Brian Rauchfuss - PCD wrote:
>
> > Forwarded from the bounce bin. Message is from
> > "Chuck Popenoe" <chuckp@smartbolts.com>
> >
> > Chuck Popenoe wrote -
> >
> > I recall reading somewhere of an aircraft builder using a less-
> > frightening seat foam material called something like "dragster foam",
> > which purportedly has similar characteristics as temperfoam but at a
> > lesser cost. Does anyone know anything about this product?
>
> When I last looked into this, there were two products of this nature,
> temperfoam and confoam (sp?). They have very simular properties, but
> confoam is cheaper. Someone once told me that confoam was not as good
> at absorbing crash energies, but I don't know why this would be so.
>
> Brian
The Temperfoam people also make Sunmate, which is cheaper and sold by
Wicks. The differences are many -- the nature of the foam, density v.
temperature, impact absorption, and flame retardancy. Sunmate doesn't
meet FAA flame tests (but homebuilts need not) and gets stiffer with
cold temps.
I just found technical data for one of them (EAR, mfr of Confor -
www.earsc.com). Sure seems to me like this stuff should be selected
and designed for comfort vs. crashworthiness, for the Europa. EAR
admits that 19G crashworthiness required of production A/C can be
_nominally_ achieved with ordinary foam (like Boeing does), or even no
foam given proper flexibility in the seat pan. They hint that 3-4" of
the stiffest densities may be required for proper crashworthiness,
which may be too thick for the Europa cockpit.
---From the samples I've played with, I suggest designing around the
middle densities, 1" each of pink and/or blue, with optionally 1/2"
ordinary urethane stitched in with the top fabric and affixed to the
sides (wrapping fabric around pure temperfoam doesn't work well).
Forget the softest densities. They do nothing ordinary foam won't do
better and are intended for child seats, or even shipping boxes. The
stuff is heavy; a waste in the seat back.
Regards,
Fred F., A063
|