View Single Post
  #4  
Old July 20th 05, 02:18 PM
Corky Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:11:53 GMT, "Cy Galley"
wrote:

the key statement is...

"It is likely impossible under an aircraft cowling when the plane is
moving. "

For this application it is a waste of weight, money, and time.


I remember a "discovery" or "military weapons" show I watched one time
where they were attempting to find a substitute for the Halon based
fire extinguishing system being used on some military jet.

They demonstrated the ability of the Halon system to put out a fire
created by a 20mm cannon hit, under controlled conditions. The
conditions included being in a wind tunnel, or directing high speed
air onto the area to be hit to simulate relatively high speed flight.

The Halon based system did a pretty good job of snuffing the fire out
from the cannon shell hit, even while the flame was being fanned by
the high speed air. Must have been a lot of Halon, I guess.

None of the other types of systems shown seemed to work quite so well.

This all came to be because Halon is a CFC, as is the refrigerant
R-12. They are both similar inert gasses. I recall a demonstration
one time wherein this guy breathed in from a hose of R-12, and then
breathed out over a lit candle. The R-12 settled over the flame and
extinguished it.

As a mechanic back in the 70's, we used to discharge that stuff all
over the place. It didn't matter we were told, it was an inert gas...

Corky Scott