REFLECTOR:Fire Detection System,smoke and flame

[UTI]

At 09:40 PM 9/2/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>A smoke and/or flame detection system that was simple and inexpensive may
>have a market in the homebuilt market.
>Comments: 1) Smoke alone in the engine compartment of our aircraft is
>probably a lot less of a hazard than in a tractor airplane. Actually we 
>have a simple
>smoke detection system because the higher pressure in the engine compartment
>will push that air into the cabin by way of firewall holes, fuselage tunnels
>or between main spar and wing spare (IF NOT PROPERLY SEALED)  From 
>experience,
>you will smell smoke very quickly in that case.

And more, that smoke will harm you and your passengers...
The bed news, you do not have an option to open vent or door ...

>2) Would flame detection require many detectors because there would be many
>different places a flame could erupt?

I suggest it shell be two independent systems installed on each side of the 
engine.
Detector it self it is like an LED, but required to have some optics to ensure
performance.
So, each system could have detectors on each side of the engine.

Another things, what you can to do when you find there is flame?
I have even develop plans for automatic/manual fire extinguish airplane system,
which could be add-on to detection system. I always look on cost and 
simplicity.

>3) We could measure temperatures at a proposed thermal fuse site, for all
>normal operating conditions, temps just after shut down may be hottest. If we
>installed a thermal fuse well above highest temperature measured at that 
>site,
>would that not minimize false warnings?

Probably not an good idea to have only temperature measurement and triggering
based on temperature along. First of all temperature sensors inherited slow 
response
time, which in presence active heat source and potential flame appearance 
in reach
oxygen and fast moving air environment will be well too late to react.

Vlad
www.n1ut.velocity-air.com