Well it's the ole Milk stool principle, gets pretty tipsy even when taxing in the wind

I'm would never advocate the use of conventional (tail dragger) gear because I think it is obsolete and poses a lot of difficulties in handling. Every time I questioned a tail dragger pilot why he/she didn't buy/build a trycicle gear aircraft I've always received that ubiquitous answer: "because it's more demanding, challenging..."Go figure... I cannot understand that easily, but accept other pilots preferences and opinions. But, judging by what I've watched on the video, I doubt that the prop can't touch the ground at that arrangement. It was pretty clear for me there is only a tiny and scarce clearance. Depending on rotational speed it is not necessary to touch the ground itself - grass can produce damage (ask me how I know...). For what I've learned watching this (and other trike carbon cub videos), tail draggers carbon cubs are much more safe and efficient on non-prepared runways (even don't liking them). My opinion: back to drawing board and design something completely new. Well, Zenair already done it with CH701/801 and were very succesful in producing a effective and reliable trycicle gear bush plane. This nose gear carbon cub seems like a fancy excrescence and, since it is 180 degree free castoring nose wheel, it cannot add easiness on crosswind operations... my 2 cents.

@@RobertoRMOLA Some good points. But I don’t think one can call conventional gear simply “obsolete” like you could with say a manual car transmission. Planes went tricycle to get a level floor for easier loading of cargo and passengers. Tricycle is not more robust, the simple fact of a single attachment point/nose leg tube in the nose gear due to needing to turn limits its strength. The mains are where the strength is but you can’t keep a trike on the mains only if you use much braking, then you’re back on the weak nose gear and low prop, As for handling, the wheelbase length of a conventional gear is huge and this helps to keep them solid on rough ground. Trikes are only a few feet from mains to nose so they pitch for and aft ALOT on rough ground and the prop is bouncing up and down close to the ground the whole time, also trikes can tip forward onto the nose and one main with the prop and a wingtip on the ground. I’ve flown both configurations about half and half of my flying time and the only time I’ve ended up off the side of a runway unintentionally was due to wheelbarrowing on tricycle gear.

The prop may never touch the tarmac or a taxiway even with full brakes and full compressed nose suspension. But try taxiing in a field with rocks the size of basketballs or in long grass where you don’t see the dip or hole that your nose wheel drops into. This is hopeless for off airport flying, and a small diameter three or more blade prop will never pull as much air for a rapid take off roll as a long two blade. Small fast high pitch props are for high speed not for max thrust at low speed

As for the brakes, trike brakes are on the rear wheels only, so as you apply these “unlimited” brakes, the weight increases on the already weak unbraked nose wheel and the weight comes off your braked mains until one or both lock up and skid, try using rear brake only on a dirt bike and see how you go!! With conventional the downward pressure increases on the mains when you brake giving you even more authority, so much brake authority that you can tip them on the nose if your brakes are good enough. I argue that it’s conventional that have the “unlimited braking” power, as opposed to trikes that are very much limited by the weight moving forward and the wheel locks up, the plane keeps sliding till you hit the fence/tree etc

I like it

It’s actually more prop strike resistant than a taildragger

Chancey M Rip found you again, and you said what I was gonna say lol

Na, far less likely then a taildragger. Brilliant safe prop strike free design. Front shock is great reliable never leaks /never goes flat design.

I think they said on mark pateys video that them and hartzell are making a smaller 3 blade prop for production versions.

Looks prop strike resistant but definitely can do some major weed whacking ... Overall a brilliant idea from CubCrafters because 90% of pilots are either scared , uncoordinated or ...well ... just don't feel like taking the time to pay an instructor for tail wheel time ... So the tail wheel only cloud likes it and so will the rest of the pilots world wide .... This allows possible 10 times more sales ... Almost think CubCrafters are in it to grow and make a profit ... : )

*Dual-Clutch

The fact, that the motor isn't in the front, is for me even more wierd 😂

Ferrari stopped offering manual transmissions a few years ago. Time to move on to more modern equipment.

And Bruce Jenner is a woman.

@@andreinarangel6227 Most Ferrari sales go to posers that can't drive... the same will be for this Abomination they call a Cub.

Crucial Flow Research yes it is!

marko smith same! When they did the brake tests I shat myself

They’ll sell you the tailwheel kit, and you can switch configurations

+Viscous Shear lots of places to down load or by into for a small fed in order to use music

ed s LOL!!! You’re sooo right!

Saw a few videos of this being taxied fairly robustly at the test event.

Last I checked a new 182 is $425,000.00 this maybe a hundred grand less

Mark Doan you can find a good used one for less than $100,000. Cubs are for tail dragging. This is a good idea. But most people want the big sexy tires and large long prop. And not spend money on an airplane that can cost as much as a house. A nose gear plane like this would never work in a cow pasture setting. If that wheel goes into a hole, it will be a prop strike. Sorry for being a critic but I think most people would agree.

@@markdoan1472 just got the new price list....560 plus options....

The tail wheel on the NX cub is optinal

@@nxfedlt1 Not accurate. Anyone interested in the Market Survey project can contact cubcrafters.com/contact

I would definitely mod “Mr Cubby” were I to get one of these excellent performers. Maybe with some shark teeth vinyls or paint. Lol

Haha

Randy van Vliet I think the turnaround might be where it suffers compared to the tail draggers.

The front damper is rubber pucks lol .. no valves ..no damping .. I was thinking a jack screw that lowers the front when landing is over

If you land on a rough enough field... no need to lower the nosewheel, it will be folded back for you (prop strike, bent engine mount)! With a tail wheel and tundra tires, the rough field wouldn’t be any problem. They should leave the third wheel under the tail where it is protected, free castering without pulling any pins and much more fun to fly. Tail wheels are an absolute blast to fly when you learn how.

@@wingsstringsandreallysharp2535 The only plane Ive ever owned is a tail dragger .. New Murphy Rebel with a Lyc 320 ...but where I really learned tail draggers is in the unlimited aerobatics circuit in RC ... don't laugh lol ... Every contest unlimited pilot Ive known in RC that went to full size are instant talents at seat of the pants flying ... I could side slip my very first landing .. This cub is for really uncoordinated and untalented pilots ... which is around 90 % of them and it kind a gets them off road ... That is why this plane is such a good idea .... It will sell to the pilots who cant coordinate two simple toe brakes ... and that's nearly all of them

And have them quick release !!!... wheel pants and back country will never be compatible .. also the more giant the tires the more ridiculously cartoonish the pants look and weigh ...the key word being weigh ... the pants must come off ... If you absolutely need the cross country speed small wheels and pants would work ... but its a cub .. it will never have real speed ... No back country planes wear pants .. if they do they will be circling above while the rest of the crew lands on mountaintops and gravel bars

I'm not a pilot either but it seems it is all about visibility, you can see the landing strip clearly while landing , when tail goes down in the original CUB you end up watching the stars and can't see where you are heading. During takeoff during the first seconds when the tail is still down, same problem, can not see where are you heading. Since a few seconds are needed to raise the tail in the original CUB and the NX already has the tail up then the NX version requires less runway.

Look up “ground loop”

It has the same larger fuel tank as the X cub and has a longer range than the all of the tail dragger variants . 860 Vs 800*. *No idea why, electronic ignition?

Decision has been made! It went live 3 days ago! No more market survey. It's now available to the world

Yes and they had one very bad fault,they tip over in strong wind when taxying.

Robert Ferrell brakes

3 blade prop in the works for that... so I've heard.

Na, far less likely then a taildragger. Brilliant safe prop strike free design. Front shock is great reliable never leaks /never goes flat design.

That's right.

I agree... I have lost all respect for CubCrafters for making this douche-canoe.

It's called a Tri Pacer.

There in business, to make money!

+Seton Richard we are working on that 🤘🏽

You'd have to take off without the nose gear for that to happen. Seems unlikely?

It's got a protector bar at the back, so it's likely just your ego and rep at the field would be trashed

Zenith had been building tricycle bush planes for years

And Zenith doesn't cost $350,000! Man these guys play in a different word than I do. My Tripacer doesn't cost as much as a house.

+Douglas Rodrigues they land to fast, have no patience and heavy feet, they get complacent

From what I saw previously, that can easily be done. Nothing wrong with having more options. Gotta LOVE the bottom bruised guys moaning about it though..

+David Norris loved it!

… or maybe Tri-Pacer

@@TractorMan104 Yes, a Tri-pacer would be fitting. But, please, not a Cub!