Good afternoon,

My wife and I are both pilots and learned to fly on a Citabria 7GCBC. We had a brief fling with a Diamond DA-40 which is a great plane but we sure miss the taildragger. We have an opportunity to buy a very nice IFR 8GCBC Scout. Any Scout drivers out there that can share their thoughts and the pros and cons on the Scout?

The local banner tow pilot has an old Scout and said it was a challenge to land. We would appreciate your thoughts on the Scout.

We have a cabin on a grass strip to which we need to haul supplies on the weekends.

Thanks so very much,

Tom and Kathy

Tombranton wrote:The local banner tow pilot has an old Scout and said it was a challenge to land.

A 180 Scout hard to land? Rubbish! Maybe for someone with 0 taildragger hours, but a friendlier tailwheel airplane has hardly been built! It is a little springy on the steel gear when light, but so are tailwheel Cessnas and the new Maules. That guy should rebuild his tailwheel if he is having so much trouble! Go get a checkout from someone with significant time in Scouts and you'll be fine. If you learned in a Citabria it's like going from a Cub to a SuperCub....no big deal.

The Scout's only negative is it's smallish and awkward baggage compartment. It's got plenty of performance and will carry anything you can fit in it. If you can get your hands on a nice one and will only carry two people and a few bags go for it! Put big tires on it and you've got a great backcountry plane. I'd check the empty weight and useful load to be sure that plane wasn't too compromised by all the IFR gear.

Good Luck!

Rocky

I used to own a 2000 model. One of the best planes my wife and I ever owned, we both flew it all over the country (we put about ~700 hours on it). Super comfortable, EASY to land, preferred wheel landings, good performance, VG's are a must !!! Agree on the baggage door, otherwise the back area is worthless, you can have ACA retrofit the door if you buy a older one, the newer ones are std. I'd put that number 1 on my list of requirements. We had the 3 blade McCauley, all around good airplane.

Scouts are great airplanes. They are very fast, very roomy in the cabin for a two seat tandem airplane, great visibility, and I concur with the comments about landings--they land just fine.

Vortex Generators serve a Scout perhaps better than they do most airplanes. I wouldn't own a Scout without them.

Pay particular attention to the wing rigging first time you fly it. Start out with some gentle stalls, and gradually work your way into more aggressive stalls. If it rolls off hard anywhere for any reason you can't explain by your control inputs--GET IT RIGGED RIGHT. I've seen a couple of these airplanes brand new which were rigged REALLY badly, and which had really ugly stall characteristics. Find that out on a test flight up high, not on short final to some high DA backcountry strip, and get it fixed. Scouts are easy to rig right.

I'd also pay close attention to the weight and balance. The later ones are heavy, and that can be an issue. Stay away from the three bladed prop, for that reason--smooth but wayyy too heavy. Consider an MT composite prop, in fact. The Scout benefits from taking some weight off the bow.

And enjoy. Great airplane.

MTV

I delivered several Scouts from the factory to Idaho. They are relatively fast, but in general, I was not impressed with the Scout. I did not like the slow flight characteristics, and the fuel system design. I had one quit with plenty of fuel, a defective fuel cap caused fuel to transfer to outer tank and vent outside. I am not the only one this has happened to. Fuel selector is either on or off, and it does not feed evenly resulting in heavy wing down situation with no aileron trim. The Scout was designed as a utility aircraft, It is a great aircraft for towing gliders. The Scout dealer will tell you that it has SuperCub performance. A SuperCub it is not. I know individuals who sold their SuperCub for a new Scout and now deeply regret selling their SuperCub. By the way, their Scout is for sale!
It sounds like I am biased, I am.
Idaho SuperCub

Good afternoon,

I wanted to thank everyone for the thoughts they shared on the Scout. We have now flown both the Scout and a Husky and honestly I think we prefer the Husky. Just better for our kind of flying. I expect we will look at a newer IFR Husky for the next plane.

Thanks again everyone,

Tom and Kathy

Good choice. You wont be dissapointed

I have not flown the Scout so I cannot comment on it. But, I recently purchased my 2nd Husky. The 1st was a 200 A1B with 180 HP, 430 and VM1000 package, it weighed 1365#'s empty. I liked it a lot but sold it for crazy reasons. I next had an older PA-18, it was very light, about 1150#'s as I recall. It felt very sloppy in roll compared to the Husky. It was slow, as most PA-18's are. I got out of that deal and recently purchased a 2006 A1B with the 200 HP and MT prop. It is not light, 1400#'s empty and has way too much neat stuff, like a 530, 330 with TIS, 26" Goodyears etc.

This is the new wing Husky. It handles a lot nicer, especially in roll, than my original wing Husky. I flew it with 10.8 gallons of fuel and only me this Sunday. The wind was straight down the runway at 5 KTS, I was off of the runway in 125' according to my C180 Buddy that was watching. His measurement, not mine, but it was definitely short. The elevation of the airport is 850' and it was about 65 deg F. Cruise speed at 24" and 2400, while burning 10.5 gph and at 2500' MSL the same day was 106 KTAS with two of us, both about 180#ers and 16 gallons of fuel. The new wing Husky seems better on approach with less tendancy to float. I doubt that you would go wrong with either plane. The new A1C should be available soon and will have a 2200# GW. I was told that I could have mine retrofitted worth the money too.
Gary

Where did you hear about retrofitting the husky to be an A-1C. Ive been thinking about that myself. Do you know what will be involved?

I used to tow banners with Scout's and really liked the airplane. Ours had fixed pitch climb props on them so they weren't the fastest traveling airplanes, but the STOL performance was great. I have no experience with Husky's (I'm sure they are a great airplane) but, I can't see how the cost difference can make up for the minor discrepancies in performance, comfort, and aesthetics.

While we are on the subject of Scout's, does anyone have experience with them on floats?

-Matt

Renegade,
Jim Taylor told me about the pending availability of the upgrade in GW, it entails an additional leaf in the tail spring, some kind of H brace, I think near the tail and a small gear modification. Jim told me that the estimated cost was around $2-3K the best that I recall. This would give us a 2200# GW, and for my plane an 800# useful load.
Gary