Video got me fired up - What to fly?

[kimosabi]

Sir Crumpp, since you still haven't provided me with any directsource at all(kinda like that "gaming site" huh?), your arguments are no better than mine. Please drop the patronizing comments and grow a pair. I don't give a crap if you guys build FW190's because they don't relate to the problems they had with the early droptanks. Neither does the 109 E7 because they also used the metal variants, except drag issues ofcourse.

It seems to me your only beef here is about a claim that the early plywood tanks were suspected to self ignite. I don't know if that happened or not but a suspicion is just that, not necessarily documented facts. I don't know who "said it" first either. The Henschel 123's tanks were fitted with an igniter though, so that the tanks would self destruct after they were dropped. Maybe that was the source?

Strawman my @$$. Since you're so eager to show that you're restoring old fighters, I figure you should have more contacts than me on that subject. Use them, then come back here and prove me wrong. As I've said before, I'd be more than happy to correct myself on that claim because, just as you, I'm interested in facts not fiction. For now, my posts still stand.

Thanks for linking me to the Smithsonian though, I'm working on my requests as we speak lol.

[Crumpp]

I'm interested in facts not fiction.

Good. So why have you been so resistant to acknowledge unfounded claims from a gaming site is not a good source??



Do you think it somehow detracts from you as a person or some imagined internet standing?

Thanks for linking me to the Smithsonian though, I'm working on my requests as we speak lol.

Good, my intention was to help you.

My suggestion is to walk down to your local FBO and talk to the lineman about fueling airplanes in the meantime.

This will be my last bit of advice to you as frankly I just don't think very much of you after your last few post's. You are not worth the effort and feel free to make any ridiculous claims you wish in the future.

You made the ignore list!

[kimosabi]

So instead of just providing us with the source and info to totally prove me wrong, you just walk away while firing off a couple more badly camouflaged insults? Troll is obvious.
Attacking a source without proving it wrong is just ignorant.

What, Crumpp, did you think that I would just accept what you've said in your posts without any source? At all? You do remember that you were the one asking for a source and I gave it to you, you have provided NADA, except attacking a source for part of its title, and rambling on about RAF and USAF solutions.. Did you think of me as easy prey, is that it? Cool, I love it when people underestimate me... Ignore list? Well, that's your problemo hombre, not mine.

[Matze81]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Sorry, Matze. You won't be seeing a Fw-190 in SoW:BoB - they didn't enter service until 1941. No doubt they will make an appearance later in the series though.

It's just as well the Luftwaffe didn't have the 190, they would have altered the balance significantly.

Yeah, I haven't seen any screenshots of the 190 yet, so I guess you're right. I still hope the 190 makes the original release of SoW:BoB, though.

Cause eventhough the Fock Wulf 190 appeared after what is generally considered the timeframe of the Battle of Britain, it did fight over the english channel and therefore would not be out of place in this scenerio, as far as I'm concerned.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I'm hoping I'll have to fly ab initio in a Tiger Moth, advanced in a Harvard, pass the wings test, go on to armament training, then get posted to either an OCU or direct to a squadron to fly whatever they flew.

Not sure what'll happen on line, but I bet it won't be the same ratio as 2 or 3 RAF squadrons at a time going up against 150 bombers plus escorts in relays -Keith Park won't be available!

But however it's done and whatever we fly, it looks as though we're in for a treat.

Tally-Ho.

[Squawk]

Just perusing the forums and the drop tank discussion caught my attention.

(In the spirit of the thread, I must say I am looking forward to flying the 109, but then I'm primarily a 109 driver in Il2)

Regarding the alleged ignition of the early Luftwaffe drop tanks.

( my 3 years experience with aviation fuels gives me some insight into the problem)

Disclaimer: Modern aviation gasoline 100LL is of a lower octane than most of the gas used in the high performance engines of yesteryear, but the principles are the same.

The question is not "Did early German drop tanks ever self ignite?" but rather, "Under what conditions is self ignition possible?"

Aviation gasoline does not just wake up one morning and decide to go 'BOOM' there is always a trigger, one must only find it.

Gasoline in its liquid form is not flammable, it is the vapor that it gives off as it evaporates that burns. These fumes are also not 'reactive' per say, it needs either open flame, a spark or a sufficiently hot enough source to ignite (auto ignition). If we eliminate the open flame, and heat source from the equation (most unlikely) we are left with sparks as the most probable.

Without knowing if the tanks had any electronics (ie gauges, wires, ect) installed, the likely culprit would be 'static' electricity.

Physics lesson aside, (and without reference to my tedious training video's) lets just say that under 'fluid dynamics' a turbulent disturbance of any fluid creates some static electricity as the molecules collide with each other.

The wood itself is another piece of the puzzle, wood is a decent insulator of electricity (laminates and composites also suffer from this property). And as such modern composite aircraft have specific grounding locations to permit the dissipation of static electricity as the aircraft is being fueled.

The most likely times for the build up of this static electricity would be the fueling of the tank itself (on the ground), and in flight after some of the fuel is burnt off, allowing the remaining fuel to slosh around inside the tank.
(vibrations from the aircraft, as well as maneuvering and air turbulence)


Once this static charge has built up, it simply needs to arc to an oppositely (or lesser) charged object and there is the spark (ignition source).

On the ground it would likely be the hose nozzle or the lineman, but in the air if a large enough difference in charge between the tank and the aircraft were created (and the tank were not grounded properly to the aircraft) the tank could arc to the aircraft itself, and run the risk of igniting any fuel leaking out of the tank. Or possibly the fuel vapor inside the tank itself.



Now I realize this is a HUGE post for a first time poster, but I hope it sheds some light on how drop tanks could have possibly ignited. (and I couldn't think of how to say it in fewer words, incomplete info is almost as bad as incorrect info)

[Crumpp]

You are correct in that static electricity is an issue for any aircraft when refueling. It generally occurs between the tank and fuel nozzle....

A drop tank is part of the aircraft's static charge and a mechanism must be introduced to discharge it.

A lineman sticking a fuel nozzle to an ungrounded aircraft will cause a static discharge.

The question becomes what is going to cause the static discharge in our drop tank?

http://www.experimentalaircraft.info...efueling-1.php

[Squawk]

Good link Crumpp.

However I think this may still leave out a possibility.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

A drop tank is part of the aircraft's static charge and a mechanism must be introduced to discharge it.

I am unfamiliar with the drop tank in question's construction, and as such can not offer more than a hypothetical guess.

It was stated that the early tanks were constructed mostly out of wood.

Should there 'not' be an adequate grounding system between the aircraft and the tank, It could be 'possible' that due to woods poor conductive properties, that the aircraft may be isolated from the static charge inside the drop tank, created by the fuel sloshing around. (as opposed to the general static charge both would acquire from moving through the air)

Again this is theoretical, and in all likely hood was thought of by the designers at the time and proper 'bonding' was conducted. Should that system become faulty..... who knows?