USAF Firefighter plus AH Bomber Pilot equals........

[frank3]

I never challenged that red means emergency.  I challenged your insistance that the 4 feathering switches were fire bottles.

For which he apologized

It is strange though, why they would put the fire-extinghuishers out of reach of the captain.
Possibly because he already had enough on his mind flying the aircraft! After all, that's what the co-pilot was for, to relief him for those kind of 'boring tasks'

Either that or the extinghuishers were a new feature to be added later, and there simply wasn't any space on the instrument panel.

[Castle51]

the first thing that comes to mind in that situation is if the co-pilot gets injured or killed and you engine is lit, you're F#%ked

[macerxgp]

I just realised how screwed I was a few years ago as a newb flying a B17 around 6k.

On my return trip ( or maybe en route to then run? I can't recall too well) I had a total of two encounters with enemy aircraft. All I remember about that is that the fighter didn't kill ALL of my planes (it might have been back before drones, again I'm not sure) but one of my engines on the right side was on fire. I was like, "Meh." I saw a friendly fighter flying a ways over me and over the VOX I hear "Macer, you're on fire."

"Yeah, I know."

"Alright."

I'm not even sure if I exploded during that flight. Does shutting off a flaming engine save you from exploding? I'm pretty sure it was the engine on fire and not a tank...

[Motherland]

Engines don't catch fire in Aces High, only fuel tanks.

[Castle51]

OK well the "fuel fire" thats conveniantly located right next to the engine still had a suppression system for it on most allied aircraft.  It shouldn't be a death sentance.

[Masherbrum]

OK well the "fuel fire" thats conveniantly located right next to the engine still had a suppression system for it on most allied aircraft.  It shouldn't be a death sentance.

It didn't work all of the time.   

[Castle51]

It didn't work all of the time.   

Thats like saying seatbelts only save 90% of all MVA victims so there is no point in wearing one. 

[Golfer]

Castle there are some vry fundamental differences between the modern airplanes you're accustomed to and these ones.

The first is that those are real and these are virtual.

Second the fire suppression systems of then (CO2) and those of today (typically Halon) are quite different.  Namely the ones today work quite well.

Third.  You're  not likely to put out a fuel tank fire in flight.  No airplane I've ever flown (Part 25 certified transport airplanes) have had a method to.  I understand these are WWII warplanes and the fuel tanks have self sealing capabilities but even they have their limitations.

Fourth.  The fire suppression systems are actually (last I  was informed regarding the Zeke) modeled into the burn times.  You forget that a fire is not a death sentence in game.

Enter
Enter
Enter

Heck of a lot easier than fumbling through a falling burning fuselage to find a way out.

[trigger2]

Castle there are some vry fundamental differences between the modern airplanes you're accustomed to and these ones.

The first is that those are real and these are virtual.

Second the fire suppression systems of then (CO2) and those of today (typically Halon) are quite different.  Namely the ones today work quite well.

Third.  You're  not likely to put out a fuel tank fire in flight.  No airplane I've ever flown (Part 25 certified transport airplanes) have had a method to.  I understand these are WWII warplanes and the fuel tanks have self sealing capabilities but even they have their limitations.

Fourth.  The fire suppression systems are actually (last I  was informed regarding the Zeke) modeled into the burn times.  You forget that a fire is not a death sentence in game.

Enter
Enter
Enter

Heck of a lot easier than fumbling through a falling burning fuselage to find a way out.

Iunno Golfer, I get where he's coming from. The way that fires and hell, all damage for that matter is whack. Fires will blow you to bits no doubt (that is unless you're already gear down coming in to land...) when in WWII, you still had a fighting chance of getting home. ..

[AWwrgwy]

Iunno Golfer, I get where he's coming from. The way that fires and hell, all damage for that matter is whack. Fires will blow you to bits no doubt (that is unless you're already gear down coming in to land...) when in WWII, you still had a fighting chance of getting home. ..

Really?

Other than "we'll dive and put the fire out" the typical reaction to a fire on a plane was to bail out, death being permanent and all.

Examples where it was the norm rather than the exception of getting home on fire?


wrongway

[Castle51]

  Ok, first off we are talking about fire suppression systems for the aircrafts engines which all allied aircraft had.  You are talking about fires within the interior of the aircraft in which most bombers had a supply of fire extinguishers on board so I'm pretty sure that would also be the logical alternative to bailing out over enemy soil.

   I'll put it to you this way.

B-17 Flying fortress in WWII...  $276000

Dry Chem Extinguisher in WWII... $15

Fire Suppression system for B-17s engines in WWII... $470

Thinking people didn't have the ingenuity to solve life threatening problems in WWII...  PRICELESS

[vonKrimm]

If you find a feathering switch on a C-17, C-5 or any other multiengine turbojet airplane that's not a B-36 then I'll tip my hat to you.  Any means of feathering anything for that matter on something that's jet powered.

I "feathered" a stewardess (yes, i still call them that) after pushing her switch aboard a 707 once.  Does that count?

[Golfer]

Ok, first off we are talking about fire suppression systems for the aircrafts engines which all allied aircraft had.  You are talking about fires within the interior of the aircraft in which most bombers had a supply of fire extinguishers on board so I'm pretty sure that would also be the logical alternative to bailing out over enemy soil.

OK well the "fuel fire" thats conveniantly located right next to the engine still had a suppression system for it on most allied aircraft.  It shouldn't be a death sentance.

Seems to me we're talking about both.  If one goes impeded for too long you're going to end up with the other.  Also at no time did I say they did not have fire suppression systems nor did I say they were completely ineffective.

Keeping in mind you're the guru who told us that the propeller feathering switches were fire buttons and that you can feather an engine on a C-17 or C-5 I'm not totally sure you're completely sure what you're talking about.  If you don't think an engine fire on a B-17 over Germany going unextinguished isn't a problem that's going to lead you to a silk canopy then you're mistaken.

They had their limitations as did the self sealing capability of the fuel tanks.  What you're asking for, the ability to discharge a fire extinguisher in a cowling in an attempt to snuff out an engine fire, is of no use to Aces High because as it's already been mentioned the fuel tanks are the items that catch on fire.  Blowing a fire bottle into an engine compartment to combat a wing fuel tank fire is equally effective as wishing really really hard it goes out.

[Masherbrum]

Seems to me we're talking about both.  If one goes impeded for too long you're going to end up with the other.  Also at no time did I say they did not have fire suppression systems nor did I say they were completely ineffective.

Keeping in mind you're the guru who told us that the propeller feathering switches were fire buttons and that you can feather an engine on a C-17 or C-5 I'm not totally sure you're completely sure what you're talking about.  If you don't think an engine fire on a B-17 over Germany going unextinguished isn't a problem that's going to lead you to a silk canopy then you're mistaken.

They had their limitations as did the self sealing capability of the fuel tanks.  What you're asking for, the ability to discharge a fire extinguisher in a cowling in an attempt to snuff out an engine fire, is of no use to Aces High because as it's already been mentioned the fuel tanks are the items that catch on fire.  Blowing a fire bottle into an engine compartment to combat a wing fuel tank fire is equally effective as wishing really really hard it goes out.

Excellent post Golfer.    He still won't "get it" though.   

[Dantoo]

If fuel still had a high chance of igniting under these conditions, modern jet aircraft would not have the option to dump fuel as it would pose too much of a hazard when the fuel vapors came into contact with super heated gasses from the aircrafts engines.

I just love it when somebody's post gives me an opportunity to watch this over and over and over. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFjycL0qEgs

It's only when you can't bring the fuel into contact with the super-heated gases from the aircraft's engines does it become hazardous.  You end up with a vapour plume behind and below the aircraft extending through 3-4 thousand feet.  You do your best to help people avoid these areas.  Contrastingly, if you do deliberately bring the fuel into contact with super-heated gases, it becomes quite safe to dump it low and over population.

H/W an example of my taxes at work with the fullest approval I can muster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-_i5jQVWz8&feature=related