Engine automatic fire extinguisher system

[Pilot135pd]

After doing a search and reading all the great reviews of the Element extinguisher on this forum, I couldn't find any threads on the Elide automatic fire extinguisher which to me seems like the perfect companion to the Element extinguisher. I fly with doors off so my plan is to use the Element inside and the Elide in the engine compartment.

It's small, weighs about 1.5 pounds, fits perfectly inside the cowling, and only goes off with direct fire contact, not with heat.

Also the dry chemical inside is Non-Toxic and Eco-friendly HOWEVER it is corrosive on metal, but I don't see how it can't be completely washed off since the residue isn't inside of the plane. The dry chemical is 99.89% mono ammonium phosphate, so if it goes off on your grass runway, it'll be fertilized at the same time you save your plane, WIN-WIN !!

Here's a picture of a blue ball extinguisher installed in my cowling and a link to a video that shows how simple it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwSTqeK8DJQ&t=1s

Here's the link to the product and there's also the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) you can download at the bottom of the main page https://www.elidefireus.com/

Anyone here have it also installed or has used it already?

 

[DanH]

https://amerex-fire.com/upl/downloa...ical-in-the-vicinity-of-aircraft-0141461c.pdf

Corrosion aside, I would not want to discharge a dry powder upwind of the cabin in flight. The smoke is bad enough.

 

[Canadian_JOY]

I was sold on the Element fire extinguisher until I saw some youtube tests where it was incapable of extinguishing a fire with any wind present. The Element needs to be able to form a "cloud" of extinguishing agent around the fire and it appeared the wind was interfering with that process.

 

[Pilot135pd]

I was sold on the Element fire extinguisher until I saw some youtube tests where it was incapable of extinguishing a fire with any wind present. The Element needs to be able to form a "cloud" of extinguishing agent around the fire and it appeared the wind was interfering with that process.

How much wind do you have inside your cabin?

 

[Pilot135pd]

So then it seems like these 2 options might be good for others but for the way I fly (doors off) the Element might not be the best option for my cabin.

Then regarding the Elide, for the engine compartment of the plane I fly (aluminum) it's not good either.

So in conclusion I suppose these two options are good for a plane with a full time enclosed cabin and made of composite materials, not aluminum.

The search continues and I'll post this on one of the other forums where it would apply better like for a Cirrus, Flight Design, Jabiru, etc

 

[Pilot135pd]

Maybe I'll have to install a halon extinguisher in the cowling with a cable to pull from inside the cockpit to remote activate it? Anyone done something like that?

 

[Mike S]

Halon also is subject to blowing away with the inner cowling air flow.

Pretty much any extinguishing agent has some loss of performance in drafty/windy conditions.

AFFF might be worth consideration, but you would need a large enough supply to be able to deliver an uninterrupted flow for as long as needed to extinguish the fire. No, I have no idea what that time is. And AFFF doesn't play well with aluminum as I recall from my time in a CFR station.

You might try researching what is used in commercial aircraft??

 

[Pilot135pd]

If I'm going to have to install something like an airline uses then I think it'll get so expensive that it's cheaper to just let the insurance take over and forget about it.

 

[agent4573]

When I was looking into this, the only thing that seemed like it would would work is the AFFF (aqueous film forming foam). It's commonly sold in kits for racecars and used in the engine bay with all the associated airflow. The remote tank can be placed anywhere as required for cg, and the nozzles can be placed as needed. Eventually I gave up on the idea because of weight, and went with fire wall and floor fiberfrax with doublers to keep engine fires out of the cabin, and a small halotron extinguisher for anything inside the cabin.

 

[Pilot135pd]

When I was looking into this, the only thing that seemed like it would would work is the AFFF (aqueous film forming foam). It's commonly sold in kits for racecars and used in the engine bay with all the associated airflow. The remote tank can be placed anywhere as required for cg, and the nozzles can be placed as needed. Eventually I gave up on the idea because of weight, and went with fire wall and floor fiberfrax with doublers to keep engine fires out of the cabin, and a small halotron extinguisher for anything inside the cabin.

Just like the other stuff is bad for aluminum, this stuff is really bad for us humans, so I'll take the previous stuff.

 

[wcalvert]

Fire up front shouldn't be anything a nice 40# Halon bottle dumped in the engine bay followed by the slow feed of a 60# bottle over the next 240 minutes couldn't handle ...

and you'd be ETOPS certified.

 

[agent4573]

Just like the other stuff is bad for aluminum, this stuff is really bad for us humans, so I'll take the previous stuff.

I'm not sure I follow your point. The only option mentioned so far without health impacts is halon/halotron. Everyone agrees that it won't work on an engine bay with the amount of airflow unless you're carrying a prohibitive amount of it on board. So your choice is between death by fire or possible long term health issues. Letting insurance worry about it doesn't work if youre incapacitated and can't land. I guess my preference is possibly dealing with cancer in 30 years instead of burning to death, but everyone is allowed their own opinion.

 

[Pilot135pd]

I'm not sure I follow your point. The only option mentioned so far without health impacts is halon/halotron. Everyone agrees that it won't work on an engine bay with the amount of airflow unless you're carrying a prohibitive amount of it on board. So your choice is between death by fire or possible long term health issues. Letting insurance worry about it doesn't work if youre incapacitated and can't land. I guess my preference is possibly dealing with cancer in 30 years instead of burning to death, but everyone is allowed their own opinion.

The original idea when I started this thread uses chemicals Non-Toxic to humans that will stop the fire, so no need be incapacitated or burned to death.

 

[Ironflight]

Just like the other stuff is bad for aluminum, this stuff is really bad for us humans, so I'll take the previous stuff.

Tear Gas isn’t technically poisonous, and isn’t supposed to kill you - but get it in your face, and you’re pretty much out of commission until it clears. The same thing is true of Dry Chem - a snot full of it will blind you and incapacitate you at the same time…not exactly what you want while trying to fly an engine-out landing. We’re not talking long-term health effects, we’re talking about what it does to you immediately.

I speak from a background of 25 years of volunteer firefighting, having discharged (and refilled) hundreds of Dry Chem extinguishers in training and in anger. And I’ve had the red eyes and hacking cough to prove it…..sometimes, the wind does funny things!

Here’s the thing - I know folks really fear fire, and I get that. But go back through the last, oh…ten years - or even twenty - of GA accident reports, and tell me how many featured in-flight engine compartment fires. I can already tell you that it is close to statistically zero. But pilot mis-control or fuel systems not delivering gas to the engine? Huge number. So…if you’re trying to reduce your odds of a bad day it’s better spending your time on the target-rich environments and use proven fuel system designs and improving aircraft handling skills.

Paul

 

[rocketman1988]

Tear Gas isn’t technically poisonous, and isn’t supposed to kill you - but get it in your face, and you’re pretty much out of commission until it clears. The same thing is true of Dry Chem - a snot full of it will blind you and incapacitate you at the same time…not exactly what you want while trying to fly an engine-out landing. We’re not talking long-term health effects, we’re talking about what it does to you immediately.

I speak from a background of 25 years of volunteer firefighting, having discharged (and refilled) hundreds of Dry Chem extinguishers in training and in anger. And I’ve had the red eyes and hacking cough to prove it…..sometimes, the wind does funny things!

Here’s the thing - I know folks really fear fire, and I get that. But go back through the last, oh…ten years - or even twenty - of GA accident reports, and tell me how many featured in-flight engine compartment fires. I can already tell you that it is close to statistically zero. But pilot mis-control or fuel systems not delivering gas to the engine? Huge number. So…if you’re trying to reduce your odds of a bad day it’s better spending your time on the target-rich environments and use proven fuel system designs and improving aircraft handling skills.

Paul

Well said.

 

[cvairwerks]

Unless you put it out with CO2 or Halon/Halotron or one of it’s substitutes, you can pretty much consider that the insurance company owns the airplane at that point.

Dry chemical in any form starts aluminum down the corrosion road within a very short time. I’ve seen the cleanup operations when a dry chemical fire bottle went off uncommanded. 3 shifts for two days to gut the bay, about three days of washing and wiping down every exposed surface and then the process control people coming in and testing for any residue left. All the equipment and removed parts went back to the vendor for overhaul or replacement.

If you really want to see what happens, I think it’s Vic that has some photos of an RV after a small ground fire and the results from the chemicals.

 

[Pilot135pd]

I have some pictures of a Cirrus after an engine fire and chemicals on it, but I can't post them because they were sent to me outside of this forum. Yeah, the insurance owns it at that point.