[youtube]https://youtu.be/AQfrvp4gzZ8[/youtube]

[youtube]https://youtu.be/shcMe8Ps8jw[/youtube]

[youtube]https://youtu.be/Yl33b7yx6HI[/youtube]

The Peterson kits on 182's and planes like the 206 with beefed up nose gear elements certainly can get into more challenging spots than the normal tricycle gear planes. But when there are large rocks, small logs, tall sticks, deep sand, untracked powder snow etc. etc. the tricycle gear planes are at risk for their props and especially their nose gear. I do a lot of backcountry flying in and around Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado and Utah. I've never seen a King Katmai away from an airport. I spent 4 days up in Idaho recently and while there were plenty of tricycle gear planes at places like Johnson Creek, there were none at Mile Hi, Vines etc. I've taken a T210 into the Flying B, but I would never trust it's nose gear in rougher stuff. I spent a week in the Wrangell Range for backcountry skiing via ski-plane access. The professional operator at the lodge had 3 Cubs (with no electrical systems to keep them light), two 185's and a Turbine conversion Otter...all on skis, all conventional gear. I didn't see a tricycle gear plane all week. Again, it just depends on the mission.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/shcMe8Ps8jw[/youtube]

Not hydroplanning. That's just landing in shallow water and getting your airplane all wet.

Mike C.

Ha! I knew you’d find the smallest technicality to prove us wrong.

I've watched every episode of Big Rocks and Long Props (multiple times), and probably most of the youtube videos. I love watching all that stuff. It is entertaining. They hydroplaning onto shore looks cool, but in most cases it is a gimmick. How many landing spots does that really open up? A minuscule percentage.

NXCub won't need to hydroplane because you will be able to use the brakes.

This guy could have been flying a tricycle gear airplane and gotten it stopped without it going on its back. No big rocks on this gravel bar.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/FQ3WByjahOc[/youtube]

I've been out in some backcountry airstrips, like this one (on wheels, not skis). I've also been out on skis, in deeper snow. Yes there are places for tailwheel airplanes, big rocks, soft surfaces. Very few X cubs or Carbon cubs will ever be in those places, just like every 4wd vehicle I see around the Chicago suburbs will never see anything but pavement.

Splashing the wings right here with a Zenith

[youtube]https://youtu.be/na9BG1YN2bA[/youtube]

I love the CubCrafters line, the X start at over 330,000. That's more than my house and that's the base price. These airplanes are made for millionaires with a weekend hobby.

Quads are for people without enough skill to ride a motorcycle, power boats are for people who don't have the skill to sail, and airplanes are for people who don't have the skill to fly a hang glider etc.

I liked your post Vincent. The first +1 is mine.

...V-tail vs conventional tail aircraft

The whole water assisted landing thing is just for show and has no practical purpose 99% of the time. If you can't stop on a sandbar, how in the heck are you going to take off?? A water assisted takeoff is going to be a rodeo....

I am one of those people that would value a tricycle gear aircraft over the TW. I own a TW airplane and it is fun, but I am going to get a 182 and am going to make sure it can do backcountry - within reason. It will be based at a mountainous airport - around 6000 ft elevation.

The reason I am doing this is probably worth explaining. First, while I am quite comfortable flying a TW airplane, I don't fly it every week and sometimes go 3-4 weeks without flying it. I think my 'touch' degrades on that aircraft over time. I also get decent crosswinds where I fly - again not a huge issue, but if I haven't been flying a lot, it takes more time to get myself 'back in the saddle.' Third, I will probably teach my kids in the 182 (which I will outfit with a G3X and GFC500). Don't worry, they will get plenty of time in the Citabria (and also in other faster aircraft), but for me, I like sitting next to my kids instead of tandem. We can also pack the 4 of us in the 182 and take an hour trip somewhere that I wouldn't take the 2+.

So - I think this will sell well.

-Jason

Cracks me up how much certain groups in aviation HATE anything new or different. I swear you could design a plane that costs fourteen dollars and outperforms a TBM930 and these guys would say it’s the dumbest thing ever.