JD,
I agree wholeheartedly on using Cold Fire or equivilent. So how about
fixing the rulebook??? My only point.
I have been whining for 5 years about having to use Halon in the
cockpit....per "The Book".
Skip
At 10:31 PM 10/31/2003 -0800, James Tone wrote:
>Wow someone actually read my reply. Wet water is is a generic name for
>"Cold Fire". Jim Deist sells that product. I really try not to push
>anyones personal product. The product does not foam. Dave Davidson had a
>fire in his roadster 2 years ago and he fired a 10 lb bottle on himself to
>help get the fire out, he had 2 nozzles in his cockpit. Cold fire is
>definatly allowed in an enclosed car and some recommend it because you can
>breathe and not worry about inhaling a halon product. It too is safe but
>some worry about it. The older, I bought mine in 1978, 1301 "steel" bottle
>"Flame Out" systems may become a hard product to test due to shipping the
>bottle and testing the acuater The last person to do it is no longer going
>to.
>I am going to replace mine which is only on the engine. I am still weighing
>the pros and cons of both types for that area. I have an open roadster and
>currently have a 14 lb 1211 system with one nozzle under the center steering
>box for the driver. If I am correct (and have witnessed it at El Mirage
>with dust) if we had to discharge it the halon would surround the driver and
>exit the vehicle arround the helmet.
>The Cold Fire wet water type is suppose to coat you with a fire retardent
>water.
>At one time I had a 20 pound dry chemical on the engine with one nozzle on
>the exhaust /pan side. If I would have ever fired it there would been one
>hell of a mess but I guarrentee there would have been no more fire. Took it
>out when we ran out of room.
>
>
>> I guess that I can assume that "wet water" is considered a Halon
>> replacement according to the rulebook? If not then we can't use it in the
>> cockpit??????
>> Skip
|