Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:51:34 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 528092 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:11:30 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.148.227.85; envelope-from=jimauman@comcast.net Received: from OFFICE (c-24-14-109-120.client.comcast.net[24.14.109.120]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2004111120104401400ognpue>; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:10:45 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <008801c4c82a$8798dba0$697ba8c0@OFFICE> From: "Jim Auman" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Halon fire extinquishers - Certain Pre-Preg Burn Characteristics! X-Original-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:10:40 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0085_01C4C7F8.398C4F50" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C4C7F8.398C4F50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have interjected a point or two below that need clarification. The nose gear fold and resultant fire was due to PIO unrelated to the = gear switch scenario (although true, in a previous incident years before = without fire.) Damage from that earlier incident was the usual gear up = stuff. Jim Auman jimauman@comcast.net ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Sky2high@aol.com=20 To: Lancair Mailing List=20 Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:33 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Halon fire extinquishers - Certain Pre-Preg Burn = Characteristics! In a message dated 11/11/2004 8:10:37 AM Central Standard Time, = lorn@dynacomm.ws writes: Now that I think about it, I don't think that you should lean the = plane=20 at all. If I have a fire at startup, my engine may be able to suck = the=20 fire into itself if left running. I can't think of a better place to = put the fuel than into the engine. Am I missing something? Lorn, Et Al, Assuming the fire is from an oil or fuel leak in the engine = compartment, most of us would not be sucking the fire into the engine = because of fancy air induction systems, ram air, etc. Now, my old = Skymaster could possibly do that because the air intake (thru a filter) = sat in the upper cooling plenum -- that is the induction air was being = taken from inside the cowling. If the engine was running, I guess a better sequence would be to turn = off the fuel supply valve but leave the mixture rich so that most of the = fuel in the lines, gascolater and pump could be burned inside the = engine rather than in the engine compartment. BTW, yesterday I saw a Lancair 235/320 restoration project that left = me with my jaw hanging. Here is the setup - The gear switch was an = ordinary toggle switch set at the bottom of the left side of the panel - = low enough to be exposed to a knee or bad hand movement (bad idea). JLA Howdy! This is Jim. I need to interject some light to = this detail. The switch location was the culprit to a previous incident = that resulted in the "gear up" at a high desert episode in ground = effect. But no fire on that incident. JLA The second incident that did this ship in was PIO by the pilot = insisting that he get this bird on the runway and not go around as would = have been prudent. Instead the nose gear overcenter link gave out after about the third = PIO and said "I'm outa here" and broke allowing the nose gear to fold. = The rest is pretty much as stated.... Thanks for visiting and appreciating the restoration!......JLA. Upon landing and rollout, the nose gear was retracted (probably thru = the switch going up) and as the nose/bottom cowl was scraping along, a = fuel line was broken open and an engine compartment fire ensued. At = some point, the fuel was shut off and the pilot successfully exited the = airplane. The fire burned the spinner, the right side of the cowl, the = right edge of the upper deck/header tank, the right fwd canopy was = burned and plexiglas deformed, the right fwd fuselage skin burnt, the = right fwd upper stub wing skin burned and bubbled and there was some = minor fire damage behind the right side of the panel. I do not know how = the fire was put out and, with respect to the airframe, the damage was = only to the outer skin and a singeing of the outside of the foam core. The most interesting part. Almost none of the fiberglass was consumed = by the fire, but the epoxy was. That is, all of the components that = suffered flames were as though at some heat level the epoxy was = liquefied and then joined the fire but the glass fabric did not burn. = In fact, the fabric, sans epoxy, looks and feels normal except that it = is black. Of course, some edges here and there were burned away. The spinner itself is basically a bowl of floppy fabric! Parts of the = cowl show the coarse and fine glass fabric and the glass mat material = that was used in its construction. The next time I visit this project, = I will try to get some pictures. =20 Interesting, Huh?=20 Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk N92EX IO320 Aurora, IL (KARR) Some Assembly Required=20 Using Common Hand Tools. ------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C4C7F8.398C4F50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have interjected a point or two below that need = clarification.
 
The nose gear fold and resultant fire was due to PIO unrelated to = the gear=20 switch scenario (although true, in a previous incident years before = without=20 fire.)  Damage from that earlier incident was the usual gear up=20 stuff.
 
Jim Auman
 
jimauman@comcast.net
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Sky2high@aol.com=20
Sent: Thursday, November 11, = 2004 9:33=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Halon fire=20 extinquishers - Certain Pre-Preg Burn Characteristics!

In a message dated 11/11/2004 8:10:37 AM Central Standard Time, = lorn@dynacomm.ws writes:
Now=20 that I think about it, I don't think that you should lean the plane =
at=20 all. If I have a fire at startup, my engine may be able to suck the =
fire=20 into itself if left running. I can't think of a better place to =
put the=20 fuel than into the engine. Am I missing=20 something?
Lorn, Et Al,
 
Assuming the fire is from an oil or fuel leak in the engine = compartment,=20 most of us would not be sucking the fire into the engine because of = fancy air=20 induction systems, ram air, etc.  Now, my old Skymaster could = possibly do=20 that because the air intake (thru a filter) sat in the upper cooling = plenum --=20 that is the induction air was being taken from inside the = cowling.
 
If the engine was running, I guess a better sequence would be to = turn off=20 the fuel supply valve but leave the mixture rich so that most of = the fuel=20 in the lines, gascolater and pump  could be burned inside the = engine=20 rather than in the engine compartment.
 
BTW, yesterday I saw a Lancair 235/320 restoration project that = left me=20 with my jaw hanging.  Here is the setup - The gear switch was an = ordinary=20 toggle switch set at the bottom of the left side of the panel - = low=20 enough to be exposed to a knee or bad hand movement (bad idea).
 
JLA         Howdy! This is = Jim.  I=20 need to interject some light to this detail.  The switch location = was the=20 culprit to a previous incident that resulted in the "gear up" at a = high desert=20 episode in ground effect.  But no fire on that incident.
 
JLA  The second incident that did this ship in was PIO by = the pilot=20 insisting that he get this bird on the runway and not go around as = would have=20 been prudent.
 
Instead the nose gear overcenter link gave out after about the = third PIO=20 and said "I'm outa here" and broke allowing the nose gear to = fold.  The=20 rest is pretty much as stated....
 
Thanks for visiting and appreciating the = restoration!......JLA.
 
  Upon landing and rollout, the nose gear was retracted = (probably thru the switch going up) and as the nose/bottom cowl was = scraping=20 along, a fuel line was broken open and an engine compartment fire = ensued.  At some point, the fuel was shut off and the pilot = successfully=20 exited the airplane.  The fire burned the spinner, the right side = of the=20 cowl, the right edge of the upper deck/header tank, the right fwd = canopy was=20 burned and plexiglas deformed, the right fwd fuselage skin burnt, the = right=20 fwd upper stub wing skin burned and bubbled and there was some minor = fire=20 damage behind the right side of the panel.  I do not know how the = fire=20 was put out and, with respect to the airframe, the damage was only to = the=20 outer skin and a singeing of the outside of the foam core.
 
The most interesting part.  Almost none of the fiberglass = was=20 consumed by the fire, but the epoxy was.  That is, all of the = components=20 that suffered flames were as though at some heat level the epoxy was = liquefied=20 and then joined the fire but the glass fabric did not burn.  In = fact, the=20 fabric, sans epoxy, looks and feels normal except that = it is=20 black.  Of course, some edges here and there were burned = away.
 
The spinner itself is basically a bowl of floppy fabric!  = Parts of=20 the cowl show the coarse and fine glass fabric and the glass mat = material=20 that was used in its construction.  The next time I visit this = project, I=20 will try to get some pictures. 
 
Interesting, Huh?=20
 
Scott=20 Krueger AKA Grayhawk
N92EX IO320 Aurora, IL (KARR)

Some = Assembly=20 Required
Using Common Hand=20 Tools.
------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C4C7F8.398C4F50--