Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Castle51 on May 24, 2009, 12:16:04 AM
-
Why the hell don't any of these planes have working fire bottles? They're in the cockpit as those four round red knobs but when you get an engine lit its an automatic death sentance for you. It doesn't make any sense.
-
Why don't people gather all the facts before going berserk?
-
Are we in the Wishlist?
All the same.........Silliest post of the day, WTG!!!
-
Why the hell don't any of these planes have working fire bottles? They're in the cockpit as those four round red knobs but when you get an engine lit its an automatic death sentance for you. It doesn't make any sense.
Engines dont catch fire in AH.
-
Engines dont catch fire in AH.
Well I'm not a historian but I believe most American aircraft in WWII had self sealing fuel tanks to prevent fuel leaking from the tanks do to gunfire. Now obviously if you take a hit by a bunch of 20mm rounds its gonna leave one hell of a hole and fuel will leak but with an aircraft traveling 200 miles an hour or so, the fuel vapors would be too oxygen enriched by the air passing over the wing of the aircraft and therefor be above the fuel's UEL (upper explosive limit). 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. If you don't believe me, drive your car down the highway, light a match and hold it out the window.
Something else to consider is that military grade or any aviation fuel for that matter has a substantially higher flashpoint than standard automotive fuels. I wouldn't recommend trying it but I could probably stand in a lake of JP-8 (standard fuel for most U.S.A.F aircraft today) with a lit road flare, drop it at my feet and not have a care in the world about having it light off. Now this one is up for criticism because I've been trying to find out what fuel WWII bombers used back then and so far haven't had much luck (I believe it was just a modified version of standard AvGas for the time.) so if someone could get back to me on that, I'll try to find its LEL and UEL for reference.
Another fact you all seem to be overlooking (like no one back in WWII could think of ways to solve these problems) is that just like the aircraft we have flying around today, even the gas tanks were equipped with fire suppression systems that would flood the said tank with foam were it to catch on fire. I believe the company mainly responsible for manufacturing these systems was the Walter Kidde Company out of Belleville, NJ. Here is a quote taken from a web page discussing the fire systems as well as other life support systems they made to support the Allied war effort;
"Somewhere out in the far Pacific, a wounded Grumman Hellcat is spiraling down. As the pilot ditches the plane in the sea, he pulls the cord on his Belleville-made flotation vest and escapes along with a Belleville-made inflatable raft. The vest and raft keep him afloat until he is rescued. A distance away, on the deck of an aircraft carrier, asbestos clad men, known as "Asbestos Joes", watch as a smoking war bird tries to set down on the deck. A Kidde fire suppression unit prevented the gas tanks of the plane from exploding in air giving the pilot a chance to come in. When the skidding craft bursts into flames on touchdown, the "Asbestos Joes" rushed straight into the flames, armed with Belleville-made flight deck equipment, doused the flames and saved the pilot. Wherever there was combat, Belleville was present in carefully crafted equipment to protect the fighting men."
Now with everything considered about the fuel, the engines WOULD be the most likely culprit for a fire on a plane and that is why WWII bombers were equipped with fire bottles.
Why don't people gather all the facts before going berserk?
I could keep going because hey, I only do this for a living and your the one sitting behind your computer playing a video game.
-
Plenty of US aircraft in WWII met their ends due to fuel fires. Self sealing tanks help, but are no guarantee. The only aircraft in AH that didn't have self sealing tanks, so far as I know, are the A6M2, A6M5b, D3A1 and B5N2. All other aircraft, including the other Japanese aircraft, had self sealing tanks. The quality of self sealing tanks did vary though.
The A6M5 (A6M2?) did pump engine exhaust into the fuel tanks to make them less explosive.
-
self - sealing fuel tanks do no good when you have 30mm hole in your wing
-
Why the hell don't any of these planes have working fire bottles? They're in the cockpit as those four round red knobs...
You mean the 4 red buttons in the B-17? I believe they were used for feathering the propellors?
-
I could keep going because hey, I only do this for a living and your the one sitting behind your computer playing a video game.
You said it yourself, its a game !! It simulates combat in WWII, NOT duplicates it. Some considerations are made because it is a game.
-
Why the hell don't any of these planes have working fire bottles? They're in the cockpit as those four round red knobs but when you get an engine lit its an automatic death sentance for you. It doesn't make any sense.
I'm all for you bomber boys having fire bottles as soon as they remove your lazer guided bomb sight. :aok
-
You mean the 4 red buttons in the B-17? I believe they were used for feathering the propellors?
I'm pretty sure they're the fire bottles. C-130s, C-17s, and C-5s have those four red buttons too and that's what they do. Something that most people might not know is that usually when you see a button or switch that is Red or Yellow (or both-ejection handle) in any military aircraft, its gonna be for some sort of emergency.
-
I'm pretty sure they're the fire bottles. C-130s, C-17s, and C-5s have those four red buttons too and that's what they do. Something that most people might not know is that usually when you see a button or switch that is Red or Yellow (or both-ejection handle) in any military aircraft, its gonna be for some sort of emergency.
A lot has changed with human factors and engineering since the 1930's. The 4 red switches on the instrument panel are feathering switches for the respective propeller, 1, 2, 3 and 4. You wouldn't likely find that in a modern cockpit but it's been 70 years since the B-17 was considered modern.
-
I'm pretty sure they're the fire bottles. C-130s, C-17s, and C-5s have those four red buttons too and that's what they do. Something that most people might not know is that usually when you see a button or switch that is Red or Yellow (or both-ejection handle) in any military aircraft, its gonna be for some sort of emergency.
Golfer is right, they're for feathering the propellors.
However, the B-17 (and probably many of its colleagues) did have fire-extinghuishers. Their switches would be mounted on the far right of the instrument-panel.
I'm not sure what these did, perhaps eject some kind of foam/water into the engine-compartment?
-
A lot has changed with human factors and engineering since the 1930's. The 4 red switches on the instrument panel are feathering switches for the respective propeller, 1, 2, 3 and 4. You wouldn't likely find that in a modern cockpit but it's been 70 years since the B-17 was considered modern.
Well I just looked it up and as much as I hate it, I'll have to admit that I was wrong. The fire extinguisher controls were actually off the co-pilots right leg and the red buttons WERE infact the feather controls! Contrary to just about every cockpit and flight deck I've ever been in and trained on, for some reason they decided to put one of the most important safety systems on the plane well out of reach of the pilot. Why they did that baffles the hell out of me as the four red buttons I mentioned before would be the Ideal location and set up for the planes fire suppression system as it would be in easy reach of both the pilot and co-pilot (that's why most modern aircraft have that as their set up). Again I do apologize for making the assumption on the B-17s instrument panel but the fact still remains that the B-17 still had a fire suppression system for its engines as well as the fuel tanks and should be an option in the game.
-
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.
Modern airplanes almost exclusively have the feathering of the propeller as a position on the propeller lever typically over a detent at the full coarse/low rpm position. This is true for piston airplanes built in the '50s on to the newest King Air rolling off the line in Wichita today. What I was getting at is you're not likely to find on a modern airplane 4 red switches/buttons/knobs like those on the B-17 for propeller feathering that don't correspond to fire or firewall shutoff features. Human factors engineering and basic design evolution have brought us there.
I never challenged that red means emergency. I challenged your insistance that the 4 feathering switches were fire bottles.
-
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
Engines don't catch fire in Aces High, only fuel tanks.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ..
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-_i5jQVWz8&feature=related)
-
And now to go off topic just a wee little but a great little video for "pig" fans:
CAUTION CLIP CONTAINS PROFANITY - (Normal Australian conversational English)
One day, down at the range, the guys wanted a shot of a low pass and ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8124lhm6d7o&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8124lhm6d7o&NR=1)