Should jets explode? - Page 2

Treetop64 · #1 06-08-2012, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fearfactor

No, because fuel vapour from fuels in the jet fuel/kerosene/diesel family are not explosive even in vapour form. And you are on the Daidalos team? This is truly sad.....

Wow. Really? Sure you know what you're talking about there, son?

Thank God you aren't on the Daidalos Team. Now that would be sad. You'd have us all wishing we still had CFS3.

ElAurens · #2 06-02-2012, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fearfactor

At least a slower burn would give you a chance to get back over to the friendly lines in some cases. Now you have to bail out.

In a real plane, in a real war, if it were on fire, you would get out of it as fast as you could. Only gamers with no fear of death ride a fireball to the front lines.

Luno13 · #3 06-02-2012, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElAurens

In a real plane, in a real war, if it were on fire, you would get out of it as fast as you could. Only gamers with no fear of death ride a fireball to the front lines.

+1

Besides riding it out, they also try to continue fighting.

AI are somewhat guilty too though.

I would be booking it for home after the first "ping", assuming no teammates were in direct danger. But in the game, it's easy to ignore threats.

Fearfactor · #4 06-04-2012, 04:45 PM

Seems some are evading the issue and discussing getting out of a plane that is on fire instead. Totally irrelevant. In any case if you've ever played online people are constantly doing unrealistic things that are not what pilots in WWII would have done. So if I want to ride a flaming plane back to the front lines ( especially offline, regardless of realism ) that is my business. So back on topic please. The discussion revolves around whether early jets of the WWII era would later explode if on fire.

Fearfactor · #5 06-04-2012, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luno13

+1

Besides riding it out, they also try to continue fighting.

AI are somewhat guilty too though.

I would be booking it for home after the first "ping", assuming no teammates were in direct danger. But in the game, it's easy to ignore threats.

-10
Both posts get a -10 because posts are avoiding the topic at hand. Simple as that.

Treetop64 · #6 06-05-2012, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElAurens

In a real plane, in a real war, if it were on fire, you would get out of it as fast as you could. Only gamers with no fear of death ride a fireball to the front lines.

That is the point of contention with many, many hotly argued issues in the forums. Gamers with no fear of death would do a lot of things in IL-2 1946 that they wouldn't do in an identical real-world situation.

Treetop64 · #7 06-07-2012, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fearfactor

...then your 262 should never explode after it catches on fire. It should burn like crazy but not explode....I'm starting this debate, please post your opinion if you care to.

Well, the upper wing surfaces of many Yak-9s weren't supposed to peel off in flight. They should stay tightly glued to the wing structure like crazy, not peel off. But they did peel off. The obvious culprit would be the quality of the glue bonding the wing skin to the structure. Turned out that the camouflage paint on the wings contained an unauthorized substitute ingredient that interacted negatively with the glue, which BTW was applied correctly. In the meantime, the wing structure was redesigned and strengthened. The point is that just because something shouldn't happen in a design doesn't mean that it won't, and the cause isn't always the most obvious one.

You started this "debate", and I'm caring to post my opinion, so don't go flaming me for taking up your invitation.

RPS69 · #8 06-07-2012, 02:53 AM

Maybe Fearfactor didn't give this topic a good start.

But he has a point. On FB release, I didn't cared much about it.
Still, right now after a lot of more reading on the subject, I know it is somewhat exaggerated.

Jumos B engines, being a cheaper version of the Jumo A, got this problem. But on those engines if you pull back the throttle, the engine will flame out.
So, some fire may start, but it will start in a non enclosed area. Also the fuel tank is on the fuselage, and not in the wings. Maybe Luno got a point there, but anyway...

More... there are really not that many reports on this happening when it entered regular employment. Actually I can't find any! It did happened during evaluation, but that wasn't a hazard on normal operations. On the next Jumo, this problem was corrected.

Now, forget the fire at take-off. (That's what I was talking about before)

You fire some bullets at a Me262 engine, and it will always take fire... even if you throttle it out... so, all hits are on the tiny valve? When this happens, I agree with the pilot that bailed out. But the valve is really a small target... why did all the times that this engines are hit, they just got in flames, and they can't be stopped with a dive and fuel cut out?

This really don't connect with operation reports.