Jalien 0 #51 June 18, 2013 Well, I was hoping that this wouldn't simply descend into arguments about the existence or otherwise of climate change, and its causes... but I think there are some useful points made. My conclusion is that no-one's really convinced me otherwise that I'm a hypocrite for being environmentally-minded and a skydiver. There's some justification in the "carbon budgeting" approach - i.e. reducing fuel use elsewhere, so you can keep skydiving. I think I'm going to have to minimise my skydiving in order to salve my conscience... just as soon as I get my C licence... and my wingsuit first flight... Oh dear, hypocrisy seems like my natural clothing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Primarily papers on exhaust gas analysis. In traditional well-tuned recip engines you see significant fractions (a few percent) of HC, CO and NOx. HC is unburned fuel which contributes to pollution but not CO2 production. NOx are nitrogen oxides that contribute to smog - but again not to CO2 production, since they contain no carbon to begin with. The exhaust of a car with a three-way converter is almost pure water and CO2. The remaining amounts of CO, NOx etc are measured in parts per million.
However, as TP mentioned above, that's for a 206 (recip engine.) For a 208 (turbine engine) there's a lot more unburned HC. When you see a jet taking off trailing smoke, that's soot, which is partially burned carbon. Turbines use significantly less of the available fuel than recips since their combustion is much less controlled. Turbines aren't used in aviation because they are efficient, they're used because they are smaller, lighter, more reliable etc.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites