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 webmail1.lsn.net ([66.90.138.156] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.1) with ESMTPS id 4082523 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:33:33 -0500 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.90.138.156; envelope-from=mmcmanus@grandecom.net Received: from localhost (webmail1.lsn.net [127.0.0.1]) by webmail1.lsn.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o0EGWujJ023197 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:32:56 -0600 Received: from 204.152.239.219 ([204.152.239.219]) by webmail.grandecom.net (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:32:55 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: <20100114103255.1489581kshjfixx3@webmail.grandecom.net> X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:32:55 -0600 From: mmcmanus@grandecom.net X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: In Flight Engine Fire Extinguishers References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.3.3 X-Originating-IP: 204.152.239.219 I don't know much about fire extinguishers, but I've always been told that Halon is much preferred for aircraft because it does not cause serious corrosion like other chemicals will. On the other side, who cares about damage from corrison when you've got a fire. Matt McManus LNC2 360 Quoting REHBINC : > For the reasons Scott stated, I think Halon is a poor choice for > this application....Rob