make rates go down. Could possibly have lower rates than the tailwheel version but that's it. Companies have set precedence and corporatism only moves in one direction,up. As long as I've been on this earth I have never seen a drop in any electric,water,insurance or gas bill ever. Best you can do is plan for increases and hope we don't live to see end stage.
There is something to be said for a 40k pile that doesn't require 300k worth of coverage.

In todays GA environment, having a TW endorsement isn’t a really thing anymore. All that matters to most aspiring new student pilots is climbing that expensive ladder to fly and become the monitor of computer screens, sans rudder feet.

I don't see how a 350K airplane is going to save rates on a 100K airplane?

Glenn

I'm afraid the NX Cub won't move the needle much on hull insurance premiums. The limitations of the equipment we fly [single engine light airplanes] and how we choose to fly them [sometimes into landing areas and situations with small safety margins] drive the loss rates. Those are just the risks we choose to live with even though most of us minimize those risks as best we can.

Regarding the issue or tailwheel competency and pilot skills, I think the pilot and not the airplane configuration is the controlling factor. If the pilot had the proper initial training in a tricycle gear type and has the discipline to maintain the correct approach speed and corrects for wind drift on every takeoff and landing, transitioning them to a conventional gear airplane is a non-event. If a pilot lacks either one of those qualifications, the transition takes a lot more work. I have seen new pilots that learned to fly in a Cessna 150 make effortless transitions to tailwheel airplanes and "professional" pilots with tens of thousands of hours give up on the idea after 15 hours of dual instruction.

I disagree. It is a motor skill, and can be taught to just about anybody. Young, athletic folks take far less time. I have found that Navy helicopter pilots take two hours. Sixty year old pilots with thousands of hours usually take ten hours, but I had one go to 50.
The Stearman is slightly different - that one requires serious practice on a regular basis, even after proficiency is attained.

I don't think it will drop insurance rates and in fact might do the opposite. It will encourage pilots that don't have good stick and rudder skills and poor judgement to get in over their heads. Students are not taught stick and rudder skills anymore. (Kinda like Cursive isn't taught in school anymore.)

bob turner said:

I disagree.
The Stearman is slightly different - that one requires serious practice on a regular basis, even after proficiency is attained.

Click to expand...

Bob, what do you charge for Stearman check outs? I am contemplating a trip down the coast on the bike next year, (one of the bucket list items), and might want to have a go at a biplane!

Oh, for the neophytes, when I say BIKE, I mean one with an engine... SLED is something with skis and a track or a boat with a jet pump. Internal combustion engines are good!

aktango58 said:

Bob, what do you charge for Stearman check outs? I am contemplating a trip down the coast on the bike next year, (one of the bucket list items), and might want to have a go at a biplane!

Oh, for the neophytes, when I say BIKE, I mean one with an engine... SLED is something with skis and a track or a boat with a jet pump. Internal combustion engines are good!

Click to expand...

Stearman is a pussy cat if you don't step on its tail

Glenn

Love to have you drop in - lots of Cub folk. The Stearman is owned by five pilots, and I am on the insurance as only an instructor for them. I am no longer covered by their insurance when I fly solo, except under the maintenance portion of the policy (I am a part time employee of an FAA repair shop).

We recently had a spar crack - I spent the last month recovering a new wing and aileron - and now the partners have a new rule - ten landings in the last month, or ride with Bob.

As far as Bikes are concerned, there are at least three in the Stearman hangar - an Indian, a Harley, and a BMW. Two of the partners "ride", and many other folks around here have "Bikes" so big they need a truck license. I gave up at the Honda 160 CL stage.

Might just as well bury this here - drift the thread a bit more:

I worked my ass off on the Stearman wing - wanna know how many rib stitches? Plus I had a little help, which always results in extra work. The airplane is in Aerothane over Stitts - I have had lousy luck with Stitts colors, so opted to go a different way. Airtech is my current choice, but they don't like to mix yellows (me neither) and recommended Delfleet Imagine (I always get that second word wrong). So we had it mixed locally and sprayed by pros (not me - I am an amateur).

Long story short, it is not a good color match, and full of orange peel. Breaks my heart. We were going to assemble tomorrow - and may, still, if the guys decide to fly it up to Teresa's place in Santa Maria. She says she can fix it.

I can tell you that the NX, nose gear version of the Carbon Cub is definitely becoming more popular. I just returned from my first week FX3 build and at least half the planes in the completion center and on the line were nose wheel. By the way, the build week was great. Amazing organization! - but I'll save that for a different post. I think that the majority people who buy the NX are probably people who would be scared off from the Tail Dragger and would not have bought at all. It's a good thing that will build sport aviation in my opinion. I think the only thing that will bring down insurance rates/keep them from going up more, is good training and a decrease in accident rate. Possibly since a portion of the NX buyers would have bought a TailDragger and not had success, this will decrease the accident rate. I am also aware there is only one company who will insure Carbon Cubs and it is indeed a small fortune a year. Here are some pictures of the Completion Center and Line from last week:

I maintain several NX Cubs and know the owners. Several of them had FX3s and just weren't comfortable with them. I don't know if that is lack of time and effort or talent but they didn't feel comfortable in the FX# and love their NX Cub and both customers fly them a lot. In fact one flies his NX instead of his jet. They both thoroughly enjoy the airplanes. The other NX I maintain is the dealers demo which I get to fly on occasion and find it very comfortable, fast and very fun to fly. Have another customer who traded his Maule in on one who goes in for his build today. Just spent a long weekend playing around Arkansas with four NX Cubs. They were able to leave Gaston's, land at Richland Creek and arrive at Byrds just after I landed. We all left at the same time. As far as lowering insurance, I think the NX Cub gives an option to those who want to go to the back country with a high performance nose wheel airplane instead of tempting fate in a tail wheel that they aren't proficient in. I have posted pictures of the NX Cubs I work on on Facebook and can't believe the people who make negative, mean comments. I know these owners, their enthusiasm and love of flying and don't get the chest thumping and negativity but I can bet they haven't flown the airplane either. I think it is great to have options allowing people to make their own choices. Time will tell I guess on the insurance market.

I’ve read most of this thread, and find it interesting. For perspective, I’m kinda kicking myself for purchasing my current airplane, a C-175 with tailwheel conversion, rather than having bought a good C-182 when those planes were priced “right”, which they were when I bought the 175. So, I’m not a “tailwheels till I die” kinda snob. My reasons for wishing I’d bought a 182 mostly have little to do with gear configuration.

But I find it concerning that so many people seem to be focused on buying a very similar airplane (NX Cub), versus a tailwheel craft (FX-3) largely because it’s “easier to fly”. I totally get the cost of insurance but…..but, folks, if you can actually “afford” any of these CC offerings, cost of insurance can’t be a huge factor.

What concerns me is a perception that flying should be easy. Learning to fly a tailwheel plane is NOT that big a deal. And, I guarantee that if a lot of these buyers don’t take training and proficiency seriously, there’s gonna be a lot of NOSEWHEELS coming off those things in the backcountry.

On the insurance front, I was in Tampa this weekend at AOPA’s latest fly in. I asked my insurance carrier, AVEMCO, who was represented there, If my rates were about to go up, since I will soon turn 75. His response was: “Nope, for us, the magic age is 76, after which your rate will increase by 10%.” Assuming he’s correct, it’s nice to know when and about how much that hit will come about.

MTV

Mike, the two gentleman that own the NX Cubs I maintain took a lot of training from some very qualified instructors and at the end of the day they felt more confident in the NX Cub. It was very interesting to witness first hand. Could have just been a confidence thing but they are way more relaxed in the NX. These airplanes are $350 (FX3) to $600K (X and NX Cub) and have heard quotes from $7-12K a year. I am sure hull value is a huge part of it.