Fuel leaks and fires

[GRUNHERZ]

When a fighter is leaking fuel and streming it behind itself wouldnt any MG or cannon hits at the location of the leak set it immediatly on fire due to the HE/incendiery mix of the rounds. We all know just how volitile fuel is when its mixed with air, and sreaming like that it must be very much mixed with air and should be very very easy to light. And if its leaking that means that any self sealing feature has been defeated so the plane would then be destroyed by the fire.

What do you guys think? Could we have this in AH?

[Thrawn]

Sounds right to me.  Shouldn't he same thing happen with the ethylene glycol.

[streakeagle]

Actually, fuel does not burn very well except in vapor form. Most fuel fires (aicraft, automotive, or, in my experience submarines) occur when vaporized fuel (or a pressured stream) hits a heat source (like a hot engine block). An explosion only occurs if there is a lot of vapor, or very high temperatures or pressures. If you shoot an oil drum full of fuel, it probably won't detonate. If you shoot a nearly empty drum, KA-BOOM (inrush of oxygen mixed with existing vapor plus high temperature/pressure caused by bullet). The problem with aircraft, is that fuel vapor blows away in slipstream.

All that notwithstanding, some aircraft were far more susceptible to fuel fires and explosions than others: B-24 wing tanks were terrible about blowing up. If I recall correctly, there was a tank on the spitfire close to cockpit that burned quite a few pilots (ouch!). Japanese planes without self-sealing tanks were notorious for fires as well.

I think (i.e. my opinion!) that the results you see in Aces High are a good approximation of what you see in real gun camera footage. If B-24's are ever introduced, their wings better fold up like the real ones: the cost of their performance gains over the B-17 was survivability.

[GRUNHERZ]

Whats a fuel leak thats getting sprayed out by the windstream. Its gas and air in an aerosol form which ignites very easily, plus you have to remember that our MG/cannon shells have a dedicated HE/Incindiary charge meant to ignite fuel.

[Jigster]

I'd say there is still  some work done on that part of the damage model.

Due to the nature of airplane fuel systems (in this case, usually pressurized, very high octane gas) an explosion or fire from puncture is far more likely then a fuel leak intially, exluding planes with very large tanks.

It would be nice to have a seperation in both engine and fuel tank fires (IE fire on the wing from fuel tank and things like ammo cook off, etc, and engine fires) and perhaps the countermeasures for each. While it doesn't really effect the fighters much, it would sure make the bomber damage model a bit more dynamic.

[MrSiD]

Burn related damage is indeed a big issue in damage modeling.

Even more though I'd like to see the effects of bullet holes in ac before the whole wingtip falls off..

For example hurricanes were notorious for ripping of the canvas coated wings and fuselage. It's been reported that a hurri only took a couple rounds of MG to slowly deteriorate into a flying (dropping) piece of barbwire.

Futhermore (which I find interesting) was that hurri II and hurri I were one of the best turning planes in WB, yet the FAF doctrine orders to engage hurricane in a turnfight, where he is most vulnerable and can be shot down with a short burst into the fuselage (90% of cases the hurricane burst into flames immediately)

[MANDOBLE]

Agree, GRUNHERZ. We should have also a much more notorious fire graphics effects, It is really hard to notice if your enemy is already burning.

[mx22]

 

Originally posted by Jigster:

Due to the nature of airplane fuel systems (in this case, usually pressurized, very high octane gas) an explosion or fire from puncture is far more likely then a fuel leak intially, exluding planes with very large tanks.

In ww2 many fighters were equipped with a system that automatically filled tanks with exausts as fuel was drained from it. This was done to prevent explosions if bullet hit the fuel tanks.
Btw, in real life, if you had fire aboard the plane, you would simply dive to a high enough speed to put the fire out(American bombers come to mind right away) No way you can do this in AH.

mx22

[This message has been edited by mx22 (edited 05-11-2001).]

[Scootter]

AHHHH exhaust in fuel tanks ????

Aircraft exhaust is very very very hot and has quite a bit of flame in it.

 Night fighter and bombers had to use shrouds to hide the blast or be seen a long way off.
 I have flown a Stearman at night and that damn thing looks like its on fire when taxeing on the ground.
 I have never heard of purging a fuel tank with exhaust and would run if someone tried on my plane.

[Jigster]

Probably some form of non-flammable gas (then again it could be just air...) . Because the tanks have to be sealed, SOMETHING has to go into them to allow fuel consumption.

[ispar]

 

Originally posted by streakeagle:

All that notwithstanding, some aircraft were far more susceptible to fuel fires and explosions than others: B-24 wing tanks were terrible about blowing up. If I recall correctly, there was a tank on the spitfire close to cockpit that burned quite a few pilots (ouch!). Japanese planes without self-sealing tanks were notorious for fires as well.
B]

Not the Spitfire. Hurricanes had a fuel tank right by the cockpit, in front of it, I believe. It was the only tank on the fighter that was not self-sealing. Many survivors of being shot down in a Hurricane were recipients of awful "Hurricane burns." Hurricane pilots helped pioneer the medical practice of skin grafting. No joke.

------------------
"E's bound to be guilty, or 'e wouldn't be 'ere!
Starboard gun! FIRE!
Shootings to good for 'im, kick the louse out!
Port gun! FIRE!"
- Old chant used to time saluting of guns on ships

[Jigster]

If you must know...he SAT on it