Single seat, 2180 Vw Powered gyro questions

skyguynca

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2004
Messages
1,413
Location
Acampo, CA
Aircraft
depends on what I have sold recently
Total Flight Time
5000+
How many of you guys have flown a single seat gyro with a 2180 VW?

What was the performance like?

What was the takeoff weight?

What is the lightest 2180 vw you have seen?

Would a VW redrive make alot of difference in performance especially on a drop keel with the bigger prop?

Looking to do a winter project and just looking for facts and opinions before I dig in and start.

Thanks
David
 
Much depends on your personal weight. If you're under 200, keep the rest of the gyro light and are using an efficient rotor, a 2180 should provide lively performance.

I got reasonable climb out of an 1835 with inefficient Bensen blades, a very light, stripped Bensen frame and me at a svelte 165.

Based on my VW experience, I'd argue against a redrive. The purpose of a redrive is to allow the engine to rev higher. VW's don't like to rev; mine was clearly straining at around 4K. With the 2180, you've stroked the engine, and that makes it even less happy to rev. In fact, the traditional strategy with VW's has been to increase displacement and limit the rev's as much as possible.

My overall impression of the VW is that it's not very robust for gyro use. While superficially similar to the Rotax 900 series, there is no comparison when it comes to ruggedness and reliability. In fact, I got far better reliability with TWO-stroke Rotaxes than with the VW. The V-Dubs was forever breaking down. I had some exciting deadstick off-field landings as a result.
 
Much depends on your personal weight. If you're under 200, keep the rest of the gyro light and are using an efficient rotor, a 2180 should provide lively performance.

I got reasonable climb out of an 1835 with inefficient Bensen blades, a very light, stripped Bensen frame and me at a svelte 165.

Based on my VW experience, I'd argue against a redrive. The purpose of a redrive is to allow the engine to rev higher. VW's don't like to rev; mine was clearly straining at around 4K. With the 2180, you've stroked the engine, and that makes it even less happy to rev. In fact, the traditional strategy with VW's has been to increase displacement and limit the rev's as much as possible.

My overall impression of the VW is that it's not very robust for gyro use. While superficially similar to the Rotax 900 series, there is no comparison when it comes to ruggedness and reliability. In fact, I got far better reliability with TWO-stroke Rotaxes than with the VW. The V-Dubs was forever breaking down. I had some exciting deadstick off-field landings as a result.
I have to agree. The old axiom of "no substitute for cubic inches (cubic centimeters)" was applied to the modified aircooled VW boxer engines in an attempt to create more horsepower. Thus, TBO suffered. One has to remember that in 1936, the original VW Type 1 engine started out as a 985 cc producing around 25 hp. After WW2, 1100. 1200, 1300, 1500, and 1600 cc engines were built from 36 hp to 60 hp.

Interestingly, the Rotax 912 80 hp engines are around 1200 cc whereas the 912S & ULS 100 hp series are I believe around 1350 cc. The tolerances for these engines are much higher than the VW air-cooled boxers.

Wayne

Wayne
 
I have to agree. The old axiom of "no substitute for cubic inches (cubic centimeters)" was applied to the modified aircooled VW boxer engines in an attempt to create more horsepower. Thus, TBO suffered. One has to remember that in 1936, the original VW Type 1 engine started out as a 985 cc producing around 25 hp. After WW2, 1100. 1200, 1300, 1500, and 1600 cc engines were built from 36 hp to 60 hp.

Interestingly, the Rotax 912 80 hp engines are around 1200 cc whereas the 912S & ULS 100 hp series are I believe around 1350 cc. The tolerances for these engines are much higher than the VW air-cooled boxers.

Wayne

Wayne
I have built a lot of hot VWs for off road racing. I think the biggest gains in newer engines are primarily from better fueling systems.
I saw a show where they took an old Chrysler slant 6- 232CI I believe, and they put an injection system, better breathing head intake and exhaust with turbo and intercooler and they were conservatively getting over 450hp with 550 ft. lbs of torque out of the former 90hp engine....
VWs are very robust and have a lot of available improvements. If you can overcome the shaft loading problem, I think you could have a solid engine.
If it were me, I would build modest displacement and let the turbo do the rest.....
I think there are better choices now, Viking and Raven come to mind.....
 
I have built a lot of hot VWs for off road racing. I think the biggest gains in newer engines are primarily from better fueling systems.
I saw a show where they took an old Chrysler slant 6- 232CI I believe, and they put an injection system, better breathing head intake and exhaust with turbo and intercooler and they were conservatively getting over 450hp with 550 ft. lbs of torque out of the former 90hp engine....
VWs are very robust and have a lot of available improvements. If you can overcome the shaft loading problem, I think you could have a solid engine.
If it were me, I would build modest displacement and let the turbo do the rest.....
I think there are better choices now, Viking and Raven come to mind.....

Mark,

Was that Motor Trends Engine Masters? I enjoy watching that show.

Wayne
 
Mark,

Was that Motor Trends Engine Masters? I enjoy watching that show.

Wayne
I don't know, I was channel surfing over the air tv and came in on a show were they were rebuilding that motor for someones personal car.
I knew the slant 6 was tough, but had no clue you could push it that far.
If you like that you may love the crazy Finnish diesel racing.
They must be bored during those long winters and figured out how to get 700hp.
out of a 4800lb, Mercedes diesel wagon to win drift races:


Or drag racing a Mercedes diesel sedan...:

 
Top