The 185 I sold had been an actual workhorse from 1981 to 2014 or so. The two Canadian companies that flew 185's in their fleets, Slave Lake Alberta area, that I'm familiar with have moved to 206's. The young guys with the least experience were flying the 185's and tearing them up. Guys that didn't had moved up to KA's/jets etc.

The work horse's now in the mountains are not TD's from what I've seen and heard. Now if we are talking being able to fly into remote and unimproved strips they and many others can do a few things that the nose draggers can't but my impression is that for most the difference is negligible for most of the pilots.

Nose dragger usually is also much faster than the TD's that are out there, with the big tires. Some guys in those small valley's, flying TD's, want to see who can out climb the terrain . Saw a few who, if engine coughed, they were going to be in the trees/rocks. That's not for me though taking off like a helo is lot's of fun.....

Backcountry flying keyboard warriors drooling over pictures of cubs, are exactly the same as Jeep owners.

When I was in college, we'd spend the weekends camping and fishing streams in the missouri ozarks. More than once someone would arrive up the logging trail in a jeep to fish the same place. They'd hop out talking excitedly amongst themselves about what a great 4X4 trail it was getting there, and how well their jeep had performed. Then one of them would notice us, and the Volkswagen Fox station wagon that brought us there.

My exposure to "backcountry airstrips" has shown it to be much the same thing. A C172 will take you to anyplace that 95% of super cubs ever go. A 180hp engine on the 172, opens up most of the other 5%

[/quote]

So has Larry not “mastered” the backcountry because he flies a 182?[/quote]


Really?
I’m completely surprised that we haven’t seen a fatal NTSB report on him yet..........won’t be long.

Yep, pretty close.

Only if given much nicer conditions like longer and harder surfaces.

His 182 isn't landing where that Cub did, hydoroplanning onto the shore and stopping in 100 ft once reaching it.

That's just the nature of the two planes and the different roles they perform. The NXCub (or 182 or 206) simply won't be able to go where the XCub can go due to the nosewheel. If the NXCub is being sold claiming it can go anywhere the XCub can go, there will be bent airplanes.

Mike C.

I’ve secretly had the same thoughts. I flew DC-3s off the beaches in Alaska hauling fish in horrible weather and crosswinds. Most big tire planes I see here are grounded in a 10 knot crosswind. My Bonanza uses less runway to take off and land than most tail draggers I see.

Having said that I’m shopping for a second plane and it’s got to have a tail wheel!

One of the most fun things to do in my Superstol is to play on a day when it’s 12 gusting to 17 etc. I will land and giggle like a little girl.
Georgia is far from the back country but there are several places I land that a 206 or 182 doesn’t have a chance in hell. Granted, it’s not work it’s play but still. Anyone thinks different grab your tricycle let’s go fly !

That's not the role for an NXCub.

The role of the NXCub is to sell the idea of remote off airport back country flying to pilots who can't handle a tail wheel.

That's not going to be a good combination, IMO.

If it was, we'd see TriPacers doing it, and we don't.

Mike C.

Most of you beating up on Mike didn’t really read his first post. He wasn’t arguing the relative merits of tailwheel airplanes vs nose wheel airplanes for the back country mission. He was making the obvious statement that flying into the back country requires a certain level of pilot skill and the pilot skill needed to operate safely in the back country is at least as high that required to master a tailwheel. Ergo, if you can’t master a tailwheel, you won’t be able to master the back country either. It’s obvious, to me anyway, that his statement is correct.

In some of his later posts, Mike did enter into the spirited debate of nose wheel vs tailwheel airplanes for various back country missions. In response to those posts of his, argue away!

I dunno. I suspect some will sell to those who can’t master a tail wheel, and many will sell to those who don’t want to bother to learn.

5-10 years from now when one of us sifts through the accident reports we will find a lot fewer bent NXCubs than XCubs. Insurance premiums will be lower on the NX also.

A big part of the appeal of a cub is flying around with the door open. I’ve considered a carbon cub just to have the modern version of an airplane capable of that feature. This is a way to buy that, still be able to go somewhere, and still have some additional margin for wind.

Of all the places one can land an airplane there are a minuscule percentage that the NXCub wouldn’t be a safer fit for. Most of these airplanes will be based out of range of those areas, and the ones in range probably won’t be taken in there anyway.

Yes, one will and it might get bent, but it is less likely to end up on its back or ground looped.

“Backcountry flying” means different things to different people. The 206 is a great plane and for those pilots in the north who deliver hunters and anglers to distant rough and short airstrips, they are great money makers. But it all depends. I use my Husky to land on soft sand beaches, mountain meadows and (in winter) high altitude snow fields where aircraft have never landed. I don’t do it for work...it’s “anti-work.” For rough country ops, soft, deep snow and sand, the tires need to be large, the prop clearance needs to be high and the gear needs to be very tough. Tricycle gear planes can work great in the backcountry, to a point, but there are some operational goals for which they are a poor fit.

Here’s where the tri-gear is going to excel, and it’s important: STOL drags and contests.

Take a Jason, Jonas, or Scott, an extremely talented YouTuber consistently placing third or worse in these contests. Put him in an NXCub and he starts winning. That’s going to sell some airplanes. “Win on Sunday; sell on Monday.”

About 99% of the Earth's surface will be safer in the tailwheel airplane.

I await a video of a nosewheel airplane doing a hydroplanning landing to a small shore to prove me wrong. I literally could not find such a thing on youtube and there are numerous examples for tailwheels.

If I owned an NXCub, I simply wouldn't fly it to places I'd take a XCub, the two planes are just not mission equivalent.

Mike C.

I have made tailwheel pilots run for their hangars just by making the sound of blowing out a candle. Still waiting for the 35 knot crosswind Super Cub landing.

Everybody knows the 206 and the King Katmai are not back country planes.