Jump to content

X Plane and CTLS


Cluemeister

Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...

I'm about to begin my SPL training and have been flying the CTSL in X-Plane 10 for a number of months. I'm hoping this will help me acclimate to the CTLS, especially the landings. So far I've found that, in light winds (with no xwinds), the best landings have been ones in which less than expected flare has been used.

 

Does this mimic what you all have experienced actually flying the aircraft? For those of you who regularly fly the CTLS and have flown the X-Plane 10 CTLS: is the sim's performance relatively accurate?

 

Thanks in advance for your replies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm about to begin my SPL training and have been flying the CTSL in X-Plane 10 for a number of months. I'm hoping this will help me acclimate to the CTLS, especially the landings. So far I've found that, in light winds (with no xwinds), the best landings have been ones in which less than expected flare has been used.

 

Does this mimic what you all have experienced actually flying the aircraft? For those of you who regularly fly the CTLS and have flown the X-Plane 10 CTLS: is the sim's performance relatively accurate?

 

Thanks in advance for your replies!

 

No. Simulators are nothing like the real thing (I have XPlane and tried it for about a day and never used it again after starting to fly).  The CT is a nimble, slippery and agile aircraft that will require hours of flying time to get confidence in landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started this thread prior to any flight training.  I trained in a different aircraft, the Tecnam P92, which I also flew in X 10.  I would say that the simulator was not a lot of help before, but I'm actually looking forward to using it again now that I have checklists to follow and I've done pattern work.  I'm actually looking forward to it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Simulators are nothing like the real thing (I have XPlane and tried it for about a day and never used it again after starting to fly).  The CT is a nimble, slippery and agile aircraft that will require hours of flying time to get confidence in landing.

Depends on the simulator.  I trained many pilots in the 727 simulator and then put them in a 727 full of passengers, and they flew just fine.  They had never flown the actual plane before flying paying passengers.

The simulators are that good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the simulator.  I trained many pilots in the 727 simulator and then put them in a 727 full of passengers, and they flew just fine.  They had never flown the actual plane before flying paying passengers.

The simulators are that good.

 

We are talking about XPlane....that is the question asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue with using PC sims for training is that they don't give any kinesthetic ("feel") feedback.  You can get the look of descending through a layer, but you won't get the sensations of impending disorientation and loss of reference that go along with it.  I think the PC sim can help with the technical aspects of doing things like that, but when you do it in the real world it will feel a whole lot different.

 

The new VR headsets like the Oculus Rift and the HTC Vive might help with this, since they are fully immersive and they give 3D vision.  I think binocular vision is critical to proper perception of things like sink and yaw in an airplane.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Hi everyone.  I am new to CT Flier forum and have about 10 hours under my belt in flying the CTLS (with a CFI).  Indeed the X Plane and FSX sims are very different from the real thing.  I am finding both versions fly much faster than the plane I am flying using at full throttle... I have to edge it back considerably to get it acting anything like the real thing.  I have been flying the FSX version for awhile as I have less problems with panning around and have the high resolution Megascenery software for my local airport (KLPR) in Elyria, Ohio. Unfortunately the FSX CTLS does not have the Dynon Skyview Screen that the X-PLane has but I will be darned if I can get my HAT button to work properly on the later.

I wish someone would come up with a more realistic flight characteristic version of the plane.  I do find it useful in learning for scanning the horizon and instruments while doing ground reference maneuvers, especially when I can fly over familiar landmarks with Megascenary.  Just my 2 cents worth.  Lon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi everyone.  I am new to CT Flier forum and have about 10 hours under my belt in flying the CTLS (with a CFI).  Indeed the X Plane and FSX sims are very different from the real thing.  I am finding both versions fly much faster than the plane I am flying using at full throttle... I have to edge it back considerably to get it acting anything like the real thing.  I have been flying the FSX version for awhile as I have less problems with panning around and have the high resolution Megascenery software for my local airport (KLPR) in Elyria, Ohio. Unfortunately the FSX CTLS does not have the Dynon Skyview Screen that the X-PLane has but I will be darned if I can get my HAT button to work properly on the later.

I wish someone would come up with a more realistic flight characteristic version of the plane.  I do find it useful in learning for scanning the horizon and instruments while doing ground reference maneuvers, especially when I can fly over familiar landmarks with Megascenary.  Just my 2 cents worth.  Lon

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

The X-Plane CT is an old plug-in.  You may not find it very useful regarding simulation of the real plane.  What panel do you have in the training CT?  What issues do you have, if any, in the plane?  There are many here who have many hours in the CTLS and would be happy to help with any issue you have....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the simulator.  I trained many pilots in the 727 simulator and then put them in a 727 full of passengers, and they flew just fine.  They had never flown the actual plane before flying paying passengers.

The simulators are that good.

 

 Totally agree.

 

There are simulators that prepare students to fly planes in real life and then there are those which replicate the flying experience somewhat. The latter are useful in getting students, and prospective students, interested in taking actual flying lessons in a real airplane and therefore have value in that regard.

 

  Many flight schools can, and do, use fairly realistic simulators, and some of the time spent can be credited, I believe.

 

 Having spent many hours in full motion flight simulators, from the 727 to the 767, which each cost $$ millions, I can honestly say the real airplanes were easier to fly and the training fully prepared you to fly a plane full of passengers your first time in the airplane.

 

  X-Plane has some value if not least familiarizing the 'pilot' with the image of the cockpit and some aspects of how it would be to fly the actual airplane. That said, the real airplane is quite a bit different, and so the X-Plane experience requires some leeway in this regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I'm a student pilot and I have found XPlane to be enormously helpful in my training. Is it just like the real thing, no. Has it helped make me a better pilot and practice techniques and push the envelopes of flying safely? Absolutely. I have flown probably 200 touch and gos in the pattern at my local airport in XPlane. Made a huge difference in getting the sight picture, the turns, flap and throttle settings, when to round out, dealing with crosswinds, etc. The replay function from the outside is great for seeing how I actually landed the plane. This has really helped me figure out the sight picture for rounding out and flaring for a proper landing. Also great for practicing go arounds.

 

I also use it to practice emergency descents, especially in the pattern. An engine out at 400' to 800' AGL during takeoff is an off-airport landing here and the simulator has helped me understand and reinforce what some of my better options would be. It's also made me much better at judging proper elevation to approach in an emergency landing.

 

I fly a Cessna 172 in training and the 172 simulation is really very good. The CTLS I downloaded doesn't even have a functional cockpit and doesn't seem realistic at all. I would pay for a good simulation of the one of the CT planes. The Remos GX simulation seems decent (although I can't imagine the plane has that good of performance in real life).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Youngwerth, when you say "I can't imagine the plane (Remos) has that good of performance in real life", where do you feel the Remos'   performance is lacking?  Do you think the Flight Design's performance is also lacking? Not being argumentative but just interested in your viewpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what he's talking about is how many of the LSA flight sim models I've looked at are overpowered.  I've played with both the ones in FS X and X-Plane 9 for the CTSW and the Remos, and I have one student I've used XPlane and the Remos model for a few things.  I go fly it and then talk with him about recommended settings to get something more like real airplane performance.  Just picked up XPlane 11 and am looking at the XPlane 10 model to see what I might be able to do with it. Visually, they are the best ever.  I haven't seen any CT models for XP11 yet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to get X-Plane 11 as well, it looks like quite an improvement.  

 

One thing that sims are really great for is "flight pre-briefing".  By that I mean flying in and around an area that you plan to visit in real life.  Before flying to Page for the fly-in, I had previously in X-Plane flown to and over the Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, Lake Powell, Page Airport, and Sedona.  It really helped prepare me for what I would see in those areas in real life.  Many of the obstacles and terrain are near-identical.

 

You can also use X-Plane to "fool" your iPad (using Garmin Pilot, not sure about other software) to use a WiFi connection for fake GPS data.  So as I'm flying in X-Plane, my iPad running Garmin pilot shows exactly in real time what it would in real life if I were in the same location.  Very good for understanding the local airspace and related visual cues and landmarks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only exposure to a flight sim was years ago when my Father-in-Law had MS Flight Simulator 98 loaded on his desktop.  We both are cheap so we didn't opt for any of the controls (rudder pedals, yoke, etc.,) so we tried flying using the keys.  Not a good experience and I never went back.  I think I ended up actually getting my LSA certificate because after years of wondering what it would be like to actually fly and land an airplane, the simulator finally put me over the edge where I actually had to go see if I could do it.  The use of the new sims for pre-flying flying destinations is a great idea.  I often use Google Earth to look at my destinations before going and then my IFly GPS or my tablet has Google Earth views of the airports if I need a refresher while enroute.  The new technology is really amazing.  I'll see if anyone around here might have a good simulator setup and give it a try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skyvector is free and quick and web based...it's easy to make a flight plan based on an aircraft profile and check fuel burn and distances and test flight routes.  It even includes weather and winds in the flight log and visually on the screen along a flight route.  A quick click on any airport yields a current AF/D which includes Notams, departures and landing procedures, and current TFRs are displayed on the sectionals. 

 

Avare is portable and does the same thing on a smartphone or tablet and is also free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Youngwerth, when you say "I can't imagine the plane (Remos) has that good of performance in real life", where do you feel the Remos'   performance is lacking?  Do you think the Flight Design's performance is also lacking? Not being argumentative but just interested in your viewpoint.

 

I have only ever flown a couple of different C172s in real life. I flew the Remos in the simulator and I'm having a hard time believing that a real Remos plane can climb like that. Maybe it can? I really like the way the Remos flys in the simulator just guessing the performance is optimistic. Hope to test some of these LSAs out in the real world sometime soon.

 

The default C172 that comes with the simulator is faster than the plane I fly. I found another one that I downloaded that is very similar to the plane I fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only ever flown a couple of different C172s in real life. I flew the Remos in the simulator and I'm having a hard time believing that a real Remos plane can climb like that. Maybe it can? I really like the way the Remos flys in the simulator just guessing the performance is optimistic. Hope to test some of these LSAs out in the real world sometime soon.

 

The default C172 that comes with the simulator is faster than the plane I fly. I found another one that I downloaded that is very similar to the plane I fly.

 

Both the CT and the Remos are essentally the same aircraft... they will climb between 1000 and 1200 fpm at sea level on a standard day between 1100 and 1200 lbs TOW. 

 

A Cessna 172 will seem like a lumbering city bus by comparison for many reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What seems to be hardest to model is speed bleed off. Sure a Remos/CT will climb great, especially if you have some speed going into the climb. But it bleeds off quickly and settles to a steady climb with nice performance. I have seen 2400fpm climb in my CT when starting at over 100kt and pitching to a max angle climb, but you won't maintain that for long! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

i have tried the Oculus rift with flyinside & P3D software.

It,s far from perfekt,You might feel a bit motion sick in the beginning and the resolution is not god, virtuell hands etc does not work very good. I can imagine that VR will be of a much higher quality about a few years.

 

But still In my opinion it really makes flightsim GREAT , i never used it before becouse of the lack of realism.

I think that most GA pilots trying this will be positively surprised.

I have an old FSX versjon of CTSW it is not up to date & i hope someone makes a new model soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both the CT and the Remos are essentally the same aircraft... they will climb between 1000 and 1200 fpm at sea level on a standard day between 1100 and 1200 lbs TOW. 

 

A Cessna 172 will seem like a lumbering city bus by comparison for many reasons. 

Ok maybe the model is closer than I think...

 

The default payload is 1/2 tank and 94.5 pounds. At that setting I can climb at 1700fpm. At MTOW it's almost 1000fpm. At 1/2 tank and 220 pound payload about 1250fpm.

 

Pretty impressive performance in these planes if you fly by yourself without a lot of fuel... Might have to get me one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok maybe the model is closer than I think...

 

The default payload is 1/2 tank and 94.5 pounds. At that setting I can climb at 1700fpm. At MTOW it's almost 1000fpm. At 1/2 tank and 220 pound payload about 1250fpm.

 

Pretty impressive performance in these planes if you fly by yourself without a lot of fuel... Might have to get me one.

 

The CTSW book climb is ~900fpm at gross on a standard (59°F, sea level) day.  That is probably accurate.  My home field is at 940ft, and on a 50°F day I can see 1200-1300fpm when solo.  I think 1700fpm sustained is not realistic.  

 

On the other end of things, at gross on a 95°F+ day with DA approaching 4000ft I have seen 600fpm.  Still respectable, but a huge difference over cooler temps.  I'd say a normal *sustained* climb at gross would be 800-1100fpm.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...