Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:58 AM - Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (Pete Fowler)
2. 08:16 AM - Re: Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (Byron Fox)
3. 08:47 AM - Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (pnicholson)
4. 08:55 AM - Re: Re: What oil types can be mixed on an M-14p? (Walter Lannon)
5. 11:33 AM - Re: Panel (adrian hale)
6. 11:50 AM - Re: Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (Brian Lloyd)
7. 03:38 PM - Re: Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (Roger Kemp M.D.)
8. 03:57 PM - Re: Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (Brian Lloyd)
9. 06:28 PM - Re: Panel (Dale)
10. 07:58 PM - Oil and the M-14P (Eric Wobschall)
11. 08:16 PM - Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (CD 2.0)
12. 08:16 PM - Re: Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (Herb Coussons)
13. 08:20 PM - Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (CD 2.0)
14. 08:47 PM - Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (CD 2.0)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: G Tolerance and Hydration |
I have pretty extensive experience with nomex suits in auto racing situations and
the military nomex 1-layer suit wouldn't be legal for use in the most amateur
of amateur racing series in the U.S. Ironically, these same series require
a fuel-cell, on-board extinguishers and fires are extremely rare.
The minimum protection for a car with an estimated evacuation of 10 seconds (good
luck with that) is 2-layers, that can either be a quilted 2-layer suit or a
1-layer suit + nomex (or, Carbon-X, Kevlar, or PBI) underwear. That also includes
nomex socks, fire resistant shoes, nomex gloves and nomex balaclavas (and
nomex lined helmets). Note that the 1-layer suit + underwear combination was
tested in 1977 and actually provided protection for less than 8 seconds before
2nd degree burns occurred. Modern SFI rated 1-layer suits plus nomex (or equivalent)
underwear can protect for up to 9.5 seconds. Note the underwear alone
adds 2-3 seconds of protection.
Most higher-spec racing series require at least 3 "layers" which can consist of
a 3-layer suit or 2-layer suit + nomex (or, Carbon-X, Kevlar, or PBI) underwear
plus all the other nomex stuff. Note the quilting of the suit and the spaces
between layers provide significant gains in protection and are very important
components in fire protection. Drag racing (where fire is common and egress
difficult) requires even higher levels of fire protection.
3-layer suits with full equipment can protect a driver against being burned in
a fire for several seconds but any exposed skin (typically around the eyes where
the ballaclava doesn't cover) will get burned. The thinner 2-layer nomex gloves
typically result in 2nd degree burns to the hands.
Cool suits are great, remember you have to have a cooler full of iced water and
a pump to make that work. They basically circulate cool water around your chest
and keep your core cooler.
I've raced with 3-layers of nomex at up to 116 degrees ambeint (and 140 degrees
cockpit) and without fluid replacement, meaningful dehydration sets in within
about 20 minutes (regardless of how much fluid was consumed prior to driving).
Nearly all race cars now have on-board hydration systems (remote bottles with
pumps to a drinking tube).
I often wear the nomex flight suit but only believe that it offers decorative and
pratical benefits and no meaningful fire protection (at all). Without multi-layers,
quilted suits, fire proof gloves, socks, shoes and face protection, that
green suit isn't going to do anything for you. That having been said, it's
better than shorts and a T-shirt because at least in the case of a flash fire
around the plane, you won't instantly get burned.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=347997#347997
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: G Tolerance and Hydration |
Now, that's an informed discussion. Thanks, Pete.
...Blitz
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 29, 2011, at 7:55 AM, "Pete Fowler" <pfdesign1@cox.net> wrote:
>
> I have pretty extensive experience with nomex suits in auto racing situations
and the military nomex 1-layer suit wouldn't be legal for use in the most amateur
of amateur racing series in the U.S. Ironically, these same series require
a fuel-cell, on-board extinguishers and fires are extremely rare.
>
> The minimum protection for a car with an estimated evacuation of 10 seconds (good
luck with that) is 2-layers, that can either be a quilted 2-layer suit or
a 1-layer suit + nomex (or, Carbon-X, Kevlar, or PBI) underwear. That also includes
nomex socks, fire resistant shoes, nomex gloves and nomex balaclavas (and
nomex lined helmets). Note that the 1-layer suit + underwear combination was
tested in 1977 and actually provided protection for less than 8 seconds before
2nd degree burns occurred. Modern SFI rated 1-layer suits plus nomex (or equivalent)
underwear can protect for up to 9.5 seconds. Note the underwear alone
adds 2-3 seconds of protection.
>
> Most higher-spec racing series require at least 3 "layers" which can consist
of a 3-layer suit or 2-layer suit + nomex (or, Carbon-X, Kevlar, or PBI) underwear
plus all the other nomex stuff. Note the quilting of the suit and the spaces
between layers provide significant gains in protection and are very important
components in fire protection. Drag racing (where fire is common and egress
difficult) requires even higher levels of fire protection.
>
> 3-layer suits with full equipment can protect a driver against being burned in
a fire for several seconds but any exposed skin (typically around the eyes where
the ballaclava doesn't cover) will get burned. The thinner 2-layer nomex
gloves typically result in 2nd degree burns to the hands.
>
> Cool suits are great, remember you have to have a cooler full of iced water and
a pump to make that work. They basically circulate cool water around your chest
and keep your core cooler.
>
> I've raced with 3-layers of nomex at up to 116 degrees ambeint (and 140 degrees
cockpit) and without fluid replacement, meaningful dehydration sets in within
about 20 minutes (regardless of how much fluid was consumed prior to driving).
Nearly all race cars now have on-board hydration systems (remote bottles with
pumps to a drinking tube).
>
> I often wear the nomex flight suit but only believe that it offers decorative
and pratical benefits and no meaningful fire protection (at all). Without multi-layers,
quilted suits, fire proof gloves, socks, shoes and face protection,
that green suit isn't going to do anything for you. That having been said, it's
better than shorts and a T-shirt because at least in the case of a flash fire
around the plane, you won't instantly get burned.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=347997#347997
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: G Tolerance and Hydration |
An excellent response from Pete Fowler which brings up a elephant in the room question.
If we as a community are so safety conscious, why are we not looking
outside 'industry' at better fire retardant clothing/layering/cooling etc?
Why do we cling to "apparently" insufficient one layer of surplus US govt issue
flightsuits? So we can fly formation at Red Star? After reading Pete's response,
I will definitely be looking at nomex underwear in addition to my flight
suit at a minimum; for safety's sake.
Pete Fowler wrote:
> I have pretty extensive experience with nomex suits in auto racing situations
and the military nomex 1-layer suit wouldn't be legal for use in the most amateur
of amateur racing series in the U.S. Ironically, these same series require
a fuel-cell, on-board extinguishers and fires are extremely rare.
>
> The minimum protection for a car with an estimated evacuation of 10 seconds (good
luck with that) is 2-layers, that can either be a quilted 2-layer suit or
a 1-layer suit + nomex (or, Carbon-X, Kevlar, or PBI) underwear. That also includes
nomex socks, fire resistant shoes, nomex gloves and nomex balaclavas (and
nomex lined helmets). Note that the 1-layer suit + underwear combination was
tested in 1977 and actually provided protection for less than 8 seconds before
2nd degree burns occurred. Modern SFI rated 1-layer suits plus nomex (or equivalent)
underwear can protect for up to 9.5 seconds. Note the underwear alone
adds 2-3 seconds of protection.
>
> Most higher-spec racing series require at least 3 "layers" which can consist
of a 3-layer suit or 2-layer suit + nomex (or, Carbon-X, Kevlar, or PBI) underwear
plus all the other nomex stuff. Note the quilting of the suit and the spaces
between layers provide significant gains in protection and are very important
components in fire protection. Drag racing (where fire is common and egress
difficult) requires even higher levels of fire protection.
>
> 3-layer suits with full equipment can protect a driver against being burned in
a fire for several seconds but any exposed skin (typically around the eyes where
the ballaclava doesn't cover) will get burned. The thinner 2-layer nomex
gloves typically result in 2nd degree burns to the hands.
>
> Cool suits are great, remember you have to have a cooler full of iced water and
a pump to make that work. They basically circulate cool water around your chest
and keep your core cooler.
>
> I've raced with 3-layers of nomex at up to 116 degrees ambeint (and 140 degrees
cockpit) and without fluid replacement, meaningful dehydration sets in within
about 20 minutes (regardless of how much fluid was consumed prior to driving).
Nearly all race cars now have on-board hydration systems (remote bottles with
pumps to a drinking tube).
>
> I often wear the nomex flight suit but only believe that it offers decorative
and pratical benefits and no meaningful fire protection (at all). Without multi-layers,
quilted suits, fire proof gloves, socks, shoes and face protection,
that green suit isn't going to do anything for you. That having been said, it's
better than shorts and a T-shirt because at least in the case of a flash fire
around the plane, you won't instantly get burned.
[Exclamation]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=348002#348002
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What oil types can be mixed on an M-14p? |
Good posting. One minor exception - Aeoshell 100 (and all other SUS 100
Aviation oils0 are indeed certified for continuous flight use.
----- Original Message -----
From: "CD 2.0" <dbowie2007@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 10:02 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: What oil types can be mixed on an M-14p?
>
> Javier, not only are all Aeroshell oils compatible with other approved
> aircraft piston engine oils, but pretty much all oils available are
> compatible, synthetics, blends and dino oils. I personally prefer not to
> mix brands, but in all likelihood it is perfectly safe to do so. Also
> elaborate precautions are not needed when changing from similarly approved
> aircraft engine oils, as long as these oils are qualified products.
>
> Aeroshell 100 is mainly used as break in oil for new steel or chrome
> cylinders. It has been said that it isn't particularly good at either
> lubricating or cleansing... The resulting high levels of friction may
> speed up the break-in process but isn't approved for "long-term" use in an
> engine. If you use this type of oil for break in, you should plan to drain
> it within 15-25 hours (the sooner the better) and replace it with a high
> quality ashless dispersant (AD) oils as the Aeroshell W 100.
>
> Aeroshell W 100 and W 80 offer good lubrication and good cleansing action.
> Single grade oil is especially good at protecting engines against internal
> corrosion, because it is very thick at ordinary room temperature and
> sticks to engine parts without stripping off as readily as multi grade
> oils. However, single-grade oil is not recommended for non-preheated cold
> weather operation. When starting in sub freezing temperatures... typical
> hard winters in the North East, single-grade oil may be too thick to
> provide adequate lubrication in the first minute or two of engine
> operation.
>
> Phillips 25w-60 is similar to single grade AD oil (W100/80), but has a
> viscosity index enhancer which causes the oil to maintain a more constant
> viscosity over a wide range of temperatures... This oil remains much
> thinner and more easily pourable at room temperature than single grade
> oil. This is a great advantage for cold weather starting if a preheat or
> heated hangar is not available. On the other hand, multi vis oil will
> strip off engine parts much more readily during periods of disuse... so it
> doesn't provide nearly as good corrosion protection as single grade oil
> does.
>
> AeroShell W80 for cold climate regions (-17 - 21C)
> AeroShell Oil W100 for temperate regions (15 - 30C)
> AeroShell Oil W120 for warmer climates (above 26C).
>
> Carl
>
>
> javiercarrascob wrote:
>> Hello Gang,
>>
>> Hope you are enjoying EAA week, I'm currently using Aeroshell 100W. for
>> my M-14p powered Yak-55m.
>>
>> As you may know when you do cross country in a '55 there is not much room
>> to bring oil with you.
>>
>> I find my self landing at FBOs that don't carry either Aeroshell 100W or
>> 120w in summer (80w in winter). Not to mention Phillips 25w-60 is even
>> harder to find (hence I use 100W).
>>
>> So
>>
>> Question 1: Can I mix/Blend Aeroshell 100w with 100? I understand that
>> one is ashless dispersant and the other one is straigh mineral (no
>> aditives)?
>>
>> Question 2 : Can I mix 100w with 80w when it starts to get cold?
>>
>> Question 3: Can I mix Aeroshell 100w with Phillips 25w-60?
>>
>> Thanks, Javier
>> N5245H
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=347978#347978
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
We have a blank panel and an original with instr. holes which do you want an outline
of?? Ade Hale
On Jul 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Bill Geipel wrote:
>
> Would anyone have a front instrument panel for a yak 52 that is not in an airplane
that you could trace on a big piece of paper? I want to cut a new panel
and be ready before I take mine out.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: G Tolerance and Hydration |
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 8:43 AM, pnicholson <pednicholson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> An excellent response from Pete Fowler which brings up a elephant in the
> room question. If we as a community are so safety conscious, why are we
> not looking outside 'industry' at better fire retardant
> clothing/layering/cooling etc? Why do we cling to "apparently" insufficient
> one layer of surplus US govt issue flightsuits? So we can fly formation at
> Red Star? After reading Pete's response, I will definitely be looking at
> nomex underwear in addition to my flight suit at a minimum; for safety's
> sake.
>
Thank you. This is a point I have been trying to get across for over 10
years now.
The problem is an old one -- that we adhere too much to authority, i.e. what
we were taught, rather than actually thinking problems through for
ourselves.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: G Tolerance and Hydration |
This group would not be willing to pay the cost it would take to market the kind
of system for the protection you are asking for. That was proven with the CO
scrubber system.
Doc
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 28, 2011, at 9:33 PM, "CD 2.0" <dbowie2007@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Brian, excellent point. It makes complete sense. Hopefully a manufacture
can come up with the best of both worlds, fire protection with cooling capabilities
or lighter, thinner materials to prevent body overheating.
>
> I believe there is a profitable enough market in the aviation industry to keep
innovation and bring to production flight suits with similar qualities of those
that comply and exceed SFI standards... or who knows... we may all have to
look like Nascar or F1 drivers in military airplanes... :)
>
> Carl
>
>
> brian(at)lloyd.com wrote:
>>
>> You know, when you really analyze this, you see that the two problems, fire
protection and body cooling, are mutually exclusive. You really need to take another
look at how you want to deal with the problem. The "perfect" solution is
the one that the race car drivers have adopted: full, multi-layer fire protection
with a separate, active cooling system (cool shirt). If you aren't going
to go that way you may actually find that, in terms of total risk reduction,
shorts and a t-shirt are indeed the lower-risk compromise.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=347965#347965
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: G Tolerance and Hydration |
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. <viperdoc@mindspring.com>wrote:
> >
>
> This group would not be willing to pay the cost it would take to market the
> kind of system for the protection you are asking for. That was proven with
> the CO scrubber system.
>
That's what risk analysis is all about. Surprisingly we sometimes do a
reasonable job of risk analysis by the seats of our pants. I don't think
that the risk of fire is high enough to justify three-layer, full-body
protection. If it did, the risk of heat and hydration impairment would be
serious and something like a cool-shirt would clearly be called for.
Fire is not a big risk in our airplanes. Perhaps if we were going into
combat it might be an issue but, frankly, it just isn't a problem. It makes
a lot of sense to wear full fire protection (and now we know what that means
-- it ain't an ex-military poopy-suit) when driving a race car and
statistics show that. But if you look at the stats for our airplanes, we
have no incidents so far. (We have none that I am aware of but I bow to
better info than I have.) So while that does not mean that the probability
(and therefore the risk) is zero, the longer we go without a fire, the lower
it appears that the probability is.
OTOH, we also know that the probability of heat- and hydration-related
impairment approaches 100%. It is just that, the threat is low so even with
100% probability, the risk is relatively low. Still, it is non zero. Is it
higher than the risk of fire? Not clear. My gut says yes. Everybody here
needs to make their own decision.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I think Bill Vondane told me he had water jet blanks or something like that. He
put a new panel in his and most likely still has the old one also for a pattern.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=348043#348043
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Oil and the M-14P |
I have a few remarks about the oil for M-14P topic:
Lots of good information posted recently. I would add this:
Certainly, you can't go wrong with Aeroshell W80/100/120 (AD) in the M-14P, unless
you're breaking in, which would call for the straight mineral version (no
"W").
Having said that, there are advantages to the Phillips XC 25-60 for radial engines
(not to be confused with XC 20-50 for flat engines): It's not an AD type oil,
so it can be used during break-in periods, and if you have to change one cylinder,
you won't have to switch oil types back and forth. Also, appropriate
for a wider temp range, of course.
I noted the comments about corrosion protection in-between flights. It was definitely
true in the past that multi-weight oils wouldn't cling to engine parts
leaving them susceptible to this corrosion. Especially a problem on cam followers
in Lycomings. However, modern multi-weight oils have addressed this problem,
and have been shown to be even better than straight-weight oils in this respect.
The Aeroshell multi-grade oil gets great reviews for flat engines, but it
was found that one of the additives gums up the compressor pop-off valve on
the M-14P. At any rate, neither that one nor the Phillips 20-50 should be used
on radials. This is NOT a problem with the XC 25-60 for radials.
Another thing that has been mentioned by the Russians is this: The flop tube pivot
in the oil tank has a seal that's formed by the oil itself. Of course, there's
some leakage, but it's inside the tank, so as long as pressure can be maintained,
no problem. In older planes where the pivot might have more wear, apparently
the oil pressure can be reduced in some attitudes (prolonged up-lines,
mostly). Rick Volker was sticking with the single-weight oil for this reason,
but found himself changing a jug when the ambient temps were very changeable.
For this reason, he went to the XC for the break-in. He observed no such problem
and has now switched to that oil. He flies full-power unlimited aerobatics.
Regarding over-temping: Nikolay Timofeev reported that in the event of accidental
or unpreventable CHT in the red for extended periods, the practice has been
to immediately change the oil, which they feel would then be compromised. That
fried oil post from a few days ago reminded me of that.
I would also point out that most of the radial engine shops seem to use and recommend
the XC 25-60, including M-14P, Inc.. It seems that most of the vintage
radials use it. I have used it in both of my 52s although I don't claim to put
it to the test with respect to climate or flying style. Anyway, I wanted to stick
up for this oil because it seems to be feature rich with few compromises.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: G Tolerance and Hydration |
Nomex is a flame resistant meta aramid material developed by DuPont in the 60's.
A company with over 60,000 employes and more than 32 billion... these numbers
should be sufficient to keep innovation going.
A good example is Carbon X. Carbon X, was developed, a decade a go, by a racecar
cylinder heads maker, who hired an engineer in Taiwan and spent just about
$ 1 million US dollars experimenting with different blends that would strengthen
the fabric... Despite the strengthening fibers, CarbonX is still as soft
as a pair of socks and even wicks moisture away from the skin.
Nomex carbonises when exposed to flame - becomes black and brittle but doesn't
"immediately" disintegrate... CarbonX is made from material that has already
carbonised... so there is less physical change when exposed to fire. When exposed
to high heat again, CarbonX fiber continue to char from the outside in.Also
expand well beyond original size, crowding out the oxygen needed to sustain
a fire and won't burst into flames, even after being exposed to fire for two
minutes.Eventually the whole fiber turns to carbon and becomes useless, but by
that time, presumably, the wearer has gotten to safety.
It seems like fire protection standards for the aviation industries are considerably
lower than those imposed by AFI and the car racing communities. Would this
have something to do with production savings for companies like Dupont? ...
or is due to the fact that there are more profitable markets to focus on? ...
would this have something to do with the result of higher standards and requirements
imposed by AFI?
Whatever is the reason, the most can be done at this point is trying to look for
venues to update the existing aviation/military fire protection standards to
those proven to be safer AFI ones.
Carl
viperdoc(at)mindspring.co wrote:
> This group would not be willing to pay the cost it would take to market the kind
of system for the protection you are asking for. That was proven with the
CO scrubber system.
> Doc
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 28, 2011, at 9:33 PM, "CD 2.0" wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Brian, excellent point. It makes complete sense. Hopefully a manufacture
can come up with the best of both worlds, fire protection with cooling capabilities
or lighter, thinner materials to prevent body overheating.
> >
> > I believe there is a profitable enough market in the aviation industry to
keep innovation and bring to production flight suits with similar qualities of
those that comply and exceed SFI standards... or who knows... we may all have
to look like Nascar or F1 drivers in military airplanes... :)
> >
> > Carl
> >
> > brian(at)lloyd.com wrote:
> > You know, when you really analyze this, you see that the two problems, fire
protection and body cooling, are mutually exclusive. You really need to take
another look at how you want to deal with the problem. The "perfect" solution
is the one that the race car drivers have adopted: full, multi-layer fire protection
with a separate, active cooling system (cool shirt). If you aren't going
to go that way you may actually find that, in terms of total risk reduction,
shorts and a t-shirt are indeed the lower-risk compromise.
> >
> >
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=348050#348050
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: G Tolerance and Hydration |
Amen, hallaluyah. Great post on an old subject. I flew all of the pre-osh without
the flight suit this year (hot - and extrra 2 flights commuting in every
day from GRB) This was my decision when weighing the heat / hydration vs fire
risk question.
I agree with Pete and whole heartedly endorse the green flight suit only as a convenient
way to keep my knees from getting sunburned as opposed to shorts and
the best pockets layout to fly with :)
Herb
Dr. Herb Coussons, MD
drc@wscare.com
2641 Development Drive
Green Bay, WI 54311
Cell 920-639-8434
Work 920-338-6868
Fax 920-338-6869
On Jul 29, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Byron Fox wrote:
>
> Now, that's an informed discussion. Thanks, Pete.
> ...Blitz
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 29, 2011, at 7:55 AM, "Pete Fowler" <pfdesign1@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have pretty extensive experience with nomex suits in auto racing situations
and the military nomex 1-layer suit wouldn't be legal for use in the most amateur
of amateur racing series in the U.S. Ironically, these same series require
a fuel-cell, on-board extinguishers and fires are extremely rare.
>>
>> The minimum protection for a car with an estimated evacuation of 10 seconds
(good luck with that) is 2-layers, that can either be a quilted 2-layer suit or
a 1-layer suit + nomex (or, Carbon-X, Kevlar, or PBI) underwear. That also includes
nomex socks, fire resistant shoes, nomex gloves and nomex balaclavas (and
nomex lined helmets). Note that the 1-layer suit + underwear combination was
tested in 1977 and actually provided protection for less than 8 seconds before
2nd degree burns occurred. Modern SFI rated 1-layer suits plus nomex (or equivalent)
underwear can protect for up to 9.5 seconds. Note the underwear alone
adds 2-3 seconds of protection.
>>
>> Most higher-spec racing series require at least 3 "layers" which can consist
of a 3-layer suit or 2-layer suit + nomex (or, Carbon-X, Kevlar, or PBI) underwear
plus all the other nomex stuff. Note the quilting of the suit and the spaces
between layers provide significant gains in protection and are very important
components in fire protection. Drag racing (where fire is common and egress
difficult) requires even higher levels of fire protection.
>>
>> 3-layer suits with full equipment can protect a driver against being burned
in a fire for several seconds but any exposed skin (typically around the eyes
where the ballaclava doesn't cover) will get burned. The thinner 2-layer nomex
gloves typically result in 2nd degree burns to the hands.
>>
>> Cool suits are great, remember you have to have a cooler full of iced water
and a pump to make that work. They basically circulate cool water around your
chest and keep your core cooler.
>>
>> I've raced with 3-layers of nomex at up to 116 degrees ambeint (and 140 degrees
cockpit) and without fluid replacement, meaningful dehydration sets in within
about 20 minutes (regardless of how much fluid was consumed prior to driving).
Nearly all race cars now have on-board hydration systems (remote bottles
with pumps to a drinking tube).
>>
>> I often wear the nomex flight suit but only believe that it offers decorative
and pratical benefits and no meaningful fire protection (at all). Without multi-layers,
quilted suits, fire proof gloves, socks, shoes and face protection,
that green suit isn't going to do anything for you. That having been said, it's
better than shorts and a T-shirt because at least in the case of a flash fire
around the plane, you won't instantly get burned.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=347997#347997
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: G Tolerance and Hydration |
Nomex is a flame resistant meta aramid material developed by DuPont in the 60's.
A company with over 60,000 employes and more than 32 billion in revenues...
these numbers should be sufficient to keep innovation going.
A good example is Carbon X. Carbon X, was developed, a decade a go, by a racecar
cylinder heads maker, who hired an engineer in Taiwan and spent just about
$ 1 million US dollars experimenting with different blends that would strengthen
the fabric... Despite the strengthening fibers, CarbonX is still as soft
as a pair of socks and even wicks moisture away from the skin.
Nomex carbonises when exposed to flame - becomes black and brittle but doesn't
"immediately" disintegrate... CarbonX is made from material that has already
carbonised... so there is less physical change when exposed to fire. When exposed
to high heat again, CarbonX fiber continue to char from the outside in.Also
expand well beyond original size, crowding out the oxygen needed to sustain
a fire and won't burst into flames, even after being exposed to fire for two
minutes.Eventually the whole fiber turns to carbon and becomes useless, but by
that time, presumably, the wearer has gotten to safety.
It seems like fire protection standards for the aviation industries are considerably
lower than those imposed by AFI and the car racing communities. Would this
have something to do with production savings for companies like Dupont? ...
or is due to the fact that there are more profitable markets to focus on? ...
would this have something to do with the result of higher standards and requirements
imposed by AFI?
Whatever is the reason, the most can be done at this point is trying to look for
venues to update the existing aviation/military fire protection standards to
those proven to be safer AFI ones.
Carl
viperdoc(at)mindspring.co wrote:
> This group would not be willing to pay the cost it would take to market the kind
of system for the protection you are asking for. That was proven with the
CO scrubber system.
> Doc
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 28, 2011, at 9:33 PM, "CD 2.0" wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Brian, excellent point. It makes complete sense. Hopefully a manufacture
can come up with the best of both worlds, fire protection with cooling capabilities
or lighter, thinner materials to prevent body overheating.
> >
> > I believe there is a profitable enough market in the aviation industry to
keep innovation and bring to production flight suits with similar qualities of
those that comply and exceed SFI standards... or who knows... we may all have
to look like Nascar or F1 drivers in military airplanes... :)
> >
> > Carl
> >
> >
> > brian(at)lloyd.com wrote:
> > >
> > > You know, when you really analyze this, you see that the two problems, fire
protection and body cooling, are mutually exclusive. You really need to take
another look at how you want to deal with the problem. The "perfect" solution
is the one that the race car drivers have adopted: full, multi-layer fire protection
with a separate, active cooling system (cool shirt). If you aren't going
to go that way you may actually find that, in terms of total risk reduction,
shorts and a t-shirt are indeed the lower-risk compromise.
> >
> >
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=348051#348051
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: G Tolerance and Hydration |
Nomex is a flame resistant meta aramid material developed by DuPont in the 60's.
A company with over 60,000 employes and more than 32 billion in revenues...
these numbers should be sufficient to keep innovation going.
A good example is Carbon X. Carbon X, was developed a decade a go by a racecar
cylinder heads maker, who hired an engineer in Taiwan and spent just about $ 1
million US dollars experimenting with different blends that would strengthen
the fabric... Despite the strengthening fibers, CarbonX is still as soft as a
pair of socks and even wicks moisture away from the skin.
Nomex carbonises when exposed to flame - becomes black and brittle but doesn't
"immediately" disintegrate... CarbonX is made from material that has already carbonised...
so there is less physical change when exposed to fire. When exposed
to high heat again, CarbonX fiber continue to char from the outside in. Also
expand well beyond original size, crowding out the oxygen needed to sustain
a fire and won't burst into flames, even after being exposed to fire for two
minutes. Eventually the whole fiber turns to carbon and becomes useless, but
by that time, presumably, the wearer has gotten to safety.
It seems like fire protection standards for the aviation industries are considerably
lower than those imposed by SFI and the car racing communities. Would this
have something to do with production savings for companies like Dupont? ...
or is due to the fact that there are more profitable markets to focus on? ...
would this have something to do with the result of higher standards and requirements
imposed by SFI?
Whatever is the reason, the most can be done at this point is trying to look for
venues to update the existing aviation/military fire protection standards to
those proven to be safer SFI ones.
Carl
viperdoc(at)mindspring.co wrote:
> This group would not be willing to pay the cost it would take to market the kind
of system for the protection you are asking for. That was proven with the
CO scrubber system.
> Doc
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 28, 2011, at 9:33 PM, "CD 2.0" wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Brian, excellent point. It makes complete sense. Hopefully a manufacture
can come up with the best of both worlds, fire protection with cooling capabilities
or lighter, thinner materials to prevent body overheating.
> >
> > I believe there is a profitable enough market in the aviation industry to
keep innovation and bring to production flight suits with similar qualities of
those that comply and exceed SFI standards... or who knows... we may all have
to look like Nascar or F1 drivers in military airplanes... :)
> >
> > Carl
> >
> >
> > brian(at)lloyd.com wrote:
> > >
> > > You know, when you really analyze this, you see that the two problems, fire
protection and body cooling, are mutually exclusive. You really need to take
another look at how you want to deal with the problem. The "perfect" solution
is the one that the race car drivers have adopted: full, multi-layer fire protection
with a separate, active cooling system (cool shirt). If you aren't going
to go that way you may actually find that, in terms of total risk reduction,
shorts and a t-shirt are indeed the lower-risk compromise.
> >
> >
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=348053#348053
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|