Jump to content

Zoche diesels


obxtoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 9 months later...

Don't hold your breath, they've been saying they're 2 years away from production for over a decade now. Do some googleing on Zoche and see what I mean. It'd totally revolutionize aviation if it ever came to fruition but I just don't see it happening, always seems to be just around the corner...:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I'm guessing someone bought the rights to supress the concept. They did have running and fully operational engines prior to progress halting. It was a family business and I am just guessing that they got an offer that they couldn't refuse.

 

Don't hold your breath, they've been saying they're 2 years away from production for over a decade now. Do some googleing on Zoche and see what I mean. It'd totally revolutionize aviation if it ever came to fruition but I just don't see it happening, always seems to be just around the corner...:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing someone bought the rights to supress the concept. They did have running and fully operational engines prior to progress halting. It was a family business and I am just guessing that they got an offer that they couldn't refuse.

Why would they spend money to kill an idea that died at the end of WWI, a two stroke radial? almost all of there claims as to how it is so great an idea turn out to be just the opposite. two strocks use less fuel, Radials have less frontal area, weight less and dont vibrate. they have been breathing to many diesel fumes.

Evolultion Eze RG -a two place side by side-200 Knots on 200 HP. A&P / pilot for over 30 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynn: You need to get your facts straight regarding 2 stroke diesels. If you check out this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_fuel_consumption

 

It contains a table that shows that a current (2006) marine 2 stroke diesel manufactured by Wärtsilä-Sulzer holds the record for best specific fuel consumption @ 163 g/kWh as compared to 300g/kWh for a gasoline engine running at peak efficiency.

 

To give a typical example: If you were to run an O-235 at 100hp in cruise and you achieved a typical 300g/kWh efficiency, this translates to a fuel burn of 9.3 gal/hr. In reality many folks require less than 100hp at cruise, so they may use less fuel. If you had a scaled down version of the marine diesel, the consumption would be 5.05 gal/hr under exactly the same conditions.

 

This leaves only considerations relating to the modern execution of the design to achieve acceptable weight and compactness (which were achieved by Zoche) to provide a viable powerplant. The failure by Zoche to deliver is saddening, because we have all seen examples of the misuse of government funding to develop technology which the government allows the development contractors to retain patent protection on, even after they subsequently fail to deliver the technology to the marketplace. This is exactly what happened in the case of the GAP projects. No diesel in sight and the small turbines developed have a price tag of $250k each, despite government funding of the development.

 

Why would they spend money to kill an idea that died at the end of WWI, a two stroke radial? almost all of there claims as to how it is so great an idea turn out to be just the opposite. two strocks use less fuel, Radials have less frontal area, weight less and dont vibrate. they have been breathing to many diesel fumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynn: You need to get your facts straight regarding 2 stroke diesels. If you check out this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_fuel_consumption

 

It contains a table that shows that a current (2006) marine 2 stroke diesel manufactured by Wärtsilä-Sulzer holds the record for best specific fuel consumption @ 163 g/kWh as compared to 300g/kWh for a gasoline engine running at peak efficiency.

 

To give a typical example: If you were to run an O-235 at 100hp in cruise and you achieved a typical 300g/kWh efficiency, this translates to a fuel burn of 9.3 gal/hr. In reality many folks require less than 100hp at cruise, so they may use less fuel. If you had a scaled down version of the marine diesel, the consumption would be 5.05 gal/hr under exactly the same conditions.

 

 

Yes and that is true of large watercooled diesels where they don't have to carry there own coolant that is to be recycled in a closed system. the diesel can weigh what ever it takes to make it run. not a lightweight aircooled unit using cooling air as hot as 100 degrees F and the naturally unbalenced radial crankshaft configuration. when you scale them down they always loose efficiency if not then it would have already been done with a smaller engine.

Evolultion Eze RG -a two place side by side-200 Knots on 200 HP. A&P / pilot for over 30 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynn, you are assuming an uneven number of cylinders, like what is used for conventional radials (4 strokes). With 4 strokes that fire every other rotation, an uneven number of cylinders is typically chosen. Since a 2 stroke fires on every revolution, one can use an even number of cylinders and balance the reciprocating masses almost perfectly by positioning the cylinders / pistons directly opposite one another. See the pictures on this page: http://www.zoche.de/specs.html

 

There is nothing conceptually wrong with their design. There are many air cooled diesel truck engines used in desert environments. As can be read in this abstract http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/951047 Deutz, one of the most respected engine manufacturers in Europe, has been building air cooled diesel engines for some time. They are also popular in some of the coldest parts of the world (russian tundra). I personally have seen them in operation in Namibia and Angola in very harsh conditions, ambient temperatures up to 113F, soft sand in low range for days.

 

2 stroke diesels are unlikely to make it in passenger car applications because of the low emissions requirement and also because the engine dynamic (runs at half the RPM of a conventional diesel) just does not fit what most people want. But for aviation, a max RPM of 1800-2000 rpm is considered perfect for direct drive and low prop noise. Not surprisingly, GA has not developed it with much gusto. Wilksch Airmotive has started production of their inline 2 stroke diesels, but because of currency issues (high value of the british pound vs devalued $) their engines are quite expensive for this market. Wilksch does have a conventional mechanical injection pump, so this does severely limit their efficiency but for the benefit of not requiring sophisticated engine controls.

 

Those in the market who have succeded (Thielert / Centurion) use modern common rail injection with an ECU. There is also this outfit: http://www.eco-motors.com/Products.htm who are just getting going with production. One can download the quote here: http://www.eco-motors.com/images/Downloads/Eco-Motors-General-Info.pdf Basically a 100hp engine will run $17 600 at present exchange rates (without radiator, prop, spinner, engine mount etc). 1/3 less fuel consumption than a Rotax 912 for 50lb higher weight.

 

Yes and that is true of large watercooled diesels where they don't have to carry there own coolant that is to be recycled in a closed system. the diesel can weigh what ever it takes to make it run. not a lightweight aircooled unit using cooling air as hot as 100 degrees F and the naturally unbalenced radial crankshaft configuration. when you scale them down they always loose efficiency if not then it would have already been done with a smaller engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynn, you are assuming an uneven number of cylinders, like what is used for conventional radials (4 strokes). With 4 strokes that fire every other rotation, an uneven number of cylinders is typically chosen. Since a 2 stroke fires on every revolution, one can use an even number of cylinders and balance the reciprocating masses almost perfectly by positioning the cylinders / pistons directly opposite one another. See the pictures...

But none of the pictures show what the crankshaft configuration is. with all 4 cylinders (& con rods) in a single plane there would have to be a master conrod with the other 3 attached to its periphery - meaning it ain't entirely balanced, whatever the blurb says. If they haven't grasped this it might explain why they never seem to sell any motors.

 

Posted Image

 

It will be a lot easier to get excited by all these potential vapor-wares if they delivered some, you know, have a price list and pikkies of happy customers and excuses for the odd fatality...

Mark Spedding - Spodman
Darraweit Guim - Australia
Cozy IV #1331 -  Chapter 09
www.mykitlog.com/Spodman
www.sites.google.com/site/thespodplane/the-spodplane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the attached pdf. Last few pages have the pictures. Certainly the con rod is radical, but the claim that the bearings are always loaded in compression at any operating point is apparently true for a 2 stroke. At the top of the stroke you have all of the cylinder pressure and at the bottom the inertial load of the decelerating piston and con rod.

 

Wilksch apparently use a ball end on the con rod at the piston end, which is similar, but much easier to machine that the Zoche idea. Regular gudgeon pins and bushings apparently cannot be adequately lubricated for this service (diesel 2 strokes).

 

Got a link for that?

Zoche diesel main filing DE9007543U1_29.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google "patent 5197416" for Zoche's con-rod design.

Google "patent 6334385" and "patent 6408813" for Wilksch's conrod design.

From Google, select US Patent database.

Zoche is using a concave cup on the piston end, Wilksch a convex sphere.

 

Wilksch appears to be moving forward, as patents are new.

 

Can't attach JPG's of patents, as they are too large. You may need to follow instructions on US Patent Offices site to load free TIFF viewer.

 

JCP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Subject: RE: Reply to post 'Zoche diesels'

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:49:33 -0800

From: "Jonathan Matcho"

To: "John Papson" <fly_a_duck@yahoo.com>

 

John,

 

 

 

Replies to these mails do not make it to the original poster or the forum – I wish they did. You should post this info. on the forum.

 

 

 

Thanks, and have a great holiday!

 

Jon

 

 

 

From: John Papson [mailto:fly_a_duck@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 2:16 PM

To: Canard Zone

Subject: Re: Reply to post 'Zoche diesels'

 

 

 

Larry:

 

You can look up any US patent here:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/patimg.htm

 

The following URL leads you to the tools needed to view patent images:

http://www.uspto.gov/patft/help/images.htm

 

regards

 

John P

 

Canard Zone <JonMatcho@CanardZone.com> wrote:

 

Dear JCPJCP,

 

Larry Wiechman has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Zoche diesels - in the Diesel forum of Canard Zone.

 

This thread is located at:

http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1571&goto=newpost

 

Here is the message that has just been posted:

 

***************

Got a link for that?

***************

 

There may be other replies also, but you will not receive any more notifications until you visit the forum again.

 

All the best,

Canard Zone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

anybody know about the progress of this motor? I want to put it on a Berkut to utillize its full potential. Is it still vapor-ware? hope not.

If it ever comes to exist (and I would bet a year's paycheck against it) it won't fit well on a Berkut. You'd end up with the cowls going straight back from the firewall, curling around the cylenders and stopping around the prop shaft. The DeltaHawk is closer. But really, Berkut was designed around the Lycoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it ever comes to exist (and I would bet a year's paycheck against it) it won't fit well on a Berkut. You'd end up with the cowls going straight back from the firewall, curling around the cylenders and stopping around the prop shaft. The DeltaHawk is closer. But really, Berkut was designed around the Lycoming.

 

Well, I guess mine would be an "experimental" a/c then, like all the rest;)

 

I would have to do some research and modification to the cowling, right? And the prop shaft could be extended to lengthen the cowl and streamline it a little more.

I need a Berkut with a Zoche. Whaa? A guy can dream!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess mine would be an "experimental" a/c then, like all the rest;)

 

I would have to do some research and modification to the cowling, right? And the prop shaft could be extended to lengthen the cowl and streamline it a little more.

I'd suggest you grab the Berkut 3 view that's floating around on the web, blow up the side view to useable size, then draw a box the size of the Zoche engine profie. Put it aft of the firewall, make a rough guess as to the CG of the engine and how far back from the firewall it should be. Then draw 2 lines for the profile of the top and bottom cowl.

 

Fiddle with them. See if you can get it to look tollerable while keeping the prop far enough forward so you don't get a prop strike on landing, and preferably with less than an 18" prop extension. (the gyroscopic forces get huge when you get that long".)

 

'Cause, we couldn't make it work, and we tried for a long time.

 

And there's that whole the-engine-is-vaporware thing, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the restraint shown here by a 50 something professional who built the Berkut, is just absolutely amazing.

My .02

Self confessed Wingnut.

Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.?

Get up off that couch!!! =)

 

Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HEY!!!

 

I got 2 more years till I'm 50!!!

My bad, Richard....my point was he didn't understand your level of involvement. Will you maybe make it to Columbia for the fly-in in a couple weeks?

Self confessed Wingnut.

Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.?

Get up off that couch!!! =)

 

Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information