X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:56:02 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.69] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.1) with ESMTP id 4082541 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:39:45 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.69; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=bU+vmZ2+YcLSN1O3++VTfZf9jcWBLc6ero1jbxXP10Mz8Tb2xeYKJGt10fYK77VG; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [216.57.118.88] (helo=ccaselt3) by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1NVSix-00061m-Vv for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:39:08 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <9B35A2A4E36B47BBA8660F9AA3D3A72F@nvidia.com> From: "Colyn Case at earthlink" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: In Flight Engine Fire Extinguishers X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:39:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0569_01CA950E.2EBF2500" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da9406b2fa3d206829ed91667d0be9e182dae350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 216.57.118.88 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0569_01CA950E.2EBF2500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable maybe servo-controlled nose-closers should be part of the plan.... I'm mainly kidding but there are people on the list that could make that = work I think. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: REHBINC=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:01 AM Subject: [LML] Re: In Flight Engine Fire Extinguishers CO2 would be just as ineffective in the cowling as Halon. Dry Chemical = will tend to stick (somewhat) to the surfaces it encounters. It will = especially stick to wetted surfaces; i.e.; fuel and oil. The biggest = weakness I see with dry chemical is that it will be difficult to get it = distributed to all of the surfaces under cowl. This is a difficult area to adequately protect. In race cars, we used to use Halon under hood and in the cockpit. It = was good to get the fire down for half a minute or so to give the driver = time to get his belts released and crawl out or the track crew to get = there with additional capabilities. There was never any guarantee that = the Halon system would fully extinguish the fire, it might or might not, = but it would buy some time. In a turbojet application, I suspect there is MUCH less airflow = between the nacelle and the engine. (Not educated here, just = rationalizing) In this instance, Halon would have longer residence time = in the fire area and could make sense. Rob In a message dated 01/13/10 16:08:36 Eastern Standard Time, = colyncase@earthlink.net writes: Rob, How does c02 or chemical stay on the affected area? =20 Seems like airflow near the engine is going to be high enough to = move just about anything off....am I wrong? Colyn ------=_NextPart_000_0569_01CA950E.2EBF2500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
maybe servo-controlled nose-closers = should be part=20 of the plan....
 
I'm mainly kidding but there are people = on the list=20 that could make that work I think.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 REHBINC =
Sent: Thursday, January 14, = 2010 8:01=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: In Flight = Engine Fire=20 Extinguishers

CO2 would be just as = ineffective in the=20 cowling as Halon. Dry Chemical will tend to stick (somewhat) to the = surfaces=20 it encounters. It will especially stick to wetted surfaces; i.e.; fuel = and=20 oil. The biggest weakness I see with dry chemical is that it will be = difficult=20 to get it distributed to all of the surfaces under cowl.
 
This is a difficult area to = adequately=20 protect.
 
In race cars, we used to use Halon = under hood and=20 in the cockpit. It was good to get the fire down for half a = minute or so=20 to give the driver time to get his belts released and crawl out or the = track=20 crew to get there with additional capabilities. There was never any = guarantee=20 that the Halon system would fully extinguish the fire, it might = or might=20 not, but it would buy some time.
 
In a turbojet application, I suspect = there is=20 MUCH less airflow between the nacelle and the engine. (Not educated = here, just=20 rationalizing) In this instance, Halon would have longer residence = time in the=20 fire area and could make sense.
 
Rob
 
In a message dated 01/13/10 16:08:36 Eastern Standard Time,=20 colyncase@earthlink.net writes:
Rob,
 
How does c02 or chemical stay on = the affected=20 area? 
Seems like airflow near the engine = is going to=20 be high enough to move just about anything off....am I = wrong?
 
Colyn
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0569_01CA950E.2EBF2500--