Magic Zach Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 If at all. Are there any affects? All I could find was how aircraft affect the ozone, not vice versa. Hardware: T-50 Mongoose, VKB STECS, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, RTX 4090, Ryzen 7 7800X3D, 32GB DDR5-3600, Samsung 990 PRO Modules: AH-64D, Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, F-16C, F-15E, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8 Maps: Normandy, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria, Germany
aileron Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) When I was working on the C130 AMP program we had the LC130 crews out of Williams Field / Pegasus Field (I might have this wrong) Antarctica talk to us about the hole in the ozone and its effect on their aircraft. They said it would peel the paint on the upper portion of the fuselage at altitude, and was not good for their skin. Never heard anything else about it. Two other things of interest which are not related to your question were: A. They said in fact yes global warming was a thing because of all the back and forth that goes on with that subject. I guess Pegasus field was becoming a problem with melting. If I understand correctly it is now shutdown. They proceeded to show us slide after slide of the effects of their melting airfield and the the bay area over the years and how it was getting worst. B. They could never ground the aircraft in the arctic and the aircraft would start to have problems with static electricity buildup; avionics would start acting up. Finally when they landed at a land based airbase their would be a huge discharge upon touchdown. If I remember correctly a huge spark upon landing. Edited January 25, 2018 by aileron
Gearbox Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 The ozone hole wasn't really related to global warming though. CFC propellants for aerosol cans and freon used in air conditioning were thought to make its way to the upper atmosphere and damage the ozone layer. Usage of these was banned/sharply curtailed and the hole pretty much repaired itself. But this was about ultraviolet damage to people, not temperature.
aileron Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 Yea I made the statement that the other two facts were not related to his question. Also I remember them saying something about the lack of ozone was bad for their eyes. So I guess the only thing I can draw from this is ozone protects us from ultraviolet rays which is good for the paint, your skin and eyes. Article here talks about the recovering ozone layer. The hole is seasonal, and won't be fully recovered until 2050. Its definitely on its way to recovery though as you suggest. ;) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/
Magic Zach Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 My question in particular was if the ozone layer had any affect on combustion in particular. Hardware: T-50 Mongoose, VKB STECS, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, RTX 4090, Ryzen 7 7800X3D, 32GB DDR5-3600, Samsung 990 PRO Modules: AH-64D, Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, F-16C, F-15E, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8 Maps: Normandy, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria, Germany
ShadowVonChadwick Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 Its well above the flight ceiling of almost all Aircraft RyZen5 3600x, MSI GamingX RX 5700xt, AX-370-K7, 16 Gig G-Skil 3200 :thumbup:, Antec 650w (Still),Win10 on 256G 870 NVMe, 860+850 Evo for Apps, 2x1TB WD HDs for :music_whistling:, TR5 :detective:, Hog stick:joystick:, 3x TM MFD Bezels. a 32" AOC, @ 2560x1440, no floppy & a crappy chair :pain:. Its hard to find a chair that accepts you as you grow.:pilotfly:
craig_sez Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 Military save $ on painting by letting them all fly a few times up that way......Thats how they go from navy grey to the green and brown camo color....Thats how they tan their planes to makem look pretty.. The "SCALES" of aeronautical performance will weigh heavily on your next move..
Emmy Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 Exposure to UV can play hell with canopies. It's one of the reasons (plus just being scratched by flying sand) that they SprayLat canopies at AMARG and why the Pima Museum prefers to paint them. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] http://www.476vfightergroup.com/content.php High Quality Aviation Photography For Personal Enjoyment And Editorial Use. www.crosswindimages.com
Gearbox Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 Exposure to UV can play hell with canopies. It's one of the reasons (plus just being scratched by flying sand) that they SprayLat canopies at AMARG and why the Pima Museum prefers to paint them. Yup UV is very bad for lexan in particular.
Magic Zach Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) Its well above the flight ceiling of almost all AircraftIt's thickest at 20km, which I believe is roughly 65,000ft, achievable for the F-15. Varies with location though. Not sure if O3 will burn differently than O2. I would assume that it means that a smaller volume of air is required for adequate fuel-air mixture, compared needing a larger volume of air with O2. Can't get an easy answer from a Google. All I get are links to articles about the ozone layer, not O3 combustion in particular. Edited January 25, 2018 by Magic Zach Hardware: T-50 Mongoose, VKB STECS, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, RTX 4090, Ryzen 7 7800X3D, 32GB DDR5-3600, Samsung 990 PRO Modules: AH-64D, Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, F-16C, F-15E, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8 Maps: Normandy, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria, Germany
NoJoe Posted January 28, 2018 Posted January 28, 2018 It's thickest at 20km, which I believe is roughly 65,000ft, achievable for the F-15. Varies with location though. Not sure if O3 will burn differently than O2. I would assume that it means that a smaller volume of air is required for adequate fuel-air mixture, compared needing a larger volume of air with O2. Can't get an easy answer from a Google. All I get are links to articles about the ozone layer, not O3 combustion in particular. I don't think it would have a measurable effect. Even in the densest parts of the ozone layer the concentration of ozone is only about 10 parts per million, compared to about 200,000 parts per million for "regular" O2 oxygen. Source: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/Q1.pdf My guess is that there's just not enough ozone to make a difference to combustion in an aircraft engine. [citation needed] :)
Emu Posted January 29, 2018 Posted January 29, 2018 Urm... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010218091901544
Mfezi Posted January 29, 2018 Posted January 29, 2018 Urm... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010218091901544 It is pretty well known that ozone in large concentrations provide slightly higher combustion temperatures than O2, as for example also described in this article. However, the article considers ozone concentrations of 500 ppm, whereas the highest natural concentration of ozone in the atmosphere is more in the region of 5 to 8 ppm by volume and at ground level it is in the region of less than 0.1 ppm in most places. So, I doubt aircraft will see a measurable performance improvement at those concentrations.
Recommended Posts