Should jets explode?
 

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel that jets, such as the Me-262 should not explode under any circumstances once on fire. Modern jet fuels I know for a fact are similar to kerosene or diesel fuel, but a different level of refinement. Not sure about W.W.II era jet fuel but assuming it is similar, then your 262 should never explode after it catches on fire. It should burn like crazy but not explode. But in IL2, all jets can explode. Unlike petrol/gasoline, fuels of this type are not explosive, just extremely flammable. I was weirded out the first few times I flew the 262 when Forgotten Battles introduced this first jet to the game a long time ago, because it would explode and I always understood ( possibly wrongly ) that jet fuels are not explosive. There is a difference between highly flammable fuels and combustible ones. Right or wrong? I'm starting this debate, please post your opinion if you care to.

I think the engine explosion, at least in the Me-262, accomplishes something else: it models the weakening, and eventual failure of the spar from heat. Whether it comes off from an explosion or slow burn doesn't make a huge difference in the end (final result is a crater).

It would be cool to see this fixed, if true, but I don't have an opinion on this yet.

But this unpredictable explosion makes it hard to survive in a jet if the engine catches on fire. 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.

Isn't it always the vapour that is leading to explosion? So half full tanks in planes can very easily explode.

Excess of kerosene, only means that it will burn for a while, until it is all consumed out. But if you shut the valve, there must not be any more kerosene flow. Engine may be caught into flames, but it appears more like a fuel tank going into flames than an engine.

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.

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.

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

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.....

Don't you like his cockpits? ;)

While knowledge about fuel explosions is no mandatory knowledge for membership in TD, I'm glad he's a member.

However, he's right and you are not. Kerosin and diesel fuel vapours are highly explosive. This is how a Diesel engine works in the first place, and if you doubt Kerosin / Jet explosions you might want to google TWA flight 800.

I decided to research this topic a few days ago but changed my mind about posting. However, I will note some observations.

In researching, I found a number of references to Me-262's exploding during the refueling process. I also came across several pilot accounts of 262's exploding during dogfights.

So, take that as you will. I'm sure more experts on the subject can shed some light on this.

*My own gut feeling tells me this ----> Jet Fuel + War = BOOM!

Aviar

Yes, a spark from a fuel pump (or a valve, cannot remember) exploded the tank and brought the aircraft down.

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.

Yes, accidents happens, and errors with aviation fuel of any kind, could bring hell anywhere. But the main thing here is the engines getting instantly on fire and exploding, for just a bit of excess fuel. The main effect of this, is bringing the turbine to an overheat.
But if you cut the fuel, you get a more than fair chance of starting again without more consequences than diminsihing the engines life, or just burning more fuel than needed.
Here and now, is a digital thing. Move the thrust too fast, and it goes BOOM! This effect was allways a bit on the exagerated part.
The 262 was not put into flying without testing. It was a whole program with almost 5 years sinjce engines development.
And also you may find reports about accidents with them, but nothing as sistematich as it is in game.

Reading this, one is left little room to think anything other than that you're assuming the source of a fire or explosion is always from the engine.

You are talking about what?
Did you EVER flyed the 262 in game?
I ASSUME you don't!

Did you at least know on what is based the in game 262 taking on fire?
On the release of 262, long before 1946, in the il2 manual explained what were the game considerations about it.

It was stated that the excess fuel sent to the engine before it reached 60% power could drain into the carenate, and ignite there. This is what is simulated in il2.

Any other consideratios on what is happening in the sim, are just speculations. If you want to speculate about any other kind of accidents, that are not stated as simulated, create your own thread.

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.

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.

Actually, my post was directed at you. However, since you didn't post the comment that I responded to, then my post is irrelevant. Sorry....:oops: Though on it's own, the technical point I made in the first part still stands.

(Sorry 'bout that, fearfactor.)

I acknowledged this, and understood the confusion. Sorry myself for flaming you.
Yes, it still stands... on the Yaks! ;)

[IMO]

Me 262 has to have some "balancing" damage modelling. :)

A few MG pings in an engine and your done, its ablaze no matter how much you "dive it out", it reminds me of the FW190 wing damage, few MG hits and its time to head home mission over.

Bf110 has a explosion/flame retardant cockpit you can sit in it all day long surviving with fuel tanks exploding [last count was 45 fuel tanks exploding] also de-winged,
so some strange damage modelling has been around a long time, some has been introduced with the new patches like the bf110 endless exploding fuel tanks.

Would be nice to clean the bugs up but its a thankless task for them at times I imagine.

If it makes no sense and has never been fixed its not a bug its balancing :)

PS: check the Me262 climb rates also :(

[/IMO]

Actually, there is some reversal on TD work getting more attention.

And more... its happening that there is some place for reasonable discussion here, so why not consider some very old points into mature discussion.

TD work is appreciated, and if they are not putting more things out, I'am sure it is from lack of resources and not from lack of goodwill.

Starting a topic about a weird subject, and keeping it clean, is actually signs of good health.

Should've said that to those people who died on TWA flight 800... Also, how do those diesel internal combustion engines work? The fuel mixture in the cylinder... what does it do? Ignites and expands - which is pretty much equal to exploding.

And you are allowed to write around forums without the almighty smiting you for extreme stupidity.... Now that is truly sad.

Oh, and on a personal note, yes, I think all jets should explode, and it should happen within seconds of my joining what ever server they are in.

I hates jets, yesssssss I do...


:o

When I was pumping Jet A-1 into the wings of a twin turbine from a 44 gallon drum on a trans-oceanic ferry flight with vapours aplenty circulating in the cabin, I took comfort in believing the same as you say.

Later I found the official explanation of the TWA FLight 800 crash contradicts this view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

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.

The fuel crew at the airline I work for has to vent the tank(s) to below the explosive level (not ABOVE the explosive level, mind you) before work or entry. (I'm so glad I've "lost" my qualification for fuel tank entry - lol.)

On a slightly different plane, however, I believe the fuel tank explosions are ENTIRELY too huge. There is a nice story in Warpath Across the Pacific about a B-25 with an empty (with a few unusable gallons in it) 60 gallon lower fuselage fuel tank (in place of the useless lower turret) taking a direct AAA hit, catching fire, then exploding, blowing out the windows and the top turret's plexiglas leaving the turret gunner (nobody was seriously hurt) wondering "what the hell just happened?". In game, of course, there wouldn't be anything left...

Finally.... a post with some meat to it.

It does seem like these fuel tank explosions are all the same intensity, no matter how much fuel the plane may actually still have. It would be sweet if they were dynamically programmed to react to actual fuel levels.

Aviar

That is probably beyond the capability of this decade old game engine.

That's like trying to model the detrimental effects of harmonics on the airframe at certain RPM's. Some things are just beyond the capabilities, and arguably the philosophy, of this sim.

In a way variable explosion/damage intensity is already modeled; Flak does more damage the closer it gets.

While it'd probably be a bit of a kludge(though as the engine was only designed to simulate the Ilyushin Il-2, I expect the game shipped with a few ghetto-mods already) I do believe it's possible.


Personally I love limping home in a damaged aircraft to try and save it, so having it not blow its wings off on the way would be nice.

Well... on the limping back, was the initial sensitive point.

Why is it that a plane explode in flight, by just moving the throtlle, and getting an unrecoverable fire damage from less than a 10th litter fuel excess!

Cutting that engine throttle, and entering into a dive should be enough to put the flames out, and a try to make a return to base.

That era engines wont be able to recover in flight from a flame out, thing much more likely to happen on any jet.

Wow, seriously? Did someone actually say fuel vapors aren't explosive???

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__...e-facepalm.jpg

Dead horse because the thread starter said something ridiculous?

The original claim did have a point.