Ok, so we all know according to AMA you gotta have a fire ext. on hand with a turbine? And I know alot of people say CO2 is the most desired.... but? The company I work for is trashing an outdated HALON 1211 fully charged, and instead of buying a new CO2, I was considering if I use the HALON one, would it damage the turbine or any component? I am assuming it woudl be fine, since they are designed for electrical equipment. And, yes it is very expensive to refill the HALON with the replacement, but it is free for me to start with, and if I have to use it ever, then I will buy a CO2. Any thoughts on HALON and a turbine?

Its actually much better then the Co2! I think its the cost that keeps most people with the Co2.

The problem you have to consider is when you use it, and you will, where can you get it refilled? Halon is tough to find a place to refill the extinguisher. If your just using it for a one time deal then go for it, its free!!

Also look into what Halon does once its expelled from the container. Halon is very toxic.

well I am hoping that the toxic part wont be too terrible since hopefully IF i have a turbine fire we will be outside running it.


And yea Ian, I agree it is free to me and if i do have to use it I will probably replace it with a CO2. I just wanted to make sure there were no detrimental effects of HALON on the turbine or electronics that I didn't know of.

No, you would be fine Philip, Halon is designed specifically for electronic equipment.

for fire you need 3 thinks

oxygen/heat and somethink that can be burned

with out one of this three you dont have fire.

co2 takes out heat /but cools down heated parts fast(no good on metal)

water takes out heat!

spread water over fire takes out oxygen!

foam on fire takes out oxygen!

halon takes out OXYGEN so : no good in open space

is good in closed spaces that gives time to take out the heat from the sides (walls maybe) of this closed space.

one other think is that halon will give you canser in a few sec. that smoking of 20years/


bottom end: CO2 ONLY

....also when you have a fire in an airframe first put it out and after if you wish shut down the engine/

cose if you shut down engine while there is a fire going on afer the flame out you have a big fan feed oxygen till rpms will drop than gases with out oxygen

Philip please make your self a favor and go to your fire department/ask them how dangerus is halon for health...they will explane it better than me

sorry 4 the bad english

my 2c

A 12or 13 pound Halon extinguisher will set you back over $400.00 to refill...ask me how I know.

A CO2 costs about $10.00 to refill.

It's not toxic, it's onboard airplanes for electrical fires in the cabin.

It may not be very toxic, but it has been banned here as one of the worst ozon-reducing climate gases in the world.
We have not been allowed to use halon since the mid -90's..

Tor

Halon has been replaced by Halatron...Google it.

If my face was on fire, I'd rather be hit with Halon than CO2 any day of the week! I keep a halon ext in my field box for the "just in case" but use CO2 to put out anything of any significance. A 1 lb halon fire ext weighs very little and meets the standard. I suppose if I was flying a kingcat or a boomerang, with an exposed engine, I would just carry the halon one to meet the rule, as there is not really much chance that if there was a fire, a blower could blow it out. As opposed to a bypassed airplane with intakes where you would want to blow lots of CO2 down the intakes.

But yes, Halon meets the rule, and works perfect for our application. I buy them on ebay for $40.00 or so, and if I use it, I throw it away and buy another one on ebay.

Uhhhhh. Wrongo !!
(sorry, don't mean to "call u out" but this is pretty important info) The various NEWER halon derivatives ARE mildly toxic in themselves AND CREATE additional toxic compounds when exposed to, uh, fire !! . Here is one source's quote on the topic BUT it's used in confined spaces anyway because it's better than the alternatives which can cause additional electrical shorts, spread liquid fires or, in the case of CO2, displace large amounts of breathable air. Basically Halon is NOT something U want to breathe, but is better for you than say, the fire itself. A net positive if you will and the least flawed alternative onboard an airplane that is on fire, since you can't just pull over to the side of the road and get out.

We carry lots of hazardous materials at my work (FDX) and are specifically encouraged to don portable full-face equipment (time permitting) before discharging Halon into our cabin areas.

The OLDER halons are MUCH MORE toxic and this may very well be the type being discarded by the poster's company.

Ok, I did. Found no reference to support that blanket statement. I know not it's happening where I personally work (thousands of halon bottles on hundreds of aircraft) but I'm hopeful, Harley, that you can be more specific in your reference? I'm sure you saw something there but i couldnt spot it.

Yeah sean thats kind of where I am at. Right now I am just flying a buddy's Reaction 54 so with the exposed engine it is just to meet the requirements.... just short on cash an dhate to buy another extinguisher when this one was free. It is a 5lb HALON 1211, so should be good for even a big fire.... just have to hold my breath!! Haha!!

Now I'm not an expert, but I do have a bit of knowledge/experience in the area of chemistry and physics.

CO2 puts out most fires because it displaces the oxygen they need to burn not because it "takes out the heat".

As a method of reducing heat, water is *far* more effective due to the very large amounts of heat it absorbs during the phase change from water to gas.

Halon/BCF is actually a much better extinguishing substance than CO2 (ie: it puts out the fire quicker) and is still widely used in electronic installations because it doesn't create an acidic byproduct (as CO2 can when absorbed by moisture or water to create carbonic acid).

Halon will work just fine but it is a CFC (a bi-CFC actually) so has a detrimental effect on the ozone layer.

Getting a Halon extinguisher recharged will probably involve lots of paperwork and money these days because of the environmental impact this gas has.

Bottom line: if you've got a BCF/Halon extinguisher and it owes you nothing then by all means use it (I don't think one extinguisher discharge will condemn us all to die from UV radiation) but you might find that if you wanted to sell it you could buy two CO2 extinguishers with the proceeds :-)

...and Halon works just fine in open spaces...

I agree that CO2 may be safer, but the whole idea is not to create a need to use a fire extinguisher...

There are different types of Halon. The types of halon are what determines how toxic each one is however if memory serves me correctly none of them are designed for humans to be breathing. . Halon was designed to be used in confined spaces, such as computer rooms, and IT rooms, and was intended for electronic equipment fires as the agent does not ruin the equipment if it is needed. I am not sure how well it will work outside. If there is any kind of wind the agent will disperse quickly and be useless. Halon has been replaced by agents that do the same thing as halon, but do not effect the ozone. I am not sure if you can get halon refilled in all states and I am certain that the cost would be huge if you can. Just be careful with it if it is needed. Good Luck, Dave

way too much bantering....ouch.

Either will work. its a cost and availability thing. a turbine fire usually takes one quick blast and its done. Both work on a crash very well..

My cost to refill a 10lb bottle is over 150 bucks, and CO2 is about 10Bucks. that made it simple.

I testted a CO2 bottle on a kerosine fire and a wood fire at the manufacturer. it works fine.

Halon has been used in the aerospace industry for years because it is so effective. its just expensive.

so choose and use...both work.

Highhorse,
Here we go again. I just Googled "halatron fire extinguishers" and found the following, just one of many entries.
(The actual spelling is Halotron....sorry about that, but it still comes up misspelled but adds the spelling correction promt)

Supporting statements to my claim that you quoted can be found at www.halotron-inc.com/halotron1.php and many other places.

Quote: "Halotron I is a safe, effective environmentally acceptable chemicall blend based on raw material HCFC-123. It was originally introduced in 1992 to replace severe ozone depleting halon 1211, or bromochlorodifluoromethane (BFC)"

"Halotron I is approved as environmentally acceptable under the U.S. EPA's SNAP program and has undergone the most extensive testing of any halogenated clean agent for portable fire extinguishers since 1992. There are more than 30 seperate UL listings for Halotron I portable extingueshers, which is more than twice the number available with any other halocarbon-based clean agent."

Halon 1211 is still in use, but is falling out of favor because of its environmentally unfavorable characteristics.

I had a halon extinguisher & got the guilts about using it & the damage to the environment so I took it to a hospital where I work so it could be sent for 'proper' disposal (they have a large fire extinguisher maint program).

The maintenance engineer laughed at me & said 'proper disposal' consisted of authorised people venting all the gas to the atmosphere as opposed to unauthorised people.

If it meets the regs just use it, hopefully you never have to! Halon & Co 2 work in exactly the same way, they both displace oxygen. - John.

Guys about the co2.."There is no chemical reaction involved. The CO2 simply acts like a heavy blanket, pushing the air from around the fire away"

if i agree with that we still have heat and a material that can make fire.and wait just for the oxygen to arive.

when we stop shouting with co2, oxygen comes again there./but the fire has end!!

becouse something is missing.and this is the heat...

i would like to insist that co2 takes out the heat..[&o]

Just pee on it.

I purchased a 2.5# Ansul CleanGuard extinguisher last year. It contains DuPont FE-36 (HFC-236fa) and is rated for 2-B,C.

I paid around $90 for the extinguisher w/bracket and hose. It's mounted to my hauler.

I see it as a relatively inexpensive safety measure/requirement. Admittedly, I haven't had to use it yet - so I don't know what a refill will cost. Or if will be cheaper to simply buy another new one.

Cheers!

Craig

*****
Ansul CleanGuard® extinguishers are designed for the protection of commercial and industrial facilities traditionally protected by Halon 1211. Typically, these areas contain sensitive or irreplaceable equipment which could be damaged or destroyed by water, foam, dry chemical, or carbon dioxide. Typical applications include computer centers, data/document storage areas, communications facilities, control rooms, electronics manufacturing, museums, art galleries, laboratories, and many others.
DuPont FE-36 replaces Halon 1211 as the agent-of-choice for applications where the agent must be clean, electrically nonconductive, environment-friendly, extremely low in toxicity and exceptionally effective. Because it discharges as a liquid, FE-36 also provides an effective discharge range up to 16 ft. (4.9 m). FE-36 is electrically nonconductive, residue-free, and will not cause thermal shock damage. FE-36 has been accepted by the EPA for commercial, industrial, and military use under the EPA’s SNAP program. It boasts zero Ozone Depletion Potential and is not scheduled for phase-out by the Montreal Protocol as is Halotron I.

*****

or let it burn and get a new one lol

The one thing I didn't see mentioned here is.....

If you have a small(ish) fire on startup (hot start), abort the startup procedure and hit it with CO2, you CAN (after checking everything over carefully) perform another start and go fly if everything is okay.

However, if you hit your engine with Halon, Halotron, or any other liquid or chemical extinguisher, YOU ARE DONE. You have to send the engine and components in for service, and most likely strip the airplane down and clean everything.

So, which route would you rather take?

Just food for thought.

Brg,
Mark