X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-pz0-f174.google.com ([209.85.222.174] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with ESMTP id 3743551 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:49:46 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.222.174; envelope-from=bartrim@gmail.com Received: by pzk4 with SMTP id 4so2028285pzk.7 for ; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:49:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:to:in-reply-to :references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=eNLx4oIXgKQWcWtftxghnKSIRCsemoBz4ILb2NMwyEU=; b=RFLQhRbMfOHodRo4ukdnsHuz0g2/ETTCQbXUoFHfBt3KVsMwzzSg/ziJlCYjZZF40C 7G2x02rPbIeE73HTHeeWJ+ZXB1rKyPdkJ6Rhc9E/jUv/fYDydj1aGsa0ABoBD5aJGBqa 0TKYz6Y+p2oBw9ruks76Av0KvXy1dZ4UV/Mzs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer; b=D50eKOA6XTn5ghigveVQ19GWZ44RI2uD68l+KlujKB5GKCSafLnWg33YyLUCZ7Ecpi mjznozmBQwA37il7iaTSR7+gwTD2zbksLPM4+ZvaX4hMVzsOWcR+meodKoghQrwYrXIf lBo8WDQtTSgZnEnKa6oP/93Q76VbFGl6Zgx+s= Received: by 10.142.246.19 with SMTP id t19mr449653wfh.342.1246607349626; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from ?192.168.1.64? (d154-5-212-33.bchsia.telus.net [154.5.212.33]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 24sm3256599wfc.37.2009.07.03.00.49.08 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Fire Shield or Heat Sheild [FlyRotary] Re: P M Alternator Project From: Todd Bartrim To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-XPSeswtvk1PXkto4aiyo" Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:49:07 -0700 Message-Id: <1246607347.13121.11.camel@Endurance> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 --=-XPSeswtvk1PXkto4aiyo Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Ed; You're most likely right on the money, about what would happen, however I guess I'm just hoping that if it ever happened, a few more minutes might be enough. Long ago I ran a 3/8" tube with a 1/8" hole every 3" from the firewall, following the path of my fuel feed line. The other side of the bulkhead fitting was a hose that connects to the cockpit fire extinquisher. I replaced the little plastic nozzle with a tube fitting. The hose is only on there finger tight, so can be easily removed for normal use, but if connected to the hose it should fill the engine compartment with dry chemical suppresant. Sort of a poor-mans engine bay fire suppresion system. Never tested it yet, mostly because I don't want to clean it up afterwards, but I'm thinking maybe I should come-up with a mock engine bay, start a small controlled fuel fed fire inside, use a pair of leaf blowers into the intakes and see how well it works. A bit of work to do something that would be representive of an in-flight fire, but it might be fun! Todd C-FSTB RV9 13B On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 21:36 -0400, Ed Anderson wrote: > Hi Todd, > > > > Certainly the horror of in-flight fire is something aviators have > faced since WWI. I commend you on your effort to minimize any FWF > combustion event (other than inside the engine). However, I must tell > you I have some doubts about the protection you may think you are > getting. This comes across to me more of a heat shield kit than a > fire shield kit. Here are some of my reasons for why I believe you > may not be getting the protection you think: > --=-XPSeswtvk1PXkto4aiyo Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ed;
You're most likely right on the money, about what would = happen, however I guess I'm just hoping that if it ever happened, a few mor= e minutes might be enough. Long ago I ran a 3/8" tube with a 1/8"= hole every 3" from the firewall, following the path of my fuel feed l= ine. The other side of the bulkhead fitting was a hose that connects to the= cockpit fire extinquisher. I replaced the little plastic nozzle with a tub= e fitting. The hose is only on there finger tight, so can be easily removed= for normal use, but if connected to the hose it should fill the engine com= partment with dry chemical suppresant. Sort of a poor-mans engine bay fire = suppresion system. Never tested it yet, mostly because I don't want to clea= n it up afterwards, but I'm thinking maybe I should come-up with a mock eng= ine bay, start a small controlled fuel fed fire inside, use a pair of leaf = blowers into the intakes and see how well it works. A bit of work to do som= ething that would be representive of an in-flight fire, but it might be fun= !

Todd
C-FSTB
RV9 13B

On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 21:36 -0400, Ed Anderson wrote:

Hi Todd,

Certainly the horror of = in-flight fire is something aviators have faced since WWI. I commend = you on your effort to minimize any FWF combustion event (other than inside = the engine). However, I must tell you I have some doubts about the pr= otection you may think you are getting. This comes across to me more = of a heat shield kit than a fire shield kit. Here are some of my reas= ons for why I believe you may not be getting the protection you think= :

--=-XPSeswtvk1PXkto4aiyo--