• Welcome aboard HomebuiltAirplanes.com, your destination for connecting with a thriving community of more than 10,000 active members, all passionate about home-built aviation. Dive into our comprehensive repository of knowledge, exchange technical insights, arrange get-togethers, and trade aircrafts/parts with like-minded enthusiasts. Unearth a wide-ranging collection of general and kit plane aviation subjects, enriched with engaging imagery, in-depth technical manuals, and rare archives.

    For a nominal fee of $99.99/year or $12.99/month, you can immerse yourself in this dynamic community and unparalleled treasure-trove of aviation knowledge.

    Embark on your journey now!

    Click Here to Become a Premium Member and Experience Homebuilt Airplanes to the Fullest!

2180 or 2276?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

n3480h1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
1,522
Location
Iowa
Wrestling with engine decisions (still). What are the pros and cons of the 2180 vs the 2276 engines from GPASC? I'm building a IILS and I am 6ft and 200 pounds, so I want enough power to have at least respectable performance. I want a mag and a secondary ignition, but I can live without a starter and alternator. I had thought hard about the rear drive, but Steve tells me it makes a cowl bump necessary - and I don't want that.

Opinions and reasons?

Tom
 
I can't comment on using the 2276, but I really like my 2180. What I'd like to comment on is the choice of installing the alternator or not. Since you want the secondary ignition, an alternator is almost a must if you operate the secondary all of the time, which is the way I operate mine. The engine runs better with the secondary on, and with the alternator you won't have to worry about keeping your battery charged, and you can power other things like your radio and GPS.
 
The 94mm barrels have thicker walls than the 92mm barrels.

I didn't go that way on my engine, because to fit the 94mm barrels, you have to hog out the case more than I was comfortable with. But 1) I'm reliably informed 94mm barrels are no more (and no less) prone to cracking the case than 92mm, and 2) it's common practice these days to turn down the base of the barrels to allow them to fit without extreme measures. You want the barrel thickness at the TOP where they seal to the heads; down at the case interface, you don't need it so much.

I doubt Steve takes this last step, but it's common in VW dune buggy and drag racing. And I'm sure he'll do it if you ask him nicely ;-)
 
there's no replacement for displacement,... cubic inches make tork, tork moves airplanes.
Ive never heard anyone say "that thing just has too much power"
Need any more cliche's? Tim
 
I built a 2332 rear drive that made very good power. Very fast (and heavy) Sonerai IILS with a lot of prop.

My next build will be a 2387.

Chad
 
I appreciate the experienced comments. So, an alternator it is, and as long as weight does not negate the extra HP, and extra HP does not compromise the mount/structure, I'm all for it. I'm not installing forward controls, so the alternator is affordable weight.

Chad, how do I get to 2387? My "mission" is not to build the BEST Sonerai, but to build a better than average performing Sonerai. I got most of the aerobatic urges out of my system with the Wasp, and this is flat country, so I don't need 150 HP in this little fun flyer. But I want it to climb at a good rate on those high altitude density days, AND I want a cruise speed above 130 mph at "accepted traditional" RPM. I don't think these goals are unreasonable . . . but I'm often reminded that what I want and what I need are two different things.

I'm certainly open to more knowledgeable suggestions and information.

Tom
 
2387 is 94mm pistons with an 86mm crank.
2332 is 94mm pistons with an 84mm crank.
2276 is 94mm pistons with an 82mm crank.
2180 is 92mm pistons with an 82mm crank.

My 2332 would cruise at 150-155mph @ 3300rpm and would do just under 180 at WOT @ 3600rpm or so. 130mph was closer to 3000rpm. My sonerai was 632 empty and would climb at over 1200fpm @ 100mph solo with full fuel.

Just because an engine makes a lot of power doesn't mean it has to rev to the moon. Like I said, I'd go 2387 if I could do it all over, but bear in mind that I was running custom rods (length, bolt size, journal etc) to prevent from having to grind on the cam at all and the standard "clearance for stroker" that CB performance and others offer on the engine case yielded plenty of rod clearance.

Chad
 
I flew with Chad a few years back and I can say that his plane was pretty fast. Here is a pict of him off of my wing. I was going about 155mph at the time.
 

Attachments

  • chad off wing.jpg
    chad off wing.jpg
    17.6 KB · Views: 123
Thanks to all who helped me make an informed decision. And, I also appreciate the information on this site as I searched older posts on the subject. I don't think more relevant information is available anywhere else.

Since I will be flying solo 99.999% of the time, (and I'm too old to race), I think a 2276 is the right engine for my stretch. I expect it will meet most of my goals, and may even exceed them if I don't add a lot of weight. Basic instruments, my iCom A24, and sometimes a small GPS are all that I really need.

Tom
 
I built a 2276 2 years ago,and I was highly impressed by the power it pumps out.
the goal was to have plenty of power to operate from a short grass field near my home.
performance figures are very interesting and the price is about the same as a 2180. It easily climbs at 1100 Fpm at gross and I reached 1500 Fpm solo at 850#,this bird is a real pleasure to fly.
Last winter 2008/2009 I had to replace the barrel shims as the original shims had made their way into the magnesium case so the head studs went loose.I blamed it on the nikasil barrel at this time but with larger(wider) shim I finally solved the problem.

Now my engine is being reassembled as I had some problems last September that were finally related to High water content in the fuel...didn't want to take a chance,and have to land a second time on the highway this same summer, so I had to open it to feel sound & safe...
to make it short and sweet,I would build it again but without the Nikasil,and that's exactly what I'm doing now...
I have to say that, had I been aware of the possibility to build a 2332,on the initial building,I would have probably gone that way...

Gaston
 
Thanks Gaston. If I could climb at 1500 fpm solo I'd be absolutely giddy. It is encouraging to hear of such great performance, and it adds resolve to my decision to go with the 2276. I plan to place an order with GPASC after the 1st of the year. I expect to finish the aircraft within one year from then.

Tom
 
n3480h said:
I'd be absolutely giddy.
Tom
O great. Instead of the RV Grin, We'll have the Sonerai Giddy Group.
Somebody take away his man card, Tim ;D
 
I agree, a review of the Man Laws might be in order here... ;D

A 2332 is best built as a rear drive imho since you can't use Steve's proven crank/hub combo. You can add his hub to an aftermarket crank, but that still leaves the keyway to be a potential issue.

Between a 2180 and 2276, I would go with the 2276 for no other reason than the jugs are thicker. The power bump would be nice if you can cool it too.

Its too early to tell, but the 2276 that uses 94mm jugs cut at the base to fit the 90.5/92mm hole might be the way to go (in that displacement). It leaves the most meat in the case and give you the cylinder wall thickness where needed (at the top).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 103
Schmleff said:
I agree, a review of the Man Laws might be in order here... ;D

A 2332 is best built as a rear drive imho since you can't use Steve's proven crank/hub combo. You can add his hub to an aftermarket crank, but that still leaves the keyway to be a potential issue.

You can have any crank tapered to accept the force one hub, so I don't think you're limited in displacement at all. If the F1 hub works on a 2180 w/o issue, it will work equally as well on a 2276 or a 2332. It's a solid design. I'd be more concerned about the snap ring groove than the keyway personally. Revmaster tapers past that point so that the entire end of the crank is solid (except where the bolt goes obviously)

Steve uses stock VW connecting rods on his engines. The big end of the rod with the stock VW journal is pretty big (55mm if memory serves) so you end up grinding on the cam as well as having to clearance a fair amount of the engine case. to make room for the rotating assembly to rotate. IF you use a crank with Chevy journals (2" journal as used on 283cid engines as well as early Buicks) and rods with 5/16" hardware, you'll clear the cam by more than .100" with an 84mm crank. You should still clear just fine with the 86mm crank, but it would be something to look at.

Scat makes a very nice crank that is of very good quality for a fair price. The current Chinese cranks (like the once CB performance et all sell) are proving to be very good as well and are a fair bit less expensive.

Chad
 
You guys crack me up. ;D Ya, I thought the giddy comment would bring a shot or two, lol.

The cooling question has come up numerous times here, and I take the subject pretty seriously. But, I have an edge: My work involves a lot of time with a articulated arm PCMM (portable coordinate measuring machine). One of the things it can do is to "reverse engineer" the patterns for the cooling shrouds by simply probing the contours, planes, and lines of the engine, and printing out these features as templates. I think there is a good chance that I can produce very efficient tin work from these patterns.

Tom (yep, 100% man, lol).
 
Yes, slip ins. I am tempted to put them on my sonerai this winter. I am going to pull the heads for a valve job anyway. That would take me to a 2276.
 
Gaston-
Are you using the cast nikasil cylinders, or the forged Nickies brand cylinders? ???
I suspect there is a big difference in strength.
I also suspect that the genuine Nickies used with an aluminum block would work very well. Yes, there is a large difference in price, but maybe worth it?
Just wondering.
When I build an engine I want to get the most efficiency out of it, and only want to do it once. (Maybe once again when I wear it out 10 years later. ;D)
Doug
 
Back
Top