• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

What About a Scout?

sj

Staff member
Northwest Arkansas
Ok, we have "reviewed" the Husky's rather throughly in comparison to the Supercub. How about the Amercian Champion Scout?

scout2.jpg


I saw one downtown here the other day and it certainly looks capable...

sj

(running for cover)...
 
SJ

No need to run for cover. 8GCBC is a good airplane. 70 gal fuel sys, comfortable cockpit, front and rear seat heat that works. Down side is that it is a heavy aircraft (empty wt 1400+ pounds). The aircraft the way it is built basically leaves no option for extended baggage. Spring steel gear is tough but the load of the gear attach is localized in a relatively small area. Would be a good candidate for Bushwheels to soak up some load.

As an aside American Champion is designing a replacement for the Scout.


Matt
 
Good airplane, (Just like the Husky is also a good airplane). Just heavy like Matt says, and won't go in the tight spots a S cub will. Flaps are really big, and when full down produce turbulance over the tail and stick shake, like some complain about with S Cubs with big flaps. I never heard of a tail blanking, but it's unnerving having the stick bouncing around when really low and slow. Jerry M. and crew have been producing good "real" airplanes for a quite a while now, and hats off to them for it. The AD they put out on the wood spars really pissed me off though, they just passed the liability on the old Champion/Bellanca airplanes off on the inspectors who now have to sign off the AD, which is a complete joke, and ment to sell a lot of new wings, which it is doing. It is tough to beat the 8KCAB for shear grin factor in a good all around "toy" type airplane, and it also makes a good acro trainer.
 
Mark I know what you mean about the AD I felt the same way. But after talking to Jerry and Dale and going over to look at suposedly good wood spar wings I've changed my mind. I would'nt do anything to drastic in a wood spared Champion unless I had the fabric off and looked at the spars myself.


Si
 
I ditto your comments on the wing AD Mark. I did manage to retain a set of flaps out of one of those wing swaps if anyone needs them.
 
Just got finished rebuilding a Scout that had been on it's back. I understand they fly nicely for a heavey wieght but I'm not impressed with design or construction. Supercub construction is much more simple and easier to repair.

Don


Wings cost $10,000 each not including flaps and ailerons
 
steve said:
Ok, we have "reviewed" the Husky's rather throughly in comparison to the Supercub. How about the Amercian Champion Scout?
I saw one downtown here the other day and it certainly looks capable...

SJ: looks can and often are deceiving as to the performance capabilities of the Airplane: Scout, Maule, or even the PA12 to name a few? Yes even the PA12 will never be a SC! The scout would be better compared to a PA12 or a Maule because the width is similar! As for strenth, the Scout has some major weakness's keeping it out of the rough stuff, as already stated the gear attach point is majorily weak the spring gear is to flexible and the tail section is not designed to take the abuse of sharp jarring that is a part of landing on unimprove ground. The wing will not fly as slow and it takes considerble power to hold it at a minimal sink rate. This makes landing over tall obstacles a challenge to master. The trim system comstricts the CG envelope severly and makes the utility use of the airplane prohibitive. To it's credit the Scout has a much better roll rate and visibility is great over the nose!

This is "opinion written down" according to the wisdom of Jerry B. that makes it "FACT".

Pretty plane like this is well suited to reside next to a M7 or a Husky in a epoxy painted hanger.
 
steve said:
Ok, we have "reviewed" the Husky's rather throughly in comparison to the Supercub. How about the Amercian Champion Scout?
I saw one downtown here the other day and it certainly looks capable...

SJ: looks can and often are deceiving as to the performance capabilities of the Airplane: Scout, Maule, or even the PA12 to name a few? Yes even the PA12 will never be a SC! The scout would be better compared to a PA12 or a Maule because the width is similar! As for strenth, the Scout has some major weakness's keeping it out of the rough stuff, as already stated the gear attach point is majorily weak the spring gear is to flexible and the tail section is not designed to take the abuse of sharp jarring that is a part of landing on unimprove ground. The wing will not fly as slow and it takes considerble power to hold it at a minimal sink rate. This makes landing over tall obstacles a challenge to master. The trim system comstricts the CG envelope severly and makes the utility use of the airplane prohibitive. To it's credit the Scout has a much better roll rate and visibility is great over the nose!

This is "opinion written down" according to the wisdom of Jerry B. that could qualify as a "FACT".

Pretty planes like this are well suited to reside next to a M7 or a Husky in an epoxy painted hanger.

Tim

Tim
 
My experience is limited with the scout. Pretty much the spar AD,,,,so I think they suck. Only on that aspect though. It's got a great stance, looks like it should carry a bundle and could get in to the tight spots. But just another case of mistaken itentity apparently. I would still enjoy finding out for myself.
Scott
 
FYI for those forced to due the inspection and sign off the AD, most I have found cracked are in the rear spar at the first compression brace outboard of the strut attach, cracked from the top down. Look extra close at anything that is,or ever has been on floats, expecially if it has ever been flipped in the water.

I have seen the pile of cord wood spars at the factory, even have my own little pile, it's the wording of the AD and inspection procedures that sucks. Why don't wood spar Cubs have a AD too? Because they want to pass the liability on to the inspectors that have to do these inspections to make a living.
 
I agree with you Mark. It is a crock. I'm supposed to inspect the entire spar and demm it has no cracks. How much do I get paid for taking on this liability? I have a friend who specializes in Aeronca's. He rigged up a camera from a computer on the end of a copper tube and run it down the entire spar. They also use the inspection plates from Rainbow. They allow you to inspect the area you are referring to. I had a J-3 get picked up by a dust devil and dropped on one wing and it cracked down the plywood plate at the lift strut attach fitting. Was real hard to see. bad thing was we had just recovered the wings about a month before. I guess when lawsuits quit being some peoples lottery the liability issue will go away. It will be about the time that pigs fly but that belongs in the Rants & Raves.
 
Just flew in a friends GCBC last weekend, it's an early 60's I think. Matt did a lot of work on it. You're all right with the points you made on performance, and I own a 56 PA-18A-150 with long prop, but outside of the obvious differences, I was impressed. Maybe it wouldn't satisfy the hard core super cub guys, but in the area where we are, (northern Illinois, southern Wisconsin) it'll go anywhere it needs to.
I felt the strong points were: better visability, easier to get in and out of, more room, quieter, hellish heat front and back at 25%, and a lot less money. (That took balls to say on this site). It still has a respectable take off and climb.
I don't think anything compares to the super cub, and I can give up the comfort easily, but it was nice to get out of the cub and get in another airplane to warm up.
Wilbur
 
Scout

You would think with a name like "Scout" it'd be a real performer. I pull out on the run way with a 160hp PA-18 and am off the ground and climbing out in 150'. The guy down the runway with a Scout uses the entire strip every time. The 170's on the strip out perform him and that's pathetic. In Alaska where we actually have the "Bush" in "Bush Flying", the Scout is not known as a real "Bush Plane". I've seen one with the fabric off and it's not a pretty site. Crash
 
I own a Scout. It does what I want it to do. I travel about three hundred miles from Fairbanks to my hometown of Ruby and a cub is just too slow. I have a Sorenson belly tank so I have 76 gallons of usable fuel and it will do a round trip. Avgas in the bush is just to expensive at $3.70 a gallon and that is what you need in a 0-360. I've flown a pa-18 quite a bit and the scout does it better than an 18. I don't pretend i'm a bush pilot and land in places I shouldn't, especially with a plane that costs 60K. I have floats in the summer and she will cruise at 105mph and on skis in the winter she will fly 125mph. For what I do the scout is a better plane. I hauled out a whole moose in one trip out of a L shaped lake with floats. It is warmer in the winter, a lot roomier, and the dumb windows don't rattle like a cub. The extended baggage mentioned earlier is a joke. All you have to do is remount the elevator cables and the trim lines to get a extended baggage in it. I think the wing ad is a joke. It is a money making endeavor for American Champion, 25K for a new set of wings to get rid of a dumb ad. The old wings worked just fine. I think the only time you really have to look at them is if you did a ground loop or put her on her back. I've tried the new wings and they don't give a ride like the old wooden spars. It is just my opinion. I still think the ultimiate plane is a PA-11 for the tight areas and a C-180 to go long distances. If I could only afford it.
 
Boys, Ive been a lurker on this site for a while now, finally got something to chew on. I fly a Scout up here in Maine, love the thing. I grew up flying my Dads Super Cubs, still miss sitting up front at age 17 and have him barking at me from the back. The Scout is no cub, but it only misses on one mark in my book: landing short. It gets off in 3-400 ft, and climbs pretty well at gross. The vgs I put on will allow it to stall down about 46 or so, and that doesnt make for short landings. I can get down and stopped in5-600 ft of grass or so. I run 26" Goodyears in the summer, and now have her on Aero R2800 retract skis. At 2450 squared, she cruises at 135mph or so, and last week at 0 degrees, I could fly with gloves off, and cut back the heat. Shes been flying 3500 hrs on the wood spars, so in my book the engineering is proven and sound. IF you have to get in and out of 300 ft, this is not your plane. Useful load is about 840 lbs, the earlier ones are much lighter than the later ones. You guys pass thru Maine, Ive got lobster and Maine microbrews waiting in my hanger at the strip

Jim Crane
Exeter, Maine
 
Jim, where is Exeter? I live in northern NY in the summer, and take some trips up through Maine once in a while to get lobster.

Tim
 
Scout Guys

At least these Scout guys aren't a-holes like the Husky drivers. Welcome to the site. If you're ever in Alaska drop by for some salmon and great flying. Crash
 
Exeter is about 18 NW of Bangor, Me. My strip is 18nm out the 330 radial of Bangor vor. Anybody passes by give a shout and Ill email the coordinates. Tim: I have a friend who fishes lobster, Im working on a "fly-in" lobster strip.
Jim
 
Crash,

I can understand what you are saying in reference to Husky people but...
I think that this website's exposure to Husky Driver's has been relatively limited....Unfortunately the "Cub Vs"...thread was beat to donkey death by ONE unsuspecting individual who in his own way was trying to convince himself that he had made the right decision in airplane purchase, and further boost his own ego (or lack thereof).
To classify ALL Husky drivers in this category would be unfair, as it would also be unfair to class all Cub Drivers (as cool as we are) in the same group. Not all CubPilots fly this phenomenal airplane to it's full performance capabilities, and this is fine by me. Should those that are not capable of flying a Cub yet, attempt to fly it to the extreme, then they will provide others yet ANOTHER statistic to add to the long list of Cub accidents and, God forbid, Fatalities. This to me is acceptable. The fact that these "fledgling" Cub Drivers are seeking advice and counsel is in their credit. Other pilots (whether they drive a Husky, Cub or 767) that think they know it all, are a danger to anyone and everyone else in the "Free" skies out there.
Regards,
Andy
 
Andy

Andy, you're right, I should have said the other two Husky guys on the Cub vs Husky thread. I'm sure if we did deep enough, there might be a Husky driver that's OK. Crash
 
Statistics

It seems when people look at accident reports the first thing they say is how come so many cubs are having accidents? Well for one they are common as crabgrass and are the perfered aircraft to be used in difficult landing areas hence more bent cubs. To compare accidend reports of cubs to Scouts, Huskys or Arctic terns would be like comparing drownding reports of people who go swimming vs people who do not.

I have flown in the back of Citabrias and would say it is a nicer ride then the back of a cub. They will haul a good load off a 600 foot strip and as a Citabria fly friend of mine would say the moose dosen't care he's not in a Cub. Point being you can get by without a cub you just need to know the limitations of your airplane, all planes have limitations the cub is no different. The Cub is however the King of STOL if you don't believe that you have never needed STOL.

All of the above aircraft are good planes depending on your needs or your bank account. I would say airplanes are kinda like sex the worst ride I ever had was just wonderful.

Cub_Driver
 
Mom always told me I could drown in a tablespoon of water if I worked at it...
 
cub_driver said:
Statistics

It seems when people look at accident reports the first thing they say is how come so many cubs are having accidents? Well for one they are common as crabgrass and are the perfered aircraft to be used in difficult landing areas hence more bent cubs. To compare accidend reports of cubs to Scouts, Huskys or Arctic terns would be like comparing drownding reports of people who go swimming vs people who do not.

I have flown in the back of Citabrias and would say it is a nicer ride then the back of a cub. They will haul a good load off a 600 foot strip and as a Citabria fly friend of mine would say the moose dosen't care he's not in a Cub. Point being you can get by without a cub you just need to know the limitations of your airplane, all planes have limitations the cub is no different. The Cub is however the King of STOL if you don't believe that you have never needed STOL.

All of the above aircraft are good planes depending on your needs or your bank account. I would say airplanes are kinda like sex the worst ride I ever had was just wonderful.

Cub_Driver
 
Scout??

A friend is looking at a 1976 Scout to buy. Has new wood spars with new style nails (whatever that means) I'm sure this is AD related. Fixed pitch prop. Fabric is excellent ( new) engine is low low time. Total time is low too. Anyway, I've read the postings on here, and have picked up some good info........anything else he should know about?? One thing I see is only 36gals fuel, but I don't think that's a big deal here in the lower 48's. Thanks for the info
Brian
 
Aviation Consumer's Used Aircraft Guide has a write up on maintenance considerations for the 8GCBC Scout. It looks like the wooden spar is the main problem though there are other things to cosider. That list names strut corrosion, vibration-related problems, and an AD calling for inspection of the crankshaft for corrosion pits. PM me and I'll send you the short article.
 
The new nails are ribbed shank and coated. They are less prone to pulling out. Look like the old drywall nails before they started screwing it on.
 
Supercubber, are you spacing your boards a nails width apart to allow for expansion and contraction? I would think that a wood screw screwed into a wood spar would be a great place for a crack to start. The new nails seem to work good for me between the ribbed shank and the coating.
 
The 36 gallon tanks on the Scout are pretty limiting. On a fixed pitch prop Scout, expect to burn on the order of 9 to 10 gph, which offers three hours fuel and you'd best be on the ground. That isn't enough, even in the lower 48, unless all you do is mosey around on weekends. If that's the case, should be fine.

The Scout is a good airplane, for all the reasons noted above. It has limited takeoff and climb performance, due to wing design, and the gear isnt' the friendliest in the rough stuff, though I know some guys who work them pretty hard.

As to short takeoff and climb performance, nothing beats a Husky, including a Cub. And, yes, even a 180 Cub.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

MTV
 
Back
Top