I decided to get one of the RealAir Simulations aircraft for some hands-on flying. I noticed that you can get the Scout at a reduced price if you already have the Decathlon.I know I want the Scout (I do some bush flying) but I was also thinking about getting an aerobatic type of plane.Would it be a good idea to get the Decathlon and Scout at the reduced price? I'm not sure about this because the planes look so similar and there's always the freeware Decathlons. Are the Scout and Decathlon different enough to justify buying both?I've been looking at the SF260 for a long time but never got myself to buying it. It looks like a lot of fun though.-How good is it for short-field operations? There's no point in buying a plane that I can't get down at my favourite grass or turf airstrip :)-Is it also usable for x-country or is it strictly an aerobatics plane? What's the cruising speed and range? Does it feature a three-axis autopilot (holding FS planes straight and level for an extended period of time is tiring and tedious because you can't "feel" which way you're going)?

Hi Jimmi,I have all Realairs planes, and they are top notch, everyone of them, you wouldnt be dissapointed with any of them.The Scout is great, a brilliant bush plane, the major difference for me between the scout and the dec, is the scout has flaps.The SF 260 has not yet, at least I dont think so, been bettered, as for the short field landing, I am not to sure as I have not flown it into any small places yet, tell me the airport and I'll see if I can get it in there ;)I use the SF 260 for x country, it cruises at approx 160-170 kts, as for the range I couldnt tell you off hand, yes it has an AP, but to be honest it trims up well enough not to have to use the AP.Hope that helpsDan.

Tough choice. I have them all as well but I think if I could only have one i'd take the 260. Its really a fun plane to fly. The Deke and Scout are both fun too though. I get phenomenal performance with the 260 too. The Deke/Scout are slightly harder on the framerates (really only in the VC and not enough that I worry about it). In the end, you really can't go wrong here but I think for me it's the 260 by a hair...

Yes it has to be the SF-260 but..then again the Decathlon is great for VFR and practising three-pointers.Oh and the Scout is fantastic for steep slow approaches into very small farm-strips...Choices choices;-)RegardsAdam

I would vote for the SF260 as well, although I love the Decathlon too. The SF260 has more power, and instruments with an autopilot making it more useful for short to mid-range flights. I don't have the Scout yet, but I will be buying it soon. The great thing about the SF260 is that the airplane was almost completely redone for fs2004, at no charge to customers. While many fs2002 planes were patched to be minimally compatible, the SF260 was given a new flight model, as well as enhancements to the visual model. If you want to see the real SF260 in action, check out:http://www.aircombatusa.com/ Very cool videos! You can't go wrong buying anything from Realair.

Hi Jimmie,The choice really comes down to the 260 or Scout. Both are IFR equipped with A/P, and both are great fun to fly. The difference between the two is that the 260 is about 50% faster and will go farther, while the Scout can be planted practically anywhere.A couple of evenings ago I made a "long" x-country flight in the Scout... 275 miles from the Sacramento area to Santa Barbara. 2 1/2 hrs with a tailwind. Weather was nice, the aircraft superb, and watching the countryside slide by at 95KIAS was quite enjoyable and relaxing. But the next evening I took the 260 up for some aerobatics and had far too much fun then, too.The Scout is a superior bush plane, while the 260 has better all around usefulness. Your choice should only be based upon which type of flying you wish to do. Whichever you choose, the fact that it is a RealAir aircraft means it will work superbly.Greg

It's neat to discuss the wares of a company and debate "which product to buy", not "is it worth the money".The SF260 is an awsome aircraft. Flying it with my Track IR in VC mode gets close to "As Real as it Gets". For what it's worth, I have no problem getting the SF260 in and out of Emma Field. I like the higher speed of the SF260 as well. I do not have either the Scout or Decathalon, but it is more do to budget and time constraints. They are definetely high on my list of future purchases.Tony

i only have the scout and I can say its great a short field I usually fly for a few hours each night and land it anywhere in the flightsim world (that means lakes on the sides of mountains small crop fields anywhere.And most times i dont even need the flaps a major bonus for me is are the Flaps for really really short landings and the AP which is neat for those long flights (Eg Vin Fiz)....Anyway its my type of plane (love the orange and white colors with or without floats hehe)

I have the SF.260 and the Decathlon. Both are wonderful. I tend to fly the SF.260 a lot more, and it's my default touring plane. Despite it's performance, I enjoy flying it for cross-country rather than acrobatics. it's got great visibility from the cockpit--makes you feel like you are on top of the world.I will probably buy the scout pretty soon. I like the idea of having something from RealAir on floats.BTW, the SF.260 has the best frame rates I've seen in a complex payware plane (despite the fact that the VC is razor sharp).You know ... it's funny ... I have never heard ANYONE on these boards who was anything less than completely enthusiastic about the SF.260. It may be the most loved payware plane ever :) I know I tend to fawn whenever someone asks about it.While we are talking about the SF.260, has anyone heard if RealAir plans on another patch to support the things that have come out of the last SDK (rain on windscreen and additional VC panel hotspots)? I don't expect them to ... they already did their customers a huge service by offering the FS9 upgrade -- just curious. I'd be willing to throw a few bucks their way for a minor update.

HI Jimmy,It's not so much that making a patch is difficult, it's the distribution which gives us the headaches. For security reasons we prefer to contact our customers direct. The SF260 upgrade took an awful lot of time and effort, but because it was a major upgrade we felt it was worth the effort and our customers certainly seem to have appreciated it.The problem with retrospective patches on previous releases is that we'd spend all our time servicing them and not enough time developing new aircraft, which many of our customers are also encouraging us to do.It's a bit similar to Microsoft feeling they ought to upgrade FS2002 to have all the features of FS2004. At some point we have to be content with the aircraft as they are and move on. Having said that if there is sustained and steady enthusiasm for our past releases then we would consider doing what we can to bring them up to date with our latest innovations - but no promises!As for choice, it's interesting to read about people's views on which are the "best" aircraft in the RealAir hanger. It's not for me to judge, except to say that of the aircraft currently available they all have different uses. It's up to our customers to decide which is right for them.Thanks for all the kind and positive comments. We really appreciate the enthusiasm!Best Wishes,Rob and Sean - RealAir Simulations

Nice to know the SF260 visits Emma Field now and again!Rob Young

I just purchased the SF260 and it's great. It's indeed quite framerate-friendly. Not anything like the default aircraft but considering the details and clarity in the VC it's very good. I'm not qualified to judge the flight model but it felt just right - very stable in the pitch axis (a big problem with many FS planes) so it's easy to fly straight and level without the autopilot and to make smooth landings. It's also fun to fly near the stall limit and do spins. Also very fun for xcountry because of the great visiblity and stable flight model.The viewpoint in the VC is a bit too far back for my liking (I prefer 0.75x zoom and the viewpoint moved slightly forward so I can read the gagues), and some 2d popup panels are not in the position or of the size I would have prefered. But those things are minor and easy to change - the first thing I critisize in a payware plane being the seating position in the VC is quite extraordinary :-lolI'll definitely purchase the Scout pretty soon as well. Does it feature the VC rain effects and other new features from the FS2004 SDK's?Also I encountered one problem - when I shut down the engine I was unable to start again even after following the checklist to the letter. I was not even able to start in when using the FS2004 engine autostart feature (ctrl+e). I had to switch to another plane, start the engine, then switch back to the SF260. Very strange. Any ideas?I'd really like to see rain effects in the VC but I also can't wait to see what new planes will be developed...

Jimmig,You can fix your SF260 starting problem by going to the Realairweb site-SUPPORT. Just download the easier engine starting "patch" and all should be well.The SF260 has been my 99% aircraft until I got the Scout.The fabulous Realair team has outdone themselves with the Scout.Thanks Rob, Sean etal.Bill P

Jimmig,You can fix your SF260 starting problem by going to the Realairweb site-SUPPORT. Just download the easier engine starting "patch" and all should be well.The SF260 has been my 99% aircraft until I got the Scout.The fabulous Realair team has outdone themselves with the Scout.Thanks Rob, Sean etal.Bill P

Hi JimmyAnd welcome to the RealAir fan's club if I can speak so ;o) For your engine problem, check the support section on the RealAir site : there is a patch for easier engine starting. And yes the Scout has rain effects and all the switchs in the VC are functional you will like it too I believe. Have a look at this thread :http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchThere is one thing with RealAir aircrafts : you get easily addicted lolTony