Continued from: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...711006608#8711006608
So what you are saying is that for fuel to leak from the tank in the fuselage into the wing, the plane would then need to bank to that side.The fuel goes where gravity takes it.
If the plane is turning it would also follow the G force, which would also send fuel toward the belly of the plane.
And just to clarify, its the bladders that are self sealing, not the bay that they are placed in.
what would keep the fuel that leaks from a projectile, from just puddling up in the storage bay?
Isn't that fuel bay sealed off, or is that also vented?
From the other diagrams posted, i still don't see how fuel can leak to near wing and explode, and not also cause a far in other sections of the plane where fumes, or fuel has accumulated.
Shouldn't we be seeing more fire from fuel burning off, after the explosion?
Bill
As I've stated before, if fuel was flowing through the aircraft the plane would blow up as it takes off. Fuel fumes form much easier on the hot ground, with no venting going on, than in cool air up high with lots of venting going on. There's a large number of ignition sources in the take off process, which almost guarantee the explosion if it ever was to occur.
Also, considering this ongoing explosion a fuel vapour explosion is pretty much offensive to anyones intellect, fuel vapour goes off at once, belted ammo, however, may not:
![]()
With the 190 sitting on the ground, or in a climbing attitude, any fuel leakage would run to the tail where the electric motor for the tail trim could ignite the fuel.
In a dive, the fuel would run towards the very hot engine and be ignited.
Of course, the panel under the fuel tanks of the 190 was completely sealed allowing no seepage.
Posting the link to the original thread's footage for the convenience of all:
http://video.google.com/videop...8324640976189633970#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkAlwB77nIs
Fuel vapor explosion.
Good job Bill, its been awhile since the mods have encouraged a "regular thread, part 2".
Liquid gasoline doesn't explode it burns rather slowly, gasoline vapors mixed with atmosphere makes great explosions. Look at combustion engines. The explosive potential of gasoline was covered earlier and I don't think anyone disputes that a few ounces of gas properly atomized makes for a big boom.
With the FW190 the whole back half of the wing at the fuselage is next to the fuel tank, and the part of the wing we keep seeing fail is only a few feet away. Shrapnel damage to the fuel tank aside its not a leap of faith to to think that fuel vapors from basic operation would collect in the area (mechanical things leak, its just the way it is). As to the wing being vented, we all know fluid dynamics are complicated. You could just as easily say that airflow leaking into the structure would help atomize the fuel, that pressure helps fuel air explosions to be more effecient.
The area we are seeing the wings blow apart doesn't have to be the source of the ignition, its only where we are seeing the structure fail first. There are coincidently holes in the wingspar in the same place the wings are failing in the videos(The gear strut is attached there with the cannon barrel passing through the spar right next to it.) It would seem that the wing is predisposed to break in the in a lot of different situations, not only internal explosions.
I think its clear detonation of the ammunition magazines is possible and happened, I don't understand the reluctance to believe that fuel explosions, by their nature, would be at least as probable.
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Good job Bill, its been awhile since the mods have encouraged a "regular thread, part 2".
Liquid gasoline doesn't explode it burns rather slowly, gasoline vapors mixed with atmosphere makes great explosions. Look at combustion engines. The explosive potential of gasoline was covered earlier and I don't think anyone disputes that a few ounces of gas properly atomized makes for a big boom.
With the FW190 the whole back half of the wing at the fuselage is next to the fuel tank, and the part of the wing we keep seeing fail is only a few feet away. Shrapnel damage to the fuel tank aside its not a leap of faith to to think that fuel vapors from basic operation would collect in the area (mechanical things leak, its just the way it is). As to the wing being vented, we all know fluid dynamics are complicated. You could just as easily say that airflow leaking into the structure would help atomize the fuel, that pressure helps fuel air explosions to be more effecient.
The area we are seeing the wings blow apart doesn't have to be the source of the ignition, its only where we are seeing the structure fail first. There are coincidently holes in the wingspar in the same place the wings are failing in the videos(The gear strut is attached there with the cannon barrel passing through the spar right next to it.) It would seem that the wing is predisposed to break in the in a lot of different situations, not only internal explosions.
I think its clear detonation of the ammunition magazines is possible and happened, I don't understand the reluctance to believe that fuel explosions, by their nature, would be at least as probable.
Because if it was as probable it would mean that the ac in question (Fw in this case) DOESNT have a major flaw in its design/equipment, it would only mean that something happend that could happen to any airplane shot at.
Not nearly as intresting![]()
I would think that a few shots through the fuel tank or a fuel line would increase the chances of such
an explosion soon after far and above normal undamaged operations. Fumes alone can go from fuselage
into wing unless it is sealed. Where will the explosion be seen? Any place weak enough to blow open?
Any place damaged enough to be weaker?
Could be fumes, could be ammo, could be fuel tank?
Where they make gunpowder or fireworks there's usually one weak wall that will blow out before the others
to keep an accidental blast from taking out adjacent assets. The old DuPont works had the weaker wall
facing out on the river I saw for instance. It's an engineering thing like having a part that will break
before something much more expensive or dangerous will, at least hopefully. I wonder if they did that
with the planes for any of those explosive kind of things? I'm guessing not but it's maybe worth asking.
Just saw the end of the original thread. Bill, get a copy of the MGM BoB film from 1968! They simulate a few
delayed fuel explosions and fires, and check the list of technical advisers while you're at it. Got my copy
at Target for $10 a few years ago and worth more than it cost. I dunno if those planes had the self-sealing
tanks or not and no, while not perfect it's not your usual hollyweird extravaganza like that last Pearl Harbor
movie (read: crock of feces), more like Tora-Tora-Tora which was also done with good attention to historic detail.