Best C172 Money Can Buy! | Airfoil Labs C172 NG Digital | X-Plane 11 / 12

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

*Learn This Aircraft:* kzbin.info/www/bejne/iKi2l3aYq8hspZY&t

[@thatguy7085]

X plane is to civilian planes like DCS is for military planes…. They both have super plane details… but the scenery needs lots of work.

[@adrianborinsky2989]

Almost no point of having an amazing 172 if you can't VFR properly because the scenery is trash

[@lucastriches193]

Just look for orthophoto sceneries and airport addons.. It will take couple of GB's but It looks great afterwards

[@MarkHopewell]

Scenery is the main barrier to me taking further part in flight simulations. The cabin of the simulation is great to start with but after a while of "flying", it isn't conducive looking out of the window to see a sweeping vista of anonymous plasticine blobs and green Styrofoam forests littering the cardboard landscapes.

[@MarkHopewell]

@@lucastriches193 When the scenery pack can resolve my radio tower from an altitude of 20-30 metres and not flatten it like a pancake from 200 metres as current happens, I might feel obliged to buy into it. Else, all current scenery add-ons offer little aesthetic at lower altitudes except perhaps out of the airports, which is boring after a while and you can only take off once in any flight thereafter stuck with miles and miles of bland plasticine and Styrofoam.

[@gregsalisbury9783]

@@adrianborinsky2989 I’d rather have garbage scenery, a great plane, great sounds, and 60 fps. Honestly, I don’t mind the graphics in x-plane. I feel that between the modeling of the roads, water, VORs, and some building and landmarks, I have enough POIs to use. I’m really hoping x-plane 12 is well optimized though.

[@markslandingsandaviationvi3123]

3:20 I don’t know why I laughed at that sound. This is the best quality sound effect I have ever heard in X-Plane 11!👍

[@matthewrammig]

It’s very Marioish

[@이종혁-d8t]

15:11 The creaking sound is so real

[@Q8Pilot]

Top class Cessna, great video and thanks for the shout out!

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

Thank you! I don’t know if I would have known how good it is without your content!

[@Hani_Santa]

Man I wish this type of physics and realism is possible in msfs in the future...

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

It is possible, just takes a third party developer like this.

[@raymarshall6721]

Problem is the MSFS crash system. They've never allowed full crashes and damage (which is assumed for licensing ease), which is stupid. I can get as far back as FS98 not having it but keeping that option closed / hard to code is a failure on their end.

[@Breenild]

Probably it will in the future. They hired now an aerodynamic engineer and he shall work on the flight physics. With the actual provided flight-model it isn't possible to simulate that in a proper way. Right now it is more a game than a simulator.

[@Hani_Santa]

@@Breenild sounds good! Looking forward to improvements, it's allround the most impressive simulator in years.

[@cupcake0011]

It is highly unlikely that MSFS will be as realistic as x plane due to its limitations on the simulator itself.

[@dedododo-dedadada7957]

C’mon man… don’t try and pull me back into XP11. I just don’t have the time! This does look amazing! Especially the damage modeling. Something msfs is seriously lacking. I long for some Beamng damage modeling in flight Sims one day!

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

Lol I hear ya! I can’t use any other 172 G1000 now…

[@moleisrich1]

Love beamng

[@ronsflightsimlab9512]

NICELY done! I fly the real one, and fly CAP cadets in it. I'm going to do my CFI checkride in this beautiful aircraft. I am SO sold on this airplane (The AFL 172NG that is) that I am building a hardware panel for it in my 240 degree visibility sim. It's AMAZING, and I think it'll help my students considerably to get their Private Pilot certificate in close to the minimum 40 hours. More to the point, I can throw dozens of failures at them as they get close to their solo and then checkride... And make them safer RW pilots from the cradle! Awesome example of a forced landing. A dirt road at a farm is often a more survivable option than a road with a ton of power lines.

[@legot2351]

I myself is a CAP cadet and a private pilot in training, this is super cool!

[@juliashenandoah3965]

There can never be enough outstanding Airfoillabs quality on the harddrive :D

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

*User Interface* 1:28 *Aircraft Manual* 2:53 *Starting the Engine* 3:40 *Flooded Engine* 5:15 *Magneto Check* 6:30 *Failed Mag Check* 7:06 *Takeoff Darrington* 7:54 *The Cockpit At Night* 8:45 *ILS Approach* 9:12 *Damage and Failures* 9:31 *Bird Strike* 10:27 *Engine Failure* 12:38 *Stall & Spin* 15:20 *Landing At Machmell Fisheries* 16:37

[@jakub-kube]

i recommend putting this in the description, it will automatically add timestamps to the timeline

[@mitchjensen8297]

We test standby for 10 sec and then arm before throwing the master switch on

[@themoodiestsmoothie]

What scenery are you using?

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

@@themoodiestsmoothie the Orbx True Earth California’s.

[@Kilosim]

I bought it on sale and holy moly, is it amazing, especially coming from their KA350 and a few REP packages.

[@chuckstone4334]

We use a Redbird TD2 G1000 now to instruct Civil Air Patrol students and pilots both primary and instruments. It does a pretty good job, scenery and hardware are lacking detail like no standby battery control panel. Difficult to do a pre-start check list when some of the major components are not there. Probably the most value for us is "knobology" and "buttonology" that is, learn what (real looking and feeling) knob and button/switch does what? We also train in a real C-172S NXi G1000 so when students do transition to the real airplane they pretty much know where things are located and can enter a flight plan. I love the Airfoils cockpit details and realism and the graphics are much better than the Redbird. Also impressed with the cockpit head/face tracking device used in the video demo. I would say the Redbird TD2 is pretty good when teaching instrument students when scenery is not needed except when breaking out at 200' or so. As for primary student training, where looking outside is very important, I would say X-plane wins!

[@anthonyvallillo422]

Is there a CAP livery for it?

[@DownTheRabbit-Hole]

The Avitab tablet with Navigraph charts is great. Needs to be on pilot side and bigger tho, like Aerobask P300 or DA62. Not a deal breaker. I use standard Avitab popup and resize and relocate.

[@WarrenPostma]

This is a big upgrade over their 2015 era 172 steam gauge, which I own. I want steam gauge though, and rumor has it a 172 steam gauge with this level of modelling, and the new tablet (instead of a non 3d widget at the right side of your monitor). Even the 2015 era Airfoil labs stuff is study level, and quite nice.

[@EricD876]

I love the steam gauges as well! If you hadn't purchased any aircraft which one would you recommend?

[@inglewoodwhb]

Very nice. Your tip about pulling on the yoke while taxiing is only half correct though. Generally speaking, when taxiing a tricycle gear aircraft in windy conditions, you should "fly into" a headwind and "dive away" from a tailwind in order to keep the nosewheel from lifting off the ground. Neutral elevator, ailerons into a quartering headwind. Down elevator, ailerons away from a quartering tailwind. I'd be interested to see how well this type of behavior is modeled in this aircraft. You should crank up the winds and try it out.

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

I’m learning about that now actually, thank you for sharing this. I hadn’t considered the wind on taxi before. So much to know!

[@mahkhi7154]

There's a Lot of Information on the G1000 used in the Cessna 172 (7,000 Feet) and The Twin Diamond DA42NG (11,000 Feet). Little information on the Cirrus SR22 (7,000 Feet). When You're NEW to Something. Something Different Confuses You. After 10 Years of Experience. Different Things Don't Confuse. An Experienced Diamond Pilot would EASILY be able to Fly the Cirrus SR22.

[@Scott_T_]

10:19 - Hey look, we just made it a 172RG!

[@bahenbihen]

Looks like a great model. I currently fly the C172S as well and they look almost exactly the same, they even got the green switch for the pitot heat right

[@kvan27]

I’ll be honest I play only MSFS cuz I got back into flight simming when it came out and nothing at all has made me want to even bother with xp11 at all because of the graphics and the amount of memory/money it takes to make the game look halfway decent but this aircraft I’ve been watching closely and I’ve honestly considered playing xp-11 strictly to fly this plane lol

[@virtualaviator21156]

Superb review, a2a is nothing compared to the payware ga aircraft offered in the xp platform for so long mainly cuz they charge indecent amounts of money unlike the xp ga devs

[@AlamarFly]

Great and detailed review! Thank you!

[@이종혁-d8t]

8:13 This sound of C172's ENG is like real world .. days!

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

Yes! The sound and feel when adding power is so authentic over a lot of prop sims.

[@ValentinoDagher]

I love their other 172 without the g1000 as well

[@South.Florida.Aviation]

Looking at getting this to aid in check ride and emergency procedure training

[@josephhaas7413]

The AoA indicator is a nice touch!

[@simwirx]

I like the damage modeling in this AC! What airport is at 10:29 ? Like the look of that!

[@CraigMaiman]

If I could only get VNAV working on my RealGearSim GFC 500 Autopilot then I'd be even happier with this 172. That functionality seems to be missing. Any ideas?

[@aileronsintowind6835]

Still likes to crash and end up in a blaze of glory on the runway when you try and use th replay function, however a great flight model and very close to RW.

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

That can be funny sometimes. I just do the repair all once it's back in the air for the next replay start, but sometimes it keeps the prop bent. It's quirky for sure.

[@volkerjansen3901]

I would certainly pay to get this plane in MSFS ;)

[@airmanparker]

Can't wait until it's released for Xplane 12!

[@maltimoto]

Is the G1000 the default Laminar or did they make their own?

[@jmizzonini]

This was an excellent review! Very in depth

[@visyxl]

what kind of freeware aircraft has this kind of level? (other than zibo)

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

Closest planes are these: forums.x-plane.org/index.php?%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2F45373-aerobask-robin-dr401-cdi-155-xp12%2F forums.x-plane.org/index.php?%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2F85118-vans-rv-7%2F forums.x-plane.org/index.php?%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2F84575-yak-55m%2F forums.x-plane.org/index.php?%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2F67817-sparky-744-default-744-major-overhaul%2F

[@GregoriusBryan]

Even through a video, the spin feels like the real deal.. Does it have detault XP11 G1000 or is it AFL's custom implementation with full settings and satellites pages modelling?

[@planelander]

Its not close to real.

[@roysole3294]

It's a quarter on the throttle not a forth 1/4 = a quarter 1\2 = a half and 3\4 =3 quaters

[@kentbrookman]

Don’t know, flies more like a C-182. Still the Simcoders version is closer to the C-172.

[@Tee-zt4wr]

Im Back, wow the varjo aero vr really looks good IN X-PLANE. Im maxed out in msfs with rtx 3090 4.0 cpu ect. and all the tricks and fixes but still jitterery yikes. I tryed ms but really enjoy X-PLANE again

[@iagher]

How fast do you taxi to have an elevator response? At normal taxing pace there's simply not enough airspeed.

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

I’ve been reading some articles about it. Some say it doesn’t matter others says it takes some weight off the nose. But also depends on what the wind is doing at the time.

[@expataviator7107]

@@TheFlightSimDeck you still get a bit of nose up from the prop wash even at taxi speeds

[@azj9519]

You can definitely feel the load come off the nose gear when you pull the yoke even at slow speeds

[@rafzero]

just bought the game…amazing. just need to figure out how to use my ps4 vr head set on my mac

[@AusFlightSimmer]

Thanks for this Patrick, Hope it will be compatible with Xplane 12.

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

Yes sir! XP12 support is their highest priority.

[@activex7327]

Wow, this is pretty impressive, wish airliners had similar features.

[@jhouse6352]

Man this would’ve been invaluable during my private pilot training. Even though that was back in the mid 90’s. I had to settle with Microsoft flight simulator 5.1. Lol

[@robertclark2607]

So good it does not show up in XPLANE 11 after install

[@guritche]

Great video. How do you look around the cabin so naturally? VR? Track IR?

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

It’s called FaceTrackNoIR. Uses your webcam or phone. I recently switched to Tobi Eye Tracker 5.

[@Aleksandar6ix]

PS....it comes with ANR headset. Just plug in the jacks!

[@Skyblueradio]

Very cool!!! Would love to see something like that in P3D!

[@TheRyma52]

Is there a manual for this plane?

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

Yes left seat pocket. I’m going to make a tutorial next week.

[@TheRyma52]

@@TheFlightSimDeck I like to read. I only buy airplanes that have an appealing manual. The previous model from Airfolilabs did not have a manual.

[@Aabbcczzxxcc]

Amazing plane. Can it works on vulkan ? anyway i'm going to buy one :) love this cessna

[@mraviatorboii2510]

The Stall is very unrealistic, but other than that, it pretty good…

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

It’s still stall normal with a little wing drop, but I forced the spin with back pressure and left rudder.

[@davidrivera7069]

Does its G1000 has pattern hold feature?, and can you lean the mix with the G1000??

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

It does pattern holds if there is already one built into the arrival. But it seems the terminology is missing to create a hold at any given waypoint. The lean assist page works and allows you to cycle to each cylinder, see the egt, and peak egt.

[@chrisstrobel3439]

Could a bird actually go clean through a 172 windscreen like in this simulation? I woulda never had thunk 😮

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

At approach speed maybe not... I've seen it happen at higher speeds.

[@Hackanhacker]

!wow just wow! I found a tresure!

[@hdaviator9181]

I don't like how the propeller has the white stripes on the rear. It should be all black so the propeller becomes invisible.

[@expataviator7107]

Great video. Keep that standby battery in ARM when you’re flying ;)

[@JohnZsAviation]

Great video I might have to buy it.

[@Flow-.-]

Currently training in C152 for my PPL, is there a full fidelity model like this for the 152?

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

There's a good 152 mod of MSFS but not like this as in all the walkaround stuff. If you're on XP11 only, there is this one. store.x-plane.org/JustFlight-C152_p_820.html

[@lpappas474]

Approximately 8 -1 glide ratio with a best glide speed of 68K and zero wind

[@MikeGolf993]

If only we could have this quality in MSFS2020

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

We can eventually. X-Plane has been out for 5 years and just got it. Hopefully sooner for MS.

[@almostlate]

Wait. 80891?! Josh!

[@STERNWAERTS]

i need an a2a or airfoillabs cessna for msfs asap, like ASAP.

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

Me too, the ones it comes with aren't terrible but they aren't this... Somebody will make one.

[@Aleksandar6ix]

I don't agree with all your comments on this 172! Your description on handing the 172 and it's supposed challenges is actually opposite of the real thing....it's actually very forgiving and easy to fly and land and much easier to start. There is no difficulty, that's why it's a trainer. The A2A 172 was excellent in sound and handling for P3D, and it had the right immersive features....that was my top choice back then. AFL's first release of v1 didn't even come close to comparing to A2A or even the Xplane Default 172 with REP package (I never fully enjoyed the first AFL 172....had so many problems!). For all the things this new AFL version significantly improves over their previous one, what they do bad they do really bad (eg: horribly synthetic sounds instead of actual recordings - flaps, flyby, stall, touchdown...etc..; landing behavior........which may have been tweaked at latest patch, but I have yet to try; throttle response and engine running logic). My overall experience with the REP+default 172 has been much more enjoyable and authentic in regards to flying it and the audio (which is all there really is to compare....the maintenance systems are very different). Just listen to the engine and flyby sounds between the two....world of a difference and enough to make you feel there or not. I can fly the REP just like I flew the real thing and get predictable results. However, there is no denying the study-level value of the AFL. In the end.....I thought AFL could get over their prior mistakes in the 172, but I was let down and ultimately regret buying it. Me: PPL pilot, 172F, K, P, S, R, C152, DA40, DA20 experience in a relatively small amount of hours.....so I mostly judge by "does it make me feel like I'm there and operating the real thing".

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

But when you’re using the MSFS/XP11 default 172’s this is night and day when you fly this one. Compared to those, this is such an improvement in every way. Not that it’s difficult, but those default 172’s feel too easy or too lite. You’re coming in with the perspective of flying the real aircraft and mine is coming from flying the less developed cheap ones and going back to a pay one. What are your thoughts on the MSFS one as it stands?

[@T.RockTx]

What are you using for head tracking?

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

I’m using FaceTrackNoIR. Uses a webcam or phone.

[@sirafoxtron1701]

10:24 anyone talking about that 2 guys in the plane looking at us

[@aric6068]

How you can move so smoothly?

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

I’m using FaceTrackNoIR. Tracks where my head physically moves.

[@kineticventures2113]

If only XP and MSFS would collaborate...

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

Thanks man! Honestly, this planes automation was terrible.

[@Retrohertz]

Impressive.

[@Drab_Society_Comentarios]

Better than FSM Far away

[@benos4x4adventures49]

This is awesome.. absolutely shits over msfs. I so can't wait for.......Xplane12

[@robertg5393]

Great - EXCEPT - there was never a 172S with a G1000 (!!)....

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

Yes there absolutely is. You can find many for sale. I have the operation manual for a 2007 172S G1000. tampabayaviation.com/cessna-172s-g1000/

[@anac3652]

Wish I had one of these IRL... too bad they cost $450,000

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

Same! Lets go half on one. Just give me 10 years to save up.

[@toddw6716]

Xplane 11 is a sim, MSFS is a video game. That’s the difference

[@maumor2]

Third party developers are all over MSFS so xplane is in big trouble

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

It's all about the third party developers. For instance, Zibo really saved XP11 years ago. Until that aircraft, there wasn't much interest in development on XP11 like there is now.

[@majoraviatior1611]

No, I disagree, even though xplane has better physics and overall more realistic doesn’t mean msfs is a game. It has great study level aircraft with it.

[@imperialbuilder-minecraft8297]

👍

[@oscarapplegate4313]

Aviation 101 haha

[@saulpilot]

The BEST C172?????? without syntetic view????? I don't think so!!!!!!!

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

Even without that, what else simulates this level of engine and system logic? P3D A2A is all that comes to mind, but this version went further than that even.

[@carlholloway2594]

😁 P r o m o S M!!

[@sksupply]

Whoa, showing 210 hours on that girl. Did you not sleep for a few days?

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

Lol I don’t know how. I haven’t owned it for 210 hours yet.

[@jag1963]

If Xplane could just get streamed world scenery it would stand a real chance against MSFS

[@CrosswindSurfer]

N80991 hahah ok

[@CrosswindSurfer]

wait, why the hell did it spin out in the stall? you were coordinated?

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

@@CrosswindSurfer did the spin procedure from the manual. Left rudder and back pressure to spin it.

[@gertjanvandermeij4265]

10:30 ..... Bird Killer ! Go shame yourself !

[@aronjordan8023]

If you need the “ready for takeoff” preset in a 172 you shouldn’t be trying to fly anything let alone a Skyhawk sim☠️ go do a discovery flight for for 175$!!! avionics doesn’t come on until the engine is started. Avionics fan checks are way before engine start lmao. Almost made it look like you knew what you were doing bro

[@TheFlightSimDeck]

The avionics bus 1 and 2 were never on during engine start in this video. The PFD is always on for engine start in a G1000 172, as you can see in any real world video. You need it to monitor the instruments as you start.

[@timpetu94]

Aviation101 fan detected. 80991 ;-)