X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:03:17 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.70] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.1) with ESMTP id 4082688 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:02:22 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.70; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=eFLhpY9HjS+DPFjJppGMLjMwQ2kZ3zMSq1D3eV7Ih8EVAUjfZ0SYrlMXbVL5T1as; 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-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1NVUx2-0002Ia-2H for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:01:48 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: 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 14:01:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_064B_01CA9522.1C982480" 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: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da9403f4cd48dc47c963f2c495f60a2269022350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 216.57.118.88 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_064B_01CA9522.1C982480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I meant something to block the cowl inlet, not the human's nose. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Colyn Case at earthlink=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:56 PM Subject: [LML] Re: In Flight Engine Fire Extinguishers 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: ------=_NextPart_000_064B_01CA9522.1C982480 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I meant something to block the cowl = inlet, not the=20 human's nose.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Colyn=20 Case at earthlink
Sent: Thursday, January 14, = 2010 1:56=20 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: In Flight = Engine Fire=20 Extinguishers

maybe servo-controlled nose-closers = should be=20 part of the plan....
 
I'm mainly kidding but there are = people on the=20 list 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=20 Fire Extinguishers

CO2 would be just as = ineffective in=20 the cowling as Halon. Dry Chemical will tend to stick (somewhat) to = the=20 surfaces it encounters. It will especially stick to wetted surfaces; = i.e.;=20 fuel and oil. The biggest weakness I see with dry chemical is that = it will=20 be difficult to get it distributed to all of the surfaces under=20 cowl.
 
This is a difficult area to = adequately=20 protect.
 
In race cars, we used to use Halon = under hood=20 and in the cockpit. It was good to get the fire down for half a = minute=20 or so to give the driver time to get his belts released and crawl = out or the=20 track crew to get there with additional capabilities. There was = never any=20 guarantee that the Halon system would fully extinguish the = fire, it=20 might or might 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,=20 just rationalizing) In this instance, Halon would have longer = residence time=20 in the 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:
=
 
------=_NextPart_000_064B_01CA9522.1C982480--