Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 04:08:57 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from bean.epix.net ([199.224.64.57] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.5) with ESMTP id 2002598 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 00:43:47 -0500 Received: from computer (bngr-209-74-53-110.ppp.bngr.epix.net [209.74.53.110]) by bean.epix.net (8.12.6/2002121801/PL) with SMTP id h0T5hjew005699 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 00:43:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Gary Rodgers" X-Original-To: "Lancair List" Subject: body flammability X-Original-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 00:43:38 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01C2C72F.766228D0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C2C72F.766228D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dan; I am not advocating brominated resins, was only trying point out that resin, basically whatever type (except for the phenolic) will burn and there really isn't much significant difference between how they burn. Greatest influence is how much is available (ratio of combustible to non). The intumescent coating that I used doesn't seem to have the 'blow off as dust' characteristic you described. Probably if it was on the exterior in the wind stream some would be lost. If I get that much air in the inside of my fuselage in the area of the avionics panel, well I guess I will probably be wondering why I feel I am sitting on a high rise balcony and be looking for a parachute instead of a fire extinguisher! I do not advocate coating the entire plane. Only the areas that I mentioned; namely the cabin area from the instrument panel forward to and the fire wall, and then the firewall on the engine side as well as the inside of the cowling. I have used product from both Avtec and NoFire, but prefer the NoFire product. I think if you were to look at the product (NoFire) you would find that the expansion is probably less than you expected; maybe 10 times. Gary R ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C2C72F.766228D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dan;

I am not advocating = brominated=20 resins, was only trying point out that resin, basically whatever type = (except=20 for the phenolic) will burn and there really isn't much significant = difference=20 between how they burn. Greatest influence is how much is available = (ratio=20 of combustible to non). The intumescent coating that I used = doesn't seem=20 to have the 'blow off as dust' characteristic you described. = Probably if=20 it was on the exterior in the wind stream some would be lost. If I = get=20 that much air in the inside of my fuselage in the area of the avionics = panel,=20 well I guess I will probably be wondering why I feel I am sitting on a = high rise=20 balcony and be looking for a parachute instead of a fire = extinguisher! =20

I do not advocate = coating the=20 entire plane. Only the areas that I mentioned; namely the cabin = area from=20 the instrument panel forward to and the fire wall, and then the firewall = on the=20 engine side as well as the inside of the cowling.

I have used product = from both=20 Avtec and NoFire, but prefer the NoFire product. I think if you = were to=20 look at the product (NoFire) you would find that the expansion is = probably=20 less than you expected; maybe 10 times.

Gary=20 R

------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C2C72F.766228D0--