RealAir Scout FS2004

By Andrew Herd (11 September 2004)

he Aeronca Champion line must be one of the most confusing series of airplanes ever built, but for all that, it is a distinguished family. The granddaddy of them all, the 7AC Champion, goes all the way back to 1945 and this classic design was progressively refined and developed through the Citabria into the Decathlon and the Scout. There have been one or two changes of company ownership over the intervening years, from Aeronca, to Champion, to Bellanca and finally to American Champion, but somehow, despite all the upheaval involved, the spirit has never been lost. By rights, they shouldn’t make ‘em like this any more, not in the age of composites and computer aided design, but very fortunately for us, they do.

The Scout was designed as a higher powered, light utility Cub-killer and first flew in 1974 (you sometimes hear of more powerful Champions being called Scouts, but this is incorrect). As originally offered, it was powered by a 180 hp Lycoming O-360 with a fixed pitch prop and many buyers took up the options of skis or floats, because it made a really good bush plane. Scouts soon found a niche hauling gear, transporting fishermen, towing gliders and even dusting crops – the payload with full tanks being a very reasonable 625 pounds. In 1978, a constant speed prop became available and the result was a very handy little plane that took off in just over 500 feet, climbed at a thousand feet per minute and cruised at 120 knots; but this did not save Bellanca, which collapsed in 1980. With Bellanca went the Scout, only to make a Phoenix-like reappearance in 1993 as an American Champion product; truly, you cannot keep a good plane down.

That being said, you don't see a Scout every day of the week. Champion/Bellanca built something like 350 before the bankruptcy and American Champion have been building them to order since, but at a low rate, averaging around half a dozen a year. A new 8GCBC Scout will set you back $118,900 with a wobbly prop and $2000 less for fixed pitch, which has to be a bargain, given that there isn’t much performance difference between the two. These days they make them with metal main spars and flaps, but other than that, nothing much has changed in thirty years, apart from the fact that you can get them now with 70 gallon tanks fitted instead of the standard 35.

The Scout shares heavy stick forces in roll with the Decathlon, but is light on the elevators, the end result being said to be somewhat tiring in unstable atmospheric conditions, which must make the plane something of a trial in the mountains. Apart from that, the Scout is a nice plane, the one drawback being its sprung steel landing gear which has a habit of giving back twice what you put into it, resulting in bouncy landings if the airspeed and attitude aren’t on the nail. Despite this, an averagely competent pilot shouldn’t have any trouble landing a Scout, the flaps being reasonably effective and the plane side-slipping well; but the other gotcha is that the brakes would stop a locomotive, with the attendant risk of nosing over or dinging the prop; and, last but not least, it is a tail dragger, so you have to pay a certain amount of attention to keeping it straight on the runway.

Flush from their success in releasing a Decathlon for FS2004 - which is the finest aerobatic taildragger for Flight Simulator I have seen, RealAir have followed up with a Scout simulation that neatly fills the void left by FSD's Super Cub, a much loved FS2000 addon that somehow escaped being upgraded for subsequent versions of Flight Simulator. Given that many Scouts spend their entire working lives in the bush, RealAir's addon should have instant appeal.

The Scout is a 25 Mb download from the RealAir site and costs $25.00, or $17.00 for Decathlon owners. The file came down at full pelt on broadband and I had no trouble with the installation. When everything is done, you will find a 'Scout' entry under the RealAir program group, which links you to all the documentation. The manuals are written in the developer's usual down to earth style and include a POH, flying guide, autopilot manual, some words on Bear Gulch (a mini-scenery included with the package) and all the usual uninstall stuff.

Though the Decathlon and the Scout are similar at first sight, they have quite different handling and it is a tribute to the developers that I wouldn't choose to use their Scout for aerobatics or the Decathlon for bush flying in FS. A standard installation includes a taildragger and an amphibian, each with six attractive liveries. The textures are good and all the usual stuff is there, like dynamic shine - you even get the option of dirty windows.

Taking a closer look at the plane, the visuals are easily up to the standard of the Decathlon, right down to a convincing simulation of the rag wings. As usual, RealAir haven't chosen to depict a factory fresh aircraft, so the Scout comes complete with an interesting collection of oil stains. All the usual animations are included, along with a wobbly prop, flexable gear legs and a pilot’s head which turns with changes in direction of the plane - his arm also moves with the stick, but don't spend all your time admiring this or you will crash.

FS2004 seems to be far better for flight modelling of small GA planes than anything else, or failing that, I just happen to have reviewed a slew of good ones lately, but I found the Scout entirely convincing - making due allowances for the limits of FS. The rate of roll is much less than the Decathlon's, the Scout sideslips well (almost too well, methinks) and I also got it to enter something that resembled a spiral dive - in other words, it doesn't have the weird yaw/roll couple modelling that curses so many FS planes.

One of the major differences between the Decathlon and the Scout is that the latter has flaps. These are very effective in the sim, which means that you can dive bomb the runway as long as you take care to flatten out and bleed off any excess airspeed prior to the flare. Failure to do this results in a long float, just like the real thing. The undercarriage isn't as bouncy as it might be, but groundloops are possible, though I had to encourage the plane to do one - of course, this may be a reflection of my kick-ass piloting skills, but somehow I doubt it (-:

This is probably a good place to reignite the FS tail dragger debate, so - pausing only for Nels to dust off the forums - here is the low down. Broadly, the important difference between a taildragger and a trigear is that a taildragger must be landed with the least possible crosswind drift. Failure to attend to this leaves the pilot open to the inherent instability caused by the taildragger's aft center of gravity location (if you think about it, the c of g has to be behind the wheels, or the plane would tip up on its nose), which gives the aircraft a strong tendency to swap ends if too large a swing is allowed to develop during the landing run.

Natural taildragger instability is enhanced by crosswinds purely because these generate forces which encourage drift to occur. In a plane like the Scout, which has a relatively narrow undercarriage, biggish fuselage side area and relatively large amount of dihedral, an approach to a short, tree-lined strip in a strongish left hand crosswind poses quite a challenge because everything is stacked against you. That being said, you don't have to be a genius to land either the sim or the real plane, you just need to know your limitations.

So why do they still build taildraggers? Well, some people like 'em. There are certain advantages to operating a taildragger on rough fields, as anyone who has ever stuck the nosewheel of a trigear down a gopher hole will attest and loading a tailwheel aircraft is usually easier, but the price is a much poorer view early in the takeoff run and during the flare and roll out, so it is six and two threes. The Scout and the Maule are among the last tailwheel aircraft in serious production, though home builders have taken up the cause and many RVs are completed in this configuration.

Back to the sim. The sound set is convincing, with nice wind noise and - though I find it hard to believe, so much does it buck the trend - quiet switches. FS switches are traditionally so loud that they compete with the engine, but RealAir have bravely gone out on their own and fitted RealSilence (tm) to their units. Or something like that. Anyway, it is unusual, and I want to see it become a standard. Possibly RealAir could license the technology?

The 2D panel will be instantly recognisable to RealAir fans and if you already own the Decathlon you will have to stare at it a long time to tell the two apart. Though the manuals do mention the fact that the Scout can be flown IFR, it wouldn't be my natural choice in instrument conditions, even with the autopilot RealAir have fitted. Most bush flying is VFR, the lack of navaids and type of terrain posing serious limitations to successful IFR flight.

A look at the full size screenshots is worth a thousand words, but as you can see, the team have gone for a 'hand drawn' panel and have simulated the radios at a basic level - you click directly on the frequencies, just like the default planes. The tuning knobs are non-functional and despite the KX155a being a remarkably complex unit in real life, the radios offer no other functions other than frequency swapping. Now that RealAir are establishing themselves as a supplier of quality addons, it would be nice to see them extend the functions of these units.

Apart from the main 2D panel, there are auxiliary ones with enlarged radios, fuel, the switch box, GPS and the elevator trim - real Scouts don't have this, as the manual points out, but since it can be hard working out where the trim is set in FS, it is a legit addition. The artwork on all the panels is neat, but looks a little long in the tooth, though I got used to it pretty quickly, chiefly because I like the style. I would be interested to see what RealAir could do with a photoreal panel, all the same.

The virtual cockpit (VC) is the key to flying the sim. The reason the Scout is still being made is that it is a real pilot's airplane and the only way to appreciate it is to look out the windows, instead of concentrating on the dials. I had great fun making all kinds of stupid approaches with it and even though the VC is slightly more prone that usual to slow redraws, it wasn't a serious problem and I ended up using it more or less all the time.

All the instruments in the VC are clickable and RealAir have included an enhancement called RealView, which shifts the VC relative to the user’s view point as the aircraft yaws, rolls and pitches, as well as responsing to G loads. There is a gauge which allows you to adjust the magnitude of this effect and according to the manual, RealView can be used in conjunction with ActiveCamera. Though RealView is supposed to give a more realistic experience, I can't say I have ever been conscious of my head movements in a real plane - the reason almost certainly being the way the brain keeps the eyes fixed on whatever needs to be looked at. However, it is an intriguing concept and it will be interesting to see if RealAir can develop it further.

Extras include the Bear Gulch scenery, by Antelope Simworks. This is a 450 yard strip with obstructed approaches set in virtual Washington - on the Olympic peninsula, to be precise. Though the scenery only extends to a barn hangar and a landing stage, it is extremely well done and reminiscent of the GeoRender sceneries, which is a high compliment indeed. A couple of flights are included, one starting you in the barn and the other bobbing beside the dock.

I didn't find any serious bugs, which was no surprise, given the relative lack of complexity of the Scout and RealAir's excellent track record in this respect. To be completely honest, when I started writing this piece, I did so with the intent of writing a few paragraphs to tack onto the end of the Decathlon review, but the Scout is so seductive that I decided to give it a serious try out and I am glad I did. Even in FS, these planes are great fun, particularly if they are used in the circumstances they were designed for, in and around the mountains. Bear Gulch's location means that if you have any of the GeoRender sceneries, touring becomes a tempting idea - for example, Orcas Island is only just over half an hour to the North.

RealAir deserve to be encouraged; they have tackled some off-beat subjects and done them well. The one drawback to their planes comes if you don't like their 'house style' panels, which owe much to RealAir's earlier involvement with Fly! As I remarked above, despite my natural inclination towards photoreal panels edited from high resolution, high color images, I have grown to like this developer's approach, mostly because it fits the period feel of the planes they have chosen to simulate. Whether it would work so well with more modern aircraft is an open question, but maybe RealAir have no ambitions in this direction.

I took a quick flip around the website to see what is next and the answer is a Supermarine Spitfire Mk. XIV. This was the first version of the Spit to be powered by a Griffon rather than a Merlin and it pumped out over 2000 horsepower, roughly double what a Mk. 1 had on offer and over ten times the power of the Scout. This will be a really interesting project. So far, we haven't seen many good warbirds designed for FS2004, the Captain Sim Yak 3 currently holding the crown as best product in this area. One of the snags with World War II fighters is that almost all of them had confined cockpits and for various reasons these don't come across well in Flight Simulator. Captain Sim opted to dispense with the 2D panel altogether, but RealAir have the example of the J8A in the Forgotten Battles Aces Expansion Pack, which is easily the best warbird cockpit I have seen. One thing for certain is that a convincing Spitfire offers a serious challenge to any developer, so I'm waiting with baited breath.

Meanwhile, enjoy the Scout.