X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.122] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.13) with ESMTP id 3580989 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:49:47 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.122; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from [192.168.0.19] (really [66.57.38.121]) by cdptpa-omta02.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090414194911510.WPTZ9765.cdptpa-omta02.mail.rr.com> for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:49:11 +0000 Message-ID: <49E4E92F.6040702@nc.rr.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:51:11 -0400 From: Ernest Christley User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Catalyst in an aircraft application References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christopher Owens wrote: > Good afternoon all, > > In this day and age of EPA, pollution control, green earth, etc., I > wondered about the viability of an exhaust catalyst in an aircraft > application. Are there any reasons not to use a catalytic converter > in this capacity? Weight? Exhaust restrictions? Other? > Weight and exhaust restriction are the start of it. I believe the rest is that there is not much payoff. The cat gets the most payoff during hard accelerations, which you do a lot of in a car. Not so much in a plane. -- http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org