Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Fire Suppression System??
- Thread starter gbrasch
- Start date
gbrasch said:
Don't know the answer to your question, but here's another question along the same lines: can you actually discharge a standard ABC extinguisher in the cockpit without suffocating yourself? Never thought about it before, but now that you bring it up....
Go Halon!
John,
I have been a Volunteer Firefighter for almost 25 years, and in my experience, there is nothing worse than discharging a dry chem extinguisher in a closed space! Sure, it'll do an adequate job of extinguishment, but boy, the mess it makes! And the powder is both corrosive and incredibly fine in texture - getting it cleaned up completely is just about impossible. Breathing? Don't! When we reload dry chem's, we wear dust masks at the least!
Find yourself a good Halon extinguisher, and ventilate the cockpit as soon as you have used it and the fire is out. It does a better job of getting rid of the fire, and leaves you with a chance of re-building should the fire prove minor. Yes, it is on the environmental "no-no" list, but hey...it's an incredibly small amount, and you will probably never use it anyway. (Besides, just think what all those primers we use put in the air!)
Of course, I have no strong opinions on the subject...
Paul
(Assistant Chief, Nassau Bay Volunteer Fire Department)
John,
I have been a Volunteer Firefighter for almost 25 years, and in my experience, there is nothing worse than discharging a dry chem extinguisher in a closed space! Sure, it'll do an adequate job of extinguishment, but boy, the mess it makes! And the powder is both corrosive and incredibly fine in texture - getting it cleaned up completely is just about impossible. Breathing? Don't! When we reload dry chem's, we wear dust masks at the least!
Find yourself a good Halon extinguisher, and ventilate the cockpit as soon as you have used it and the fire is out. It does a better job of getting rid of the fire, and leaves you with a chance of re-building should the fire prove minor. Yes, it is on the environmental "no-no" list, but hey...it's an incredibly small amount, and you will probably never use it anyway. (Besides, just think what all those primers we use put in the air!)
Of course, I have no strong opinions on the subject...
Paul
(Assistant Chief, Nassau Bay Volunteer Fire Department)
mannanj
Well Known Member
Fire suppression
I haven't had the time to do the research, but I've been looking into AFFF (aqueous film forming foam) currently used in auto racing. They use two nozzles, one for the eng. compartment, one for the cockpit. I need to research it more and talk to some friends at the local Fire Dept. Might not disperse as rapidly as halon would in an in-flight eng. compartment fire.
I don't like the idea of dry powder.
Check it out on Google. Summit Racing stocks some models. If you come up with some good info, please pass it on.
Mannan Thomason
RV-8 final stages.
mannanj at alltel dot net
I haven't had the time to do the research, but I've been looking into AFFF (aqueous film forming foam) currently used in auto racing. They use two nozzles, one for the eng. compartment, one for the cockpit. I need to research it more and talk to some friends at the local Fire Dept. Might not disperse as rapidly as halon would in an in-flight eng. compartment fire.
I don't like the idea of dry powder.
Check it out on Google. Summit Racing stocks some models. If you come up with some good info, please pass it on.
Mannan Thomason
RV-8 final stages.
mannanj at alltel dot net
gbrasch
Well Known Member
Looks like Summit has several AFFF systems, this is the foam system I was looking for, thanks. My friend with the Glasair (who did not build the plane and has since been transfered and I have lost contact with him) had a 4 nozzle system at each quadrant of his engine, with the bottle mounted behind the seat, and of course, a "pull" discharge knob on the panel. Glenn.
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Afff
AFFF concentrate is VERY corrosive. would require stainless plumbing, plastic will stand up to the chemiclas, but not the fire.
I dont think this is a viable choice for use in an a/c------in flight fire usage would just blow away.
Also would require seperate tank for water, and concentrate, pumps, proportating equipemnent, ETC. Read this as WEIGHT, and complexity.
Unless AFFF has changed a lot from when I was working with it, you cant premix and store for a long time.
37 years in fire service, former crash crew, now retired.
Mike S.
AFFF concentrate is VERY corrosive. would require stainless plumbing, plastic will stand up to the chemiclas, but not the fire.
I dont think this is a viable choice for use in an a/c------in flight fire usage would just blow away.
Also would require seperate tank for water, and concentrate, pumps, proportating equipemnent, ETC. Read this as WEIGHT, and complexity.
Unless AFFF has changed a lot from when I was working with it, you cant premix and store for a long time.
37 years in fire service, former crash crew, now retired.
Mike S.
fodrv7
Well Known Member
Fire in Flight
Fire in Flight deserves a lot of thought.
Lots more discussion would be valuable.
Electrical fire. If all the electrical power is turned off, Master OFF (and the Alternator output can be removed. Is it the B lead that needs to be switched?) you should expect the fire to go out. Provided you have used aircraft grade wiriing and fire proof insulation, carpet etc. Hope you are not IFR.
Fuel Fire. If the fuel is turned off, it ought to go out. Hope there is a big flat field below.
Oil Fire. OOOOH. Pray it doesn't happen.
But, whatever fire you have, LAND ASAP is going to be the driving force.
Other fires.
A friend taxied his Glasair the length of the runway in a strong crosswind. Then he lost the downwind brake. After some thought, he shut down disembarked and after hearing a 'Pop' found smoke coming from the wheel spat. The tyre was on fire, from the overheated brake and as it had burst, the wheel spat was firmly on the ground and he had no access for his extinguisher. He tried to kick the Wheel spat to shatter it, but it was hot and rubbery. Shortly after, on hearing the fuel boiling he retired and watched the aircraft burn to the ground.
Fitting a tyre inflation hole to the wheel spat would have given him access for the extinguisher.
I see an extinguisher (as disticnt from a fire suppression system) as a device to use once you are on the ground to save the aircraft.
I, for one, would welcome any comments or related experiences.
Pete.
Fire in Flight deserves a lot of thought.
Lots more discussion would be valuable.
Electrical fire. If all the electrical power is turned off, Master OFF (and the Alternator output can be removed. Is it the B lead that needs to be switched?) you should expect the fire to go out. Provided you have used aircraft grade wiriing and fire proof insulation, carpet etc. Hope you are not IFR.
Fuel Fire. If the fuel is turned off, it ought to go out. Hope there is a big flat field below.
Oil Fire. OOOOH. Pray it doesn't happen.
But, whatever fire you have, LAND ASAP is going to be the driving force.
Other fires.
A friend taxied his Glasair the length of the runway in a strong crosswind. Then he lost the downwind brake. After some thought, he shut down disembarked and after hearing a 'Pop' found smoke coming from the wheel spat. The tyre was on fire, from the overheated brake and as it had burst, the wheel spat was firmly on the ground and he had no access for his extinguisher. He tried to kick the Wheel spat to shatter it, but it was hot and rubbery. Shortly after, on hearing the fuel boiling he retired and watched the aircraft burn to the ground.
Fitting a tyre inflation hole to the wheel spat would have given him access for the extinguisher.
I see an extinguisher (as disticnt from a fire suppression system) as a device to use once you are on the ground to save the aircraft.
I, for one, would welcome any comments or related experiences.
Pete.
I wouldn't use an AFFF system
AFFF would probably not do much in an engine compartment fire. That would be a three dimensional fire which is not what AFFF is for. AFFF is designed to be used on a standing pool of fuel. Use halon or the newer (but of course, slightly less effective-don't you just love progress?) Halotron 1 agent for a three dimensional fire. Halon or Halotron 1 are the preferred agents of choice for an engine compartment fire even per Boeing's crash charts. But the 450 pounds we carrry on our truck comes out at 16 pounds per second which means we only have 28 seconds of agent application to use to get the fire out. Dry chem works great too but then you are back to the mess, corrosiveness and breathing fine particles.
AFFF would probably not do much in an engine compartment fire. That would be a three dimensional fire which is not what AFFF is for. AFFF is designed to be used on a standing pool of fuel. Use halon or the newer (but of course, slightly less effective-don't you just love progress?) Halotron 1 agent for a three dimensional fire. Halon or Halotron 1 are the preferred agents of choice for an engine compartment fire even per Boeing's crash charts. But the 450 pounds we carrry on our truck comes out at 16 pounds per second which means we only have 28 seconds of agent application to use to get the fire out. Dry chem works great too but then you are back to the mess, corrosiveness and breathing fine particles.
mannanj
Well Known Member
Fire suppression
From the pics I saw, looks like AFFF is a single bottle plumbed to two or more outlets with a single pull discharge. I'm certainly no expert but I would think that a foam would not disperse as rapidly as an aerosol would in the rapidly moving air in an engine compartment. Corrosivness is secondary to getting on the ground alive.
Again, I'm not an expert. Just trying to gain a little understanding into something that is very scary to me.
Mannan
From the pics I saw, looks like AFFF is a single bottle plumbed to two or more outlets with a single pull discharge. I'm certainly no expert but I would think that a foam would not disperse as rapidly as an aerosol would in the rapidly moving air in an engine compartment. Corrosivness is secondary to getting on the ground alive.
Again, I'm not an expert. Just trying to gain a little understanding into something that is very scary to me.
Mannan
Remember the Basics...
You can do a little web research on aircraft fire suppression systems, and what you will find is that it is hard to beat the basics of fire. It takes three things to make fire - fuel, heat, and oxygen. remove any one of those, and the fire goes away. Most extinguishing agents such as Halon or CO2 take away the oxygen from the fire. This is really hard to do in an engine comparmtne of an aircraft, becasue there is so much airflow that the volume changes out in seconds. If the heat and fuel are still there, as soon as the extinguishing agent gets blown through, and repalced by air, the fire starts up again. This is why you MUST remove the fuel before blowing a bottle, or you've wasted your one shot at putting (and keeping) the fire out.
Most of my firefighting experince is structural, and that has little application here, but we do fight the occasional vehicle fire, and use AFFF to do it. In that case, however, the vehicle is standing still (no airflow), and the real work is done by the water cooling the burning material (removing the heat leg of the triangle). The foam agent helps to blanket and remove the oxygen part - but that is because it is not being blown away. Just guessing, I'd say that in a high airflow situation, AFFF is probably no more useful than water - and pretty heavy!
Pretty much all of the "big airplane" engine extinguisher systems I've seen have been gas-based, and they all are used AFTER you have stop-cocked the fuel and killed the ignition. In my opinion, I don't think you'll get a good return in safety for the weight increase with a liquid-based system in a single-engined airplane.
Great topic for discusion - I'm sure there is a lot more information out there!
Paul
You can do a little web research on aircraft fire suppression systems, and what you will find is that it is hard to beat the basics of fire. It takes three things to make fire - fuel, heat, and oxygen. remove any one of those, and the fire goes away. Most extinguishing agents such as Halon or CO2 take away the oxygen from the fire. This is really hard to do in an engine comparmtne of an aircraft, becasue there is so much airflow that the volume changes out in seconds. If the heat and fuel are still there, as soon as the extinguishing agent gets blown through, and repalced by air, the fire starts up again. This is why you MUST remove the fuel before blowing a bottle, or you've wasted your one shot at putting (and keeping) the fire out.
Most of my firefighting experince is structural, and that has little application here, but we do fight the occasional vehicle fire, and use AFFF to do it. In that case, however, the vehicle is standing still (no airflow), and the real work is done by the water cooling the burning material (removing the heat leg of the triangle). The foam agent helps to blanket and remove the oxygen part - but that is because it is not being blown away. Just guessing, I'd say that in a high airflow situation, AFFF is probably no more useful than water - and pretty heavy!
Pretty much all of the "big airplane" engine extinguisher systems I've seen have been gas-based, and they all are used AFTER you have stop-cocked the fuel and killed the ignition. In my opinion, I don't think you'll get a good return in safety for the weight increase with a liquid-based system in a single-engined airplane.
Great topic for discusion - I'm sure there is a lot more information out there!
Paul
Last edited:
Spruce carries a couple Halon type systems 3 and 5 lb. I think. Don't have ANY type of dry chemical extinguishers in an aircraft. If you use it in the cockpit, you will suffocate and lose all visibility plus is will attack the structure and wiring and cost $$$$ to clean it up if you survive. Have a portable Halon type in the cockpit and a Halon type engine bottle as well. This is what I'm installing in my RV10 after another forum member was killed last summer by an inflight engine fire.
There was an article a few months back in Kitplanes about firewall integrity and things to watch out for. Believe me if you have a fuel or oil fire up front, smoke WILL find its way into the cockpit immediately and the flames will be there soon afterwards. SCAT hose, wiring, aluminum tubing, cable sheaths and cowling material last seconds when subject to 1400F flame. People are deluding themselves if they think they will be protected for 10 to 20 minutes. If you are lucky, you'll have 90-120 seconds to get it on the ground before the flames and smoke kill you. Rare yes, but almost always fatal.
There was an article a few months back in Kitplanes about firewall integrity and things to watch out for. Believe me if you have a fuel or oil fire up front, smoke WILL find its way into the cockpit immediately and the flames will be there soon afterwards. SCAT hose, wiring, aluminum tubing, cable sheaths and cowling material last seconds when subject to 1400F flame. People are deluding themselves if they think they will be protected for 10 to 20 minutes. If you are lucky, you'll have 90-120 seconds to get it on the ground before the flames and smoke kill you. Rare yes, but almost always fatal.
billnaz
Well Known Member
in flight fire suppresion
I would do a lot of research/soul searching before investing in an engine compt. fire supression system. My concern would be the cost in terms of weight, complexity, $$, and maintanence verses the benefit in effectively extinguishing an inflight fire. The engine compartment in flight is a unique environment that poses some difficult problems when you attempt to extiguish a fire. To do so you have to do one or more of three things; remove the heat, remove the fuel, or remove the oxygen from the so called "fire triangle". Halon type systems effect the chemical reaction of fire but can be thought of functionally as effecting the oxygen side of the triangle. The problem with the one shot of the system is that the heat, fuel and air making the fire are still present after the one shot has been taken. The question is will the system actually work? Unless you can find the research to prove this, or do it yourself, your investment may be little more that a feel good product. The alternative is this; 1-shut off the fuel (remove the fire's "fuel" unless the oil is burning in which case you're SOL) 2-go down fast (this will hopefully blow out the fire in the eng compt. 3- get on the ground fast (this is the only real solution to inflight fire). I'm a firefighter, and I've never seen a dry chem extiguisher put a real fire out. halon needs a closed space to work. I could see a foam system working to smother and cool a fire and there are premixed foam systems (preservatives added?) out there. Good luck!
I would do a lot of research/soul searching before investing in an engine compt. fire supression system. My concern would be the cost in terms of weight, complexity, $$, and maintanence verses the benefit in effectively extinguishing an inflight fire. The engine compartment in flight is a unique environment that poses some difficult problems when you attempt to extiguish a fire. To do so you have to do one or more of three things; remove the heat, remove the fuel, or remove the oxygen from the so called "fire triangle". Halon type systems effect the chemical reaction of fire but can be thought of functionally as effecting the oxygen side of the triangle. The problem with the one shot of the system is that the heat, fuel and air making the fire are still present after the one shot has been taken. The question is will the system actually work? Unless you can find the research to prove this, or do it yourself, your investment may be little more that a feel good product. The alternative is this; 1-shut off the fuel (remove the fire's "fuel" unless the oil is burning in which case you're SOL) 2-go down fast (this will hopefully blow out the fire in the eng compt. 3- get on the ground fast (this is the only real solution to inflight fire). I'm a firefighter, and I've never seen a dry chem extiguisher put a real fire out. halon needs a closed space to work. I could see a foam system working to smother and cool a fire and there are premixed foam systems (preservatives added?) out there. Good luck!
billnaz said:
I've given this subject a lot of thought, especially after the fire detection & extinguishing class in A&P school (which was before I was seriously considering building an RV). The conclusion I've come to (OPINION ALARM!) is that a built-in engine compartment fire extinguishing system in a recip-powered GA-type aircraft is basically a way to buy some additional time to get the aircraft back on the ground.
In an in-flight fire situation, Priority ONE for me is to do whatever it takes to get my wife (or whoever may be in the right seat) safe on the ground and out of the airplane. Pri TWO is getting myself out, and a distant Pri THREE is saving whatever's left of the airplane. I can build a new RV; I can't build a new wife.
So for me, I'll accept the couple extra pounds, dollars, and maintenance items, in exchange for the knowledge that they system will help me get back on the ground safely in case the brown smelly substance hits the oscillating air-circulating mechanism...
OK, now that that's out of the way... For those of you thinking about a built-in system, pay attention to the agent bottle and it's intended orientation. The innards of the bottle are only made to be installed one way, whether it be vertical or horizontal. Installing it the other way will not allow the agent to be discharged, in which case your system really WILL have been a waste of weight and $$$.
Have the fire checklist memorized and short. Fuel off, master off, pull the red handle. How many of us have briefed a new passenger on the location and use of the portable extinguisher? Not a bad idea.
I'll reiterate the dry chemical extinguisher thing. If you have one, get rid of it and get a Halon one to replace it. Wanna see how awful these are? Set up your 2 man tent, crawl inside with your dry chem, zip up and discharge the bottle. See how long you last before you bail. It's a lot better to learn this in the tent than in your RV at 8000 AGL. Don't hold me responsible for lung or eye damage if you actually try this..
Maintenance on Halon bottles is minimal. Weight is minimal. Life is priceless. To each their own but onboard fire systems are mandatory in SCCA racecars which only operate in 2 dimensions (usually). Might be worth some thought.
I'll reiterate the dry chemical extinguisher thing. If you have one, get rid of it and get a Halon one to replace it. Wanna see how awful these are? Set up your 2 man tent, crawl inside with your dry chem, zip up and discharge the bottle. See how long you last before you bail. It's a lot better to learn this in the tent than in your RV at 8000 AGL. Don't hold me responsible for lung or eye damage if you actually try this..
Maintenance on Halon bottles is minimal. Weight is minimal. Life is priceless. To each their own but onboard fire systems are mandatory in SCCA racecars which only operate in 2 dimensions (usually). Might be worth some thought.
Stephen Lindberg
Well Known Member
I think the weight/complexity/space issues make engine compartment fire suppression systems impractical for small airplanes. I would consider installing one only if it had been tested and proven to work. That would take a lot of money and engineering, and a good system is not likely to come out of someone's garage workshop. Better to keep the exhaust system and hoses in tip top shape and carry a small halon bottle in the cabin. FWIW, the DC-3 uses a CO2 bottle that blows into the accessory section of the engine compartment. I don't place much hope in it. In-flight fires are pretty rare...I can only think of three in forty years, and only one was fatal. All were due to poor maintenance...at least the two that got back on the ground were. The fatal crash (Navion) was thought to be fed by the hydraulic system. What was the story on the RV forum members in-flight fire? Any lessons for the rest of us? Steve.
Last edited:
I think you will find a lot more than 3 instances of in-flight fires in the last decade. A friend of mine had a severe electrical fire in a 172 a few years back. Luckily he is still with us. I can remember a Cirrus which threw a rod and burned all the way down up here a few years back as well.
The pilot killed by an inflight engine fire last year near my base was Glenn Saunders from our Canard Forum. The TSB up here has promised to send me the report when finished but they are very slow to investigate experimental accidents. I post the newspaper story below:
He almost made it
36-year-old from florida en route to vernon to visit his wife, daughter
By DELON SHURTZ
Lethbridge Herald
A pilot who died in a fiery plane crash Wednesday was trying to return to the Lethbridge County Airport when his kit-built VariEze aircraft went down only minutes after taking off.
"He tried to make it back and couldn't," said Ron Singer, spokesman for Nav Canada, which provides navigation services at the airport.
Singer said Glenn Saunders, 36, radioed the airport his engine was on fire and he was turning around. He crashed about 3:30 p.m. just short of his goal, on a gravel road northwest of the airport.
"Our flight services station did receive a distress call and we passed it on to the fire department," Singer said.
The pilot's brother, Mike, who lives in Westford, Mass., said Saunders was flying from his home in Oakland Park, Fla., to Vernon, B.C. where his six-year-old daughter and wife were visiting her family.
"He was on the last leg of his trip," Mike said.
He said his brother had been flying for about 15 years and was a certified aviation mechanic and airframe specialist. He bought the airplane used but installed a Rotax 914 supercharged engine, a type he had worked on many times before.
The aircraft was similar, although not identical, to one being piloted by country singer John Denver when he crashed and died in 1997.
Although he loved airplanes, Mike said Saunders' family was the most important part of his life.
"He was a great father. He was a real family man; quiet and down to earth."
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is investigating the tragic incident and was combing the site Thursday for clues to the cause. Senior investigator Bill Kemp said his main objective is to determine what caught fire and why.
The scene shows evidence where the plane may have skimmed across a field before it flipped over, struck an embankment and tore apart on a gravel road. Fuel spilling from the wing tank, which ripped off on impact, fed the fire which had erupted.
Jon Lee, western regional manager for the safety board, said it's too early to determine the cause of the fire or crash and it could take days or weeks before the investigation is complete. He said investigators begin by collecting as much data as possible and, by the process of elimination, try to determine what contributed to the incident.
"We cast the net very wide at the beginning," Lee said.
Investigators consider whether human error may have led to the crash but they also look at environmental conditions and mechanical failure which could indicate safety deficiencies.
"We try to answer why did that aircraft crash."
The crash has caught the attention of an American lawyer who is investigating accidents in the U.S. involving small, kit-built airplanes. A Lethbridge man working for attorney Brian Goates said there have been other crashes which may have been caused by faulty mechanical parts, and he wants to know if there was a mechanical problem with Saunders' plane.
"Airplanes don't just catch fire and crash," he said.
The photo (not posted here) from the story of the burnt wreckage and pieces is what made me sick and prompted my decision to install a fire system.
The pilot killed by an inflight engine fire last year near my base was Glenn Saunders from our Canard Forum. The TSB up here has promised to send me the report when finished but they are very slow to investigate experimental accidents. I post the newspaper story below:
He almost made it
36-year-old from florida en route to vernon to visit his wife, daughter
By DELON SHURTZ
Lethbridge Herald
A pilot who died in a fiery plane crash Wednesday was trying to return to the Lethbridge County Airport when his kit-built VariEze aircraft went down only minutes after taking off.
"He tried to make it back and couldn't," said Ron Singer, spokesman for Nav Canada, which provides navigation services at the airport.
Singer said Glenn Saunders, 36, radioed the airport his engine was on fire and he was turning around. He crashed about 3:30 p.m. just short of his goal, on a gravel road northwest of the airport.
"Our flight services station did receive a distress call and we passed it on to the fire department," Singer said.
The pilot's brother, Mike, who lives in Westford, Mass., said Saunders was flying from his home in Oakland Park, Fla., to Vernon, B.C. where his six-year-old daughter and wife were visiting her family.
"He was on the last leg of his trip," Mike said.
He said his brother had been flying for about 15 years and was a certified aviation mechanic and airframe specialist. He bought the airplane used but installed a Rotax 914 supercharged engine, a type he had worked on many times before.
The aircraft was similar, although not identical, to one being piloted by country singer John Denver when he crashed and died in 1997.
Although he loved airplanes, Mike said Saunders' family was the most important part of his life.
"He was a great father. He was a real family man; quiet and down to earth."
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is investigating the tragic incident and was combing the site Thursday for clues to the cause. Senior investigator Bill Kemp said his main objective is to determine what caught fire and why.
The scene shows evidence where the plane may have skimmed across a field before it flipped over, struck an embankment and tore apart on a gravel road. Fuel spilling from the wing tank, which ripped off on impact, fed the fire which had erupted.
Jon Lee, western regional manager for the safety board, said it's too early to determine the cause of the fire or crash and it could take days or weeks before the investigation is complete. He said investigators begin by collecting as much data as possible and, by the process of elimination, try to determine what contributed to the incident.
"We cast the net very wide at the beginning," Lee said.
Investigators consider whether human error may have led to the crash but they also look at environmental conditions and mechanical failure which could indicate safety deficiencies.
"We try to answer why did that aircraft crash."
The crash has caught the attention of an American lawyer who is investigating accidents in the U.S. involving small, kit-built airplanes. A Lethbridge man working for attorney Brian Goates said there have been other crashes which may have been caused by faulty mechanical parts, and he wants to know if there was a mechanical problem with Saunders' plane.
"Airplanes don't just catch fire and crash," he said.
The photo (not posted here) from the story of the burnt wreckage and pieces is what made me sick and prompted my decision to install a fire system.
Fire in a pusher aircraft
Pushers really must install some kind of fire warning system, since the pilot can't see anything burning with the engine in the back. We "tractor" pilots have it a bit better, since we'll get warning a bit earlier than they will.Ross said:
Stephen Lindberg
Well Known Member
rv6ejguy said:
Jon Adams said:
Thanks for the link. Here is a link to Ansul's website:
http://www.ansul.com/Products/foam_prod/foam_list.asp
It has quite a bit of information on various foams. I would be curious to know what the systems sold by Pegasus use for concentrate. There are several different types.
