Sport Pilot Talk

They sent me a spec brochure - of note:

Empty Weight:
835 lbs (379 kg)
Useful Load:
485 lbs (220 kg) empty

They don't specify fuel capacity in the brochure, but 'guessing' 20 gallons? = 120#, that leaves 365# for two occupants and their gear. I tried to upload their brochure but the file size is too large for this board.

15.8 gallons per side.

Then with full tanks that would leave just 300# for two people and gear. Not exactly a stunning amount of load capacity for a 2-seater I'm thinking. Solo it would be fine I suppose.

The key is one doesn’t need to top off the tanks to have a decent range, but the extra capacity is there for those flights when the load is light. The manufacturer shouldn’t be “punished” for providing that flexibility - I wish I had it in my Sky Arrow, which is nearly as porky.

The ballistic recovery system installed in a 172 weighs 79 pounds according to the BRS Aerospace website. A system for the Colt LSA is probably a bit lighter, but it still takes a big bite out of the useful load.

https://brsaerospace.com/questions/

BRS is about 35 pounds for a CT.

I'll be at AirVenture for the full run as a tram conductor volunteer. Will definitely have to check out their booth and the new plane during my off-duty hours.

I fully expect my aging, rotund, non-bendable carcass will not permit actual entry into any high wing LSA, but it will still be fun to see it in person. Old +overweight+ gimpy knee = only low wing aircraft. lol

chicagorandy wrote:Then with full tanks that would leave just 300# for two people and gear. Not exactly a stunning amount of load capacity for a 2-seater I'm thinking. Solo it would be fine I suppose.

You don't have to fill the tanks. The SkyCatcher holds 24 gallons. Put 24 gallons in the Colt and you have more usefull load for passengers and more endurance/range with the lower fuel burn of the Rotax. I see no downside to the Colt vs the SkyCatcher with all the benefits. I love it. If the parachute made it essentially a single place airplane, I would order without the chute.

chicagorandy wrote:I'll be at AirVenture for the full run as a tram conductor volunteer. Will definitely have to check out their booth and the new plane during my off-duty hours.

I fully expect my aging, rotund, non-bendable carcass will not permit actual entry into any high wing LSA, but it will still be fun to see it in person. Old +overweight+ gimpy knee = only low wing aircraft. lol

Put you ass in first. Then pull your right leg in, then your left. Or, right leg, ass, left leg. That is an advantage of the SkyCatcher because you don't have a stick in the way. Same thing with the Colt. Seems like that would be easier than climbing up on a wing. Also, getting out is easier in a high wing, IMHO.

After I had chemo, I had to get two guys to pull me out of the dragster because I didn't have the strength to stand up. Fortunately, that got better with time.

I just got an email from Texas Aircraft with the image of the August cover of AOPA Pilot. The Colt is on the cover accompanied by a feature article.

I just got an email from Texas Aircraft with the image of the August cover of AOPA Pilot. The Colt is on the cover accompanied by a feature article.

Here's the cover.

The useful load of 485lbs. and a Rotax 912ULS pried at $165,000 plus, makes little sense. The Glasair Merlin has comparable avionics, Dynon Skyview, a better engine, Rotax 912iS, and a better useful load at 530 lbs. Colt cabin width is smaller than the Merlin 43 v. 46.5 inches. Ballistic parachute is standard equipment with the colt and optional with the Merlin. The Merlin costs at 150K and both are manufactured in America. The Merlin has a Stoke vs the Yoke that takes up space in the cabin.

The Colt is a very good looking aircraft but there are a lot of good looking and flying aircraft, Light Sport needs manufactures to get real and make an affordable entry level aircraft that will attract both new and experienced pilots that are not in the upper 1%. The Skycather was a good idea but the mistakes Cessna made doomed a good aircraft. Do we need leather interiors and over the top avionics? Those are nice options but not necessary for training aircraft. Make two versions one for flight schools and one for commercial sales. Let the perspective owners make the decisions on options that are important to them.

my $.02

Randall Bearden

FYI:

August issue of AOPA Pilot magazine has a good review of the airplane.
Price as tested $167k.

Since the Merlin will never see the light of day any comparisons to it are moot.

From July issue of EAA Sport Aviation magazine: