Light Sport Aircraft CZAW SportCruiser

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
Has anyone had any experience with the CZAW? I just wanted to see what your thoughts were:

Max Takeoff weight: 1320

Useful load: 580

Engine Rotax 912 100hp

Cruise 133 mph

Stall 34 mph

Range 630 nm
 
It's a junk aircraft.

The control forces between pitch and roll and waaaaay out of wack, it's also the only aircraft I decided I didn't want to instruct someone in and recommended and flew a older 172 instead.
 
James331 said:
It's a junk aircraft.

The control forces between pitch and roll and waaaaay out of wack, it's also the only aircraft I decided I didn't want to instruct someone in and recommended and flew a older 172 instead.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that is? is it because of poor design, are all of them like that?

Thanks James!
 
a friend has had one for ~5 years? and quite enjoys it, has made significant US xcountry trips with it.
I flew in it too.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Why do you think that is? is it because of poor design, are all of them like that?

Thanks James!
Click to expand...

I only flew one, it was low time and didn't have any major damage history or repairs or mods, so I can't totally say it's the CZAWs and not just the CZAW I flew, but it was a one flight and I was done impression for me.


BTW, for the price of those things you can get a glasair, similar look and hangar footprint, but WAAAAAY more airplane.
http://www.barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=890409
 
Last edited:
In Europe they used to market a retract version of that with a little less wingspan. That thing was a rocket ship ! Almost as fast as an MCR-01.
 
I think each pilot will have to form their own impression of the aircraft. I personally do not think it's "junk", and purchased one of my own. You'll have to fly one and make your own decisions.

Is it pitch sensitive? Yes. Is it really that different than other aircraft? Depends on what you're comparing it to. I flew a Remos that is very well coordinated in flight, but is equally pitch sensitive. I flew in a CT that is also pitch sensitive (and Flight Design added springs to help with that sensitivity), but that along with the short coupled airframe means that you're dancing on the rudder pedals more than most. The Sling is also pitch sensitive. The high wing LSA I'm partnered in is not as pitch sensitive, but has its own idiosyncrasies. It really does come down to what you're used to (or can get used to.)
 
They are pitchy (IIRC, later ones had anti-servo tabs to help with that), but I don't think it's fair to call them junk.
 
I have a couple of hours in one and liked it. As fas as LSA go, it is on the upper end useful load wise.
 
Wasn't that the Piper LSA ?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
a friend has had one for ~5 years? and quite enjoys it, has made significant US xcountry trips with it.
I flew in it too.
Click to expand...

Did you like it? Were the controls where they need to be? How were the seats were they comfortable? How much room between you and the pilot?

rtk11 said:
I think each pilot will have to form their own impression of the aircraft. I personally do not think it's "junk", and purchased one of my own. You'll have to fly one and make your own decisions.

Is it pitch sensitive? Yes. Is it really that different than other aircraft? Depends on what you're comparing it to. I flew a Remos that is very well coordinated in flight, but is equally pitch sensitive. I flew in a CT that is also pitch sensitive (and Flight Design added springs to help with that sensitivity), but that along with the short coupled airframe means that you're dancing on the rudder pedals more than most. The Sling is also pitch sensitive. The high wing LSA I'm partnered in is not as pitch sensitive, but has its own idiosyncrasies. It really does come down to what you're used to (or can get used to.)
Click to expand...

They look nice but other than the internet I have never seen one.

Are Rotax engines as reliable as the bigger manufacturers?
 
FloridaPilot said:
They look nice but other than the internet I have never seen one.

Are Rotax engines as reliable as the bigger manufacturers?
Click to expand...

The cockpit is fairly wide - about 46 - 46.5 inches, I believe. I'm a big guy and I have no issues with cockpit width or comfort. I learned to fly in a Remos GX and I think the SportCruiser is as wide as that aircraft.

The Rotax 912 engine is extremely reliable. Even though it has a 2,000 hour TBO, some folks buy those engines and continue flying in experimental aircraft to over 3,000 hours or more. The Rotax engine is built by Bombardier, manufacturer of snowmobile and motorcycle engines. The engines are stout. AV Web put together a video on how Bombardier builds the Rotax engines. Here's the link:


I'm not sure where in Florida you are, but Cruiser Aircraft has taken over distributorship of the CSA SportCruiser and have a distribution facility in Florida... I think somewhere near Palm Beach. But you should be able to find plenty of SportCruisers around. It's one of the most popular light sport aircraft on the market and it seems there's many in Florida.
 
Nice plane. One man's "pitchy" is another man's "sporty" or "responsive". Many LSA are like a sports car compared to a station wagon. Flight and control characteristics are different than standard spam cans. That's why many insurance companies require 10 hour transition training.
 
I think it is very easy, after a few hours, to adapt to any differences in control sensitivity/insensitivity any airplane might have - to the point that you forget it is different than the last one.
 
CT4ME said:
Nice plane. One man's "pitchy" is another man's "sporty" or "responsive". Many LSA are like a sports car compared to a station wagon. Flight and control characteristics are different than standard spam cans. That's why many insurance companies require 10 hour transition training.
Click to expand...

If you look I also told the OP to take the same money and get a glasair.

I'm all for sporty, heck I like cars that scare me a little, and if it wasn't for my backcountry stuff Id have something like a Cassutt, problem is the CZAW is not sporty on ALL axis, or even sporty on all the of the stick, it's sporty on ONE axis on the stick and a little numb on the other axis, that's not thought out, letting a plane with disproportionate control like that go into production screams, well it doesn't scream anything flattering IMO
 
James331 said:
I'm all for sporty, heck I like cars that scare me a little, and if it wasn't for my backcountry stuff Id have something like a Cassutt, problem is the CZAW is not sporty on ALL axis, or even sporty on all the of the stick, it's sporty on ONE axis on the stick and a little numb on the other axis, that's not thought out, letting a plane with disproportionate control like that go into production screams, well it doesn't scream anything flattering IMO
Click to expand...

"Numb" is not a term I've ever heard when referring to a SportCruiser. I wonder if there was an issue with the one example you had flown. Might be worth going up with someone who has another.
 
rtk11 said:
"Numb" is not a term I've ever heard when referring to a SportCruiser. I wonder if there was an issue with the one example you had flown. Might be worth going up with someone who has another.
Click to expand...

Maybe not the right word, but no where near as sensitive in roll as it is in pitch
 
rtk11 said:
I think each pilot will have to form their own impression of the aircraft. I personally do not think it's "junk", and purchased one of my own. You'll have to fly one and make your own decisions.

Is it pitch sensitive? Yes. Is it really that different than other aircraft? Depends on what you're comparing it to. I flew a Remos that is very well coordinated in flight, but is equally pitch sensitive. I flew in a CT that is also pitch sensitive (and Flight Design added springs to help with that sensitivity), but that along with the short coupled airframe means that you're dancing on the rudder pedals more than most. The Sling is also pitch sensitive. The high wing LSA I'm partnered in is not as pitch sensitive, but has its own idiosyncrasies. It really does come down to what you're used to (or can get used to.)
Click to expand...

I'm a little late to the party on this thread, but just recently flew the Sling. I don't believe the Sling is pitch sensitive at all. It is a highly maneuverable LSA. Its handling qualities, in my honest opinion, mirror the Van's RV-12. Both are superb for a LSA. Just saying...
 
I have a number of hours in a few different model years, and I like them.
The early years are a little pitchy, but you get used to it unless you are chronically ham-handed. The newer models are much better.
They are comfortable, and roomy, but you need a canopy shade or it can turn into an oven in the summer. All low wing aircraft suffer from the same issue.
I wish they had a sliding canopy.
Other than that, I have no complaints and have had a lot of fun flying them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top