X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fmailhost06.isp.att.net ([204.127.217.106] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with ESMTP id 3744125 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:20:52 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.217.106; envelope-from=bobperk9@bellsouth.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; q=dns/txt; d=bellsouth.net; s=dkim01; i=bobperk9@bellsouth.net; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1246648851; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Message-Id: Date:Subject:To:From; bh=7NjjdYocJZf46iTpQi7LclvTgYwj7BpTr0uQzT0BIs I=; b=a7xnuJ/hmD6NMO7SIU8A1+866iOHPOSCYT+o2VAZsJ9V4KestLDICaTbxZEHE m8ihtcXV8Vz8IuuQsMes9Ggig== Received: from fwebmail11.isp.att.net ([204.127.221.111]) by isp.att.net (frfwmhc06) with SMTP id <20090703192016H0600i2378e>; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 19:20:16 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [204.127.221.111] Received: from [74.249.212.236] by fwebmail11.isp.att.net; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:20:16 +0000 From: "Bob Perkinson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fire Shield or Heat Sheild [FlyRotary] Re: P MAlternator Project Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:20:16 +0000 Message-Id: <070320091920.9046.4A4E59EF000CD8D20000235622230650029B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBFC7059D0A9F0D010D@att.net> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Mar 2 2009) X-Authenticated-Sender: Ym9icGVyazlAYmVsbHNvdXRoLm5ldA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_9046_1246648816_0" --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_9046_1246648816_0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The best fire suppression system is just plane water. Before I retired we= replaced all of our CO2 fire suppression systems with high press. water mi= st. 30 gal of water replaced 6 150# CO2 bottles. The idea is the water wi= ll spray out in a fine mist and instantly turn to steam, this removes the h= eat from the combustion and also displaces the air. I know that displacing= the air would be hard to do in a moving aircraft but removing the heat wou= ld definitely put out the fire if the mist were spraying on and in the area= of the exhaust this may prevent what ever fluid is leaking from re-combust= ion. A high press. water system big enough to be able to do this would be = weighty and take up a considerable amount of room (Water container + high p= ress. gas cylinder plus high press piping and spray nozzles.) I am not sur= e how to figure the btu's stored in the exhaust system, but fairly sure th= at it would be a function of the mass of the eshaust system and the temp. o= f the metal, this would dictate how much water would be neede to remove thi= s heat. Water would have to be kept above freezing, this throws another ki= nk in the logestics of this type of system.=20 Somone out there may have an idea on this and how to make this a practical = system. Bob P. -------------- Original message from Todd Bartrim : --= ------------ 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 f= irewall, following the path of my fuel feed line. The other side of the bul= khead 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 connec= ted to the hose it should fill the engine compartment with dry chemical sup= presant. Sort of a poor-mans engine bay fire suppresion system. Never teste= d it yet, mostly because I don't want to clean it up afterwards, but I'm th= inking maybe I should come-up with a mock engine bay, start a small control= led fuel fed fire inside, use a pair of leaf blowers into the intakes and s= ee how well it works. A bit of work to do something that would be represent= ive 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, =20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20 Certainly the horror of in-flight fire is something aviators have face= d since WWI. I commend you on your effort to minimize any FWF combustion e= vent (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 acro= ss to me more of a heat shield kit than a fire shield kit. Here are some o= f my reasons for why I believe you may not be getting the protection you t= hink: =20=20=20=20 --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_9046_1246648816_0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_9046_1246648816_1" --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_9046_1246648816_1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=20 The best fire suppression system is just plane water.  Before I retire= d we replaced all of our CO2 fire suppression systems with high press. wate= r mist.  30 gal of water replaced 6 150# CO2 bottles.  The idea i= s the water will spray out in a fine mist and instantly turn to steam, this= removes the heat from the combustion and also displaces the air.  I k= now that displacing the air would be hard to do in a moving aircraft but re= moving the heat would definitely put out the fire if the mist were spraying= on and in the area of the exhaust this may prevent what ever fluid is leak= ing from re-combustion.  A high press. water system big enough to be a= ble to do this would be weighty and take up a considerable amount of room (= Water container + high press. gas cylinder plus high press piping and spray= nozzles.)  I am not sure how to figure the  btu's stored in the = exhaust system, but fairly sure that it would be a function of the mass of = the eshaust system and the temp. of the metal, this would dictate how much = water would be neede to remove this heat.  Water would have to be kept= above freezing, this throws another kink in the logestics of this type of = system.
Somone out there may have an idea on this and how to make this = a practical system.

Bob P.
 
-------------- Original message from Todd Bartrim <bartrim@gmail.com>= ;: --------------

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 ever= y 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 e= xtinquisher. 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 d= ry chemical suppresant. Sort of a poor-mans engine bay fire suppresion syst= em. Never tested it yet, mostly because I don't want to clean it up afterwa= rds, 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 th= e intakes and see how well it works. A bit of work to do something that wou= ld 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= :


--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_9046_1246648816_1-- --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_9046_1246648816_0--