I'm posting in hopes of folks punching holes in my idea, so feel encouraged to explain the errors of my thinking.

This may not be much a fun factor to others, but robust rate of climb is something I truly enjoy. I can't help but think the rate of climb of the Carbon Cub is a strong selling point for a new $200K Cub.

I know the Titan Tornado II isn't what anyone here would consider an acceptable back country plane, but from reading posts here I value this forum membership's expertise.

OK, here is my idea for a rate of climb hot rod. With an empty weight of 440 lbs, MTOW of 1000 lbs, and popular engine option of the Jab 3300 @ 130 hp, it does a very respectable 2000 fpm. The 3300 weighs 184 lbs ramp, but since it is a pusher, a increase in weight has a smaller influence on CG than a tractor. I would like to try the new UL Power UL 520iS. I'm a big fan of EFI, and the ramp weight of this engine is 238 lbs, just 54 lbs more. At 200 hp @ 3200, my guess would put it 2700 fpm. I would still want it E-SLA, so if a climb pitch prop was used to limit speed to 120 kt, would this still be SLA compliant in the same way the Carbon Cub is with the throttle placard giving max rpm at different altitudes? Does anyone know if the Titan II has enough tail feathers and moment-arm leverage to deal with the added 70 hp? Don't write me off as crazy, I have 525 hp in a 1790 lb roadster and admit being a immature power to weight junkie.

Do you already have this Titan Tornado? Or is that just a variable in your recipe?

Nope, don't have one, just researching viable candidates.

Put a big bore 912 on it. It will cost you less and you'll swing a much larger prop...hence more climb.

The guy with the most experience with this style of airplane on this forum is S-12 flyer. I'm not sure he'll want to comment on engineering data for the Titan but he has flown one and had a 912 powered S-12 too. And in a pinch he can help you out with any questions you may have about the measles too.

At our local fly in, there was a Tornado II with a Rotax, can't say if it was the 80 or 100hp. But when this guy left, everyone stopped what they were doing, his climbout was ridiculous. I don't know if the guy weighed 100lbs and he had 2gal of fuel or what, but it was something to watch that's for sure.

In order for it to be an E-LSA it has to be built to the exact standard of the S-LSA version. Not possible with any UL Power engine . If you buy an ELSA Titan II you can re-power it but it would require an inspection by a DAR for a substantial change in HP / engine. Back to E-AB.
Then you would have to fly off the hours and develop the limitations with flight testing.
Also, the UL is a direct drive engine like the 3300 and it is limited in prop selection to keep tip speeds down.
It doesn't matter if it is a pusher or not. Aft weight is deadly in a stall/spin. Especially with the small "flying tail" elevator on the Titan. A 520iS would be way aft of the rear CG. A 3300 is pushing it. And adding weight in the nose is limited due to the 1100 lb gross.
The additional weight would make it a one person plane to stay under gross on the II.
Also, the Titan II doesn't carry enough fuel to support more than about 2 hours of flight with a 3300.
As Mr 701 suggested, I would put 912 with a Zipper kit on a Titan if I was going to mod one. Throw a 3 blade prop on it and out climb most Carbon Cubs.
And with the speed wing, you'll out run all of them. You'd still be limited to a little over 3 hours of flight. But al least a small passenger would be possible.
The back seat in the Titan II is really small so it does limit the size of your passenger.
Adapt some one piece aluminum spring gear like the Kitfox or the Zenith 701 and add the spring nose gear. Some Carlisle Turf tires and you would have a reasonable Back / Side Country aircraft. Not a Carbon Cub. Not ever close. But it would be a hoot to fly none the less.

You'd be better off looking into one of the newer stretch models with higher gross and more fuel. They also have a wide CG range. It's conceivable that you might get a UL to work on one of them with weight in the nose. But there goes the budget part of the equation.

If good rate of climb is all you want, maybe look into rockets?

S-12Flyer wrote:In order for it to be an E-LSA it has to be built to the exact standard of the S-LSA version. Not possible with any UL Power engine . If you buy an ELSA Titan II you can re-power it but it would require an inspection by a DAR for a substantial change in HP / engine. Back to E-AB.
Then you would have to fly off the hours and develop the limitations with flight testing.
Also, the UL is a direct drive engine like the 3300 and it is limited in prop selection to keep tip speeds down.
It doesn't matter if it is a pusher or not. Aft weight is deadly in a stall/spin. Especially with the small "flying tail" elevator on the Titan. A 520iS would be way aft of the rear CG. A 3300 is pushing it. And adding weight in the nose is limited due to the 1100 lb gross.
The additional weight would make it a one person plane to stay under gross on the II.
Also, the Titan II doesn't carry enough fuel to support more than about 2 hours of flight with a 3300.
As Mr 701 suggested, I would put 912 with a Zipper kit on a Titan if I was going to mod one. Throw a 3 blade prop on it and out climb most Carbon Cubs.
And with the speed wing, you'll out run all of them. You'd still be limited to a little over 3 hours of flight. But al least a small passenger would be possible.
The back seat in the Titan II is really small so it does limit the size of your passenger.
Adapt some one piece aluminum spring gear like the Kitfox or the Zenith 701 and add the spring nose gear. Some Carlisle Turf tires and you would have a reasonable Back / Side Country aircraft. Not a Carbon Cub. Not ever close. But it would be a hoot to fly none the less.

You'd be better off looking into one of the newer stretch models with higher gross and more fuel. They also have a wide CG range. It's conceivable that you might get a UL to work on one of them with weight in the nose. But there goes the budget part of the equation.

The expertise, this is why I ask my questions here. Your first response of it not being able to fit ELSA ended my crusade for rate of climb king. In the used market there are plenty of ll's with 80 hp Jab and 100 hp Rotax, but it seems the newer S and SS aren't hitting Barnstormers. I guess whatever rate of climb a 912S with a larger diameter prop can generate is what I'll have to be happy with.

Like the idea of the aluminum spring gear for some off field landings.

Short of a in flight adjustable pitch prop (another item that would not fit a ELSA), any suggestions for improved rate of climb? I'm 245 lbs and will be flying at higher altitudes, hence my desire for climb performance.

A Titan Tornado to Cub is like comparing a 727 to C-130. I've flown in a few of them and they perform well and climb well but with that climb rate will also come a take off roll and approach speed 3-4 times that of a cub. I wasn't impressed at all. If you want a budget STOL plane experimental look into an early Avid or Kitfox. I average 5-7 second takeoff rolls and climb at 1000 fpm...cruises at the speed of slow but for a $15K plane that burns 4 gph and still get's me to Mile Hi from California it works. A 912 Powered Kitfox IV can be had for mid 20's and it'll cruise at 100+ and still get in and out of 500ft no problem. I am sure they are nice if you can afford them but I cannot fathom paying a quarter mil for a cub. Lots of experimental cubs out there that will run with a Carbon Cub all day for a lifetime of fuel less to buy.

At 245 I would highly recommend that you find a Titan II and sit in one. They are not exactly roomy.
I feel your pain. I struggling with my weight.
Most are built with side switch and control panels next to the seat. Makes for a narrow feel.
A Zipper kit with a 3 blade prop will yield sustained climbs in excess of 2000 to 2500 FPM.
You could prop it flatter and get even more but you lose cruise speed and range on limited fuel.
Depends on your mission.
With a cruise in excess of 125 and a stall in the low 40s it's pretty hard to beat for the price.
About the only thing you could do is add the engine cowling to help with some drag. It's already a fairly streamline airframe.
The gear mods and the bigger tires will cut both cruise and climb a bit but open up some limited backcountry stuff.
I really like the Titans and I love the way they fly. Brisk but stable. Comfy race car style seats. Some of the best visibility in an LSA and a sexy fighter jet look.
You want climb rates and an awesome look in an LSA?
Get a Titan T-51.
As far as an Avid or a Kitfox 2,3, or 4, at 245 you probably won't have room for a passenger and even with a zipper kit you'll be lucky to get 1000 fpm climbs.
But they are, as noted, far better Stol aircraft and better off field.
Again, it depends on your mission.

The only Zipper I know of is a UL. Could you offer a link to learn more?

Do you mean the larger cylinders for the 914? Around 135 hp?

Check out this thread.
https://www.backcountrypilot.org/commun ... 912s-15221

S-12Flyer wrote:As far as an Avid or a Kitfox 2,3, or 4, at 245 you probably won't have room for a passenger and even with a zipper kit you'll be lucky to get 1000 fpm climbs.
But they are, as noted, far better Stol aircraft and better off field.
Again, it depends on your mission.

My Kitfox IV with an 80 hp 912 (650 empty, me at 235 and half fuel) will easily sustain 1000 fpm through 5000'. With a 100 hp 912, 1500 or more would be easy. With a Zipper and a decent prop 2000 should be more than possible.

I don't understand why so many on this site underestimate or outright dismiss the Avid/Kitfox line.

deckofficer wrote:Nope, don't have one, just researching viable candidates.

The Titan Tornado does not have a climb wing, if I recall it has a semi-symmetrical low-lift airfoil and not a lot of span. The reason for this is probably the small tail volume... a longer or higher lift wing would surely have more pitching moment than that little tail can deal with.

If you want climb rate, get an airplane with a lot of wing area and ahigh-lift airfoil, like Avid Flyer said. Y'know what... maybe the aviation universe is trying to tell you something, what with a guy whose forum name is Avid Flyer, who flies an airplane called Avid Flyer, and he's suggesting that you might want to buy an Avid Flyer, because his Avid Flyer has that kind of rocket ship takeoff and climb performance.

What's that, you say? Where could you ever possibly find such an airplane... a light weight Avid Flyer model B taildragger with a high-lift airfoil that would climb like a friggin' skyrocket with that 912 engine... one with enough wing area to fly slow so you can get in to those short strips first so you could blast out of those little clearings like the Millennium Falcon leaving Mos Eisley Spaceport in a hurry? And what's that... you say you want to buy this high performance airplane on the cheap... but you also want an airplane that's proven safe and airworthy at the same time?

You drive a hard bargain sir.... but today's your lucky day because I'm selling something that's just what the doctor ordered

Send me an off-forum direct e-mail at victorbravo )at{ sbcglobal >dot< net and we'll talk turkey.

I'm not selling anything...take that for what it's worth. The Titan Tornado is in fact a phenomenal high lift airfoil. It is a knock off of a design called the Thunder Gull that had an airfoil designed by Mark Bierle. It looks VERY similar to the 23012 or possibly the 43012. The problem with any pusher in the STOL department is the high thrust line pushes the nose down...so under hard acceleration the high thrust line hinders the tail being able to pull the nose up to rotate at a slow airspeed. That being said I personally don't like the idea of taking any pusher into rugged stuff...in the event of a little landing mishap, the heaviest chunk of steel (the engine) is behind your head...know a few deceased pilots that would still be here except for being hit by the engine coming forward. Everyone buys their own tickets and takes their own chances.

The Avid and Kitfox are incredible bush planes...anyone who has flown them or watched one close knows it

Randy Schlitter told us his old pusher (S9 I think?) will eat anything in his stable for short field performance. Don't think it is in production but he told my dad and partner last year he was thinking about pulling it back out.

Not sure which he meant...The S9 is the single seat acrobatic tractor. The S12 and S14 are/were pushers...With the big wing options both were respectable short field takeoff birds. Neither would hold a candle to an old Avid or Kitfox.

kilocharlie wrote:I'm not selling anything...take that for what it's worth. The Titan Tornado is in fact a phenomenal high lift airfoil. It is a knock off of a design called the Thunder Gull that had an airfoil designed by Mark Bierle. It looks VERY similar to the 23012 or possibly the 43012. The problem with any pusher in the STOL department is the high thrust line pushes the nose down...so under hard acceleration the high thrust line hinders the tail being able to pull the nose up to rotate at a slow airspeed. That being said I personally don't like the idea of taking any pusher into rugged stuff...in the event of a little landing mishap, the heaviest chunk of steel (the engine) is behind your head...know a few deceased pilots that would still be here except for being hit by the engine coming forward. Everyone buys their own tickets and takes their own chances.

The Avid and Kitfox are incredible bush planes...anyone who has flown them or watched one close knows it

The Titans are stressed for aerobatics. Any "mishap that would rip the engine from it's mounts and send it ripping through the cabin would not be "little" nor would the same impact be likely to be survivable in an older Kitfox\Avid. I have watched a Tornado hit a hidden ditch and flip over its's nose onto it's back. the fuselage was totaled and the wings bent but the engine was still in place. The pilot was hurt but walked away.
The Tornado is not designed to be a Backcountry plane. The Kitfox \ Avid is. With the same engine, the Tornado will out climb and out run any Kitfox \ Avid and land nearly as slow. But it will never be half as good in the backcountry. It all depends on your mission.
A LOT of pilots find the older Kitfox \ Avids a handful on the ground. Plenty of them have been ground looped and several pilots have not walked away from them.
There is no "perfect plane". The O.P. was asking if a Tornado could be modded to be a high rate of climb rocket on a budget. The answer is yes.
Will it be as capable as a Kitox \Avid in the Backcountry? That answer is no.
Are they both fun aircraft at a small fraction of the cost of a Carbon Cub? Heck yes.

Owned A Cessna for a few years and a Super Cub, Now fly a Kitfox Outback (series 5) with most of the 7 Mods. One of the most fun planes I have flown, Have just over 1000 hrs on it and have made over 30 trips from the NW to S.CA and lots of back country usage. Less room than the 182 or Cub, I am 6'3" and 250 lbs but adequate for me and the Mrs when we go together. I fly on about 1/2 the fuel as the Cub and 1/3 of the 182 and maintenance costs are significantly less. So for my purposes and the Costs it is the best bang for the Bucks. It meets my Mission purposes 90+% of the time and that is what you have to consider.

This may seem off topic, but bear with me. In times past, my older son and I often rode together on the Ride the Rockies and Tour de Wyoming. Occasionally my younger son would ride, too. I rode a Trek 520, one of the finest touring bikes ever made--steel, sturdy, and heavy. I had had it modified with mountain bike gearing for the steep hills of the Rockies. It's a great bike--comfy for long days in the saddle--and heavy. With the stuff I carried daily, "heavy" was 37 lbs.

So one year after riding a couple of high end bikes lent by vendors, I got the idea that if I'd spend several thou on a high end aluminum bike, I'd be a much better rider, faster, even more comfortable, because I could bring my bike weight down to 22 lbs. ready for the road.

As I was describing my thoughts to him, No. 1 Son brought me up short. He asked me to turn sideways. "Dad, it's not your bike that needs to lose 15 lbs."

I still have weight problems, hovering back and forth around 195 lbs. now--which is honestly a good 15 lbs. more than when my kid pointed out the error in my thinking. I enjoy eating too much! So I say this with some compassion and understanding, but if you could follow my kid's advice and drop 45 lbs., it would make a huge difference in the climb performance of almost any 2 place, 100hp airplane. Issues like high lift airfoils, climb props, etc. are less important than the gross weight being lifted.

Cary