Real World Pilots, please state your feedback about the flight model

I find this interesting. What controls are you using? I also fly A319/320 and I think it feels very poor. There is no where near enough control authority overall, and controls (especially pitch, but roll too) are extremely sluggish compared to the real thing. Conversely just like you I think the GA aircraft feel great overall (some things that could improve, but just in terms of “feel” I think they largely nailed it).

Obviously there are plenty of other issues with it too, but I can say it is certainly beautiful and the sounds are great, they really captured the LEAP’s whine… It just doesn’t actually fly anything like an A320 in my opinion.

Thousand words…

1 Like

You’re mixing apples and oranges. The specs in the (brochure?) are listed in statute miles per hour (MPH). The airspeed indicator is calibrated in knots. (KT) They are not the same. To convert MPH to knots, you divide MPH by 1.15

Max speed is listed as 153 MPH, which is 133 knots, and that corresponds exactly to the top of the yellow band on the speed tape, just below where the red and white never-exceed speed band begins.

Normal cruise is listed as 145 MPH, which is 126 knots, exactly the same as shown in the MSFS aircraft menu specs for the X-Cub.

If you are going to assert that something is TOTAL GARBAGE that’s fine, but before doing so, be sure the documentation you are using to “prove” it is in the same units of measurements as the item under test, or the proof itself becomes “garbage”.

I haven’t flown the X-Cub in the sim myself yet, but will do so shortly. I have heard that it appears to be underpowered compared to the real aircraft. That may well be true, and if so, it should be fixed.
But I have to wonder about the 1000 foot takeoff roll. Do you know the correct technique to perform a short field takeoff in a tail-wheel aircraft? It is not done the same way as a normal takeoff.


Do Your own math! It still doesn’t add up, look at the speed tape for god’s sake! Cub Crafters has some excellent pilot checkout videos where they demonstrate all the performance aspects of this aircraft including the different take offs and this sim model is “NOT EVEN CLOSE”! AND they did a partnership video with Cub Crafters!, I can’t find it anymore i think it is locked up in the “Insider” thing


This aircraft can cruise 135 kts if you try it in the sim you will over speed and end the flight! This is a super bad ■■■ high performance aircraft in the real world! In the sim it is a wet bag of sugar with a washing machine motor that is boring, dull, and bland to operate


The real X-Cub most certainly can not “cruise” at 135 knots. That is two knots faster than its maximum certificated speed of 133 knots. (135 knots is 155 MPH) You said “Look at the speed tape for God’s sake”

Well, yes, exactly. The speed tape is my entire point. It clearly shows that the beginning of the over speed region is just above 133 knots which is in perfect accord with the published specifications for the real Cub Crafters X-Cub CC9-180. If you get an over speed warning when trying to fly faster than 133 knots, then the sim is 100 percent accurate in that regard.

Do you have any real-world aviation experience? If you don’t understand the difference between MPH and KTS, I have to assume you do not.

If you want to keep arguing the point that’s your business, but I have been a pilot since 1988, and a licensed mechanic and aircraft instrument technician since 1974. Aircraft instrumentation and performance analysis is what I do for a living.

The simulated X-Cub may indeed be underpowered. If it can’t get off the ground in under 200 feet when using the proper technique for a maximum performance short field takeoff then I agree the model needs further work. It should not be difficult for Asobo to fix that.

The real X-Cub is a “hot” aircraft in terms of its short field takeoff capability, but it is certainly not a hot aircraft by any means in terms of cruise speed. Normal cruise speed is 126 knots. That is not particularly fast.


Yes the cruise speed is listed as 126 kts, but if you “crash” at 135 kts then I would put a bug report in then because the VNE is 145 kts.


Flew the DR400, PA28, PA28R, DA20, DA42, and have been flying the Bombardier CRJ 1000 for an airline in Spain for over a year now.

So far, I´ve only tried out the CJ4, Bonanza and King Air. I´m no test pilot, just an every day airline pilot, but out of the 3, I think the Bonanza is the most realistic. I´ve never flown it in real life but it doesn´t feel overpowered, behaves the way a piston aircraft should with its pretty significant torque and so on.
The CJ4 is ridiculously overpowered, again I´ve never flown this type of aircraft but at max takeoff weight, she’ll do 5000 fpm climbs without a problem, to the point that I have to reduce the power to about 60% N1 to get a normal climb rate. A Global Express 5000 might be capable of this, yet even with that type of aircraft I doubt it, but a CJ4 no way…
The way the turbines respond to throttle input is WAY off. In the sim as soon as I push the throttles the turbines react which is really unrealistic. A jet engine has a lot of lag. You push the throttles and depending on the type of jet engine, you sometimes have to wait multiple seconds before the engines spool up. Jet engines don´t react at all the way piston engines do. There´s a pretty significant delay, especially when you´re at idle. The CRJ 1000 takes about 2 to 3 seconds to spool up from idle to 70% N1. You push the throttles and at first nothing appears to be happening. In the sim the CJ4 reacts in a microsecond.

The King Air is a bit more subtle but some things are totally off as well, such as the torque that increases with gaining altitude, forcing me to reduce power while climbing. It´s totally the other way around. You have to add power as you keep ascending to higher altitudes. Can’t remember what else was wrong because I’m spending most of my time in the CJ4 but there were other things.

What is totally off about all 3 aircraft are the spins. I was totally incapable of getting them to enter a spin which is not realistic. I´ve bought MSFS since FS95 and kept buying each new version and when FSX was just left to die I turned to X-plane 10 and was amazed by the flight dynamics, same thing with X-plane 11.
To be clear, I prefer MSFS because it´s more user friendly and grew up with it as a kid and will be sticking to MSFS2020, but I really hope Microsoft will improve the flight dynamics to make it perfect.

Just my two cents :wink:


It is not specific to taildraggers, All small aircraft have longer takeoff roll, almost double the distance indicated in POH, while airliners have shorter. You can’t explain this by user error, or aircraft specific flight model tuning. I feel like there are calculations that are off in the simulation core that needs to be fixed first, before trying to fine tune every aircraft.

1 Like

The OP and topic of this thread---->“I’m honestly tired of seeing armchair pilots of FSX, Xplane and P3D, who have ZERO flight hours in a real aircraft, comment that the flight model is not realistic.”

And this is completely FALSE as I have demonstrated repeatedly. Many of you selectively pointed out my big errors as though it makes my point untrue (just proves me sloppy) not wrong. If you don’t think this power, drag, mass issue does not carry over to the complete flight envelope you are sadly mistaken! How bad is it if the FM can’t even survive ground roll?

The ONLY fact I am trying to emphasize is these flight models are NOT EVEN CLOSE and you absolutely don’t need to be a real world pilot to be able to determine this.

Not perfect of course but close…I was on the phone the other day and flying an approach in the 172 and was surprised and happy when my a/c stalled from low speed…most sims will just float you down to the surface. But if you were to do a falling leaf in a 152, which I’ve done, in real life you will need a lot of rudder input…in FS2020 you can control with just ailerons. Otherwise it’s a little twitchy but hopefully they can work on that.

1 Like

If you have a well tuned FM and take a RW 50,000 hour pilot (same A/C) test your sim plane what is that person going to be able to tell you about that FM (no referencing performance tables!) ? what? what? Well I have watched interviews where this has happened and all they can say is “seems about right” or cruise at altitude x with mixture x, manifold pressure x summertime is about 2 knots slower! Always referencing publicly readily available performance tables. NEVER once heard them say the reynolds #, lift/ dag coefficients and moments of inertia are way off.

There’s either something wrong with your equipment or your technique.
Just tried a few spins with the DR400 and the Extra and both spin very nice with a realistic entry.
Especially to the left.
The key is not to pull the yoke fully back at the onset of the stall warning, but to wait until the stall buffeting starts.


As indicated in my previous message, I’ve only tried the CJ4, King Air and Bonanza…
And as a commercial pilot I’ve received spin training, and have upset recovery every 6 months in a full flight sim, so I think I’m aware of how to enter a spin. It’s not my technique, it’s the flight dynamics of those 3 aircraft.
I haven’t tried the DR400 or the Extra yet.

The X-Cub does appear to be underpowered. When it starts to move, the manifold pressure drops, which should not happen.

But, using the short field takeoff procedure from the real POH, I was able to get off the ground in just under 300 feet repeatedly. Not “per published spec”, but not “garbage”.

The POH procedure is:

Set flaps 15.

With brakes set and yoke full back, bring the engine up to full power and let it stabilize.

(Due to the known mixture bug in the sim, you should also pull the mixture back to get maximum RPM)

Release brakes and as soon as the aircraft starts moving, bring the stick forward to get the tail up as quickly as possible. Establish a level attitude, and the instant the airspeed hits 40 knots apply back pressure to lift off. Pitch down slightly to climb at Vx speed of 50 knots until clear of obstacles.

In the sim it is possible to bring the tail up sitting still with brakes applied, and this is something that you will see professional bush pilots who are participating in short field takeoff competitions doing to get maximum advantage, but it’s not recommended because it would be extremely easy to nose over too far and bury the prop in the ground.

I didn’t find anything “boring” about the flight model. It seems to have pretty sporty and responsive flight characteristics once airborne. After my last takeoff test, I did a left chandelle at 200 feet AGL to quickly reverse course and landed on the runway I just took off from going the opposite direction.


I deliberately pushed the X-Cub past 133 knots to about 137 knots to test the over speed warning, and it does come on the instant the speed tape hits the red zone, but nothing bad happened. The aircraft did not lose control or crash.


Another major issue.

Leaning the C172 causes the fuel flow to increase.

I mean, come on. How was this missed?!


“does appear to be underpowered”
“known mixture bug”
You must be a senior NASA test pilot to be able to make any determination about these flight models. how long Ya been with NASA?

Your quite frankly rude remarks and obviously false conclusions earlier kind of prove the point though…


When you trim an aircraft you trim it to maintain a pitch position and a speed. Usually trim in GA aircrafts uses small movable tabs in the elevator, and once in position they won’t move.
In this sim, you can trim an aircraft to 90kts, do a few manouvres and it will behave completely different and mantain a different pitch/speed than previously.
Obviously in real life there are few adjustements to make afterwards too, but it should not be more than a bit.

1 Like