Bf-110 fires

[Natives-Soul_Finger]

What about the Bf-110 makes them more susceptible to fires than many other aircraft?

[Finkeren]

Big, juicy and largely unprotected wing tanks?

[Natives-Soul_Finger]

Not self sealing or purged at all?

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by VicNighthorse

[salimliu]

Any body could explain why the samething didn't happen to PE-2?

 

[Finkeren]

6 hours ago, salimliu said:

Any body could explain why the samething didn't happen to PE-2?

 

 

It does. I flame Pe-2s quite often. 

 

However, I’m pretty sure both types of Pe-2 has an inert gas system, which means that they are unlikely to catch fire on the first hit.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

All FiAF WW2 veterans I spoke to said Pe-2 was suspectible to fire as any other plane. Best spot to hit to cause a fire and catastrophic damage very quickly was to hit engine and wing area between fuselage and engine bays. They considered the Ilyushin Il-4 tougher than any other VVS bomber. 

[OrLoK]

odd, in my current campaign (pwcg) I'm mainly encountering 110s in my p40 and havnt seen one in flames from either my wing mates or myself...

[ShamrockOneFive]

12 hours ago, salimliu said:

Any body could explain why the samething didn't happen to PE-2?

 

 

Single pass.

 

 

I then lit up most of the other Pe-2s in the formation in a similar way. I was using a FW190 as a mitigating factor... But those Pe-2s definitely burn just as much as I seem to burn in a 110.

[Natives-Soul_Finger]

I did read http://explodingfueltanks.com/pdf/ExplodingFuelTanks-chapter1.pdf some months ago and again before I posted here. I have found no credible source that indicates the 110 fuel tank protection was anything less than state of the art for wing tanks of it's day(s). The source above even goes so far as to say that RAF pilots during the BoB learned to shoot at the engines rather than the fuel tanks. I do realize the RAF was using mostly .303s at the time. Does anyone know of a source that has information about the protective measures taken with the 110G fuel tank, especially inert gas purging. I had always guessed that they were purged but have not source for that notion.

Eric Brown for instance doesn't mention unusual flammability in his very positive assessment of the plane in Wings of the Luftwaffe in which he does speak directly about the fuel system.

I am not positing that it was not very susceptible to fuel fires from battle damage but rather just trying to understand if said vulnerability was different than other planes with big wing tanks.

Edited October 6, 2018 by VicNighthorse

[CrazyDuck]

14 hours ago, salimliu said:

Any body could explain why the samething didn't happen to PE-2?

 

 

Pe-2 historically had a system which pumped filtered and cooled engine exhaust gas into the fuel tanks to replace the air there in order to reduce the possibility of explosion or fire (no oxygen). Not sure whether this is modelled in the sim or not.

[Natives-Soul_Finger]

27 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

 

Pe-2 historically had a system which pumped filtered and cooled engine exhaust gas into the fuel tanks to replace the air there in order to reduce the possibility of explosion or fire (no oxygen). Not sure whether this is modelled in the sim or not.

Was this unique to the Pe-2 or even Soviet aircraft? I had, perhaps foolishly, guessed that it was a widespread quite logical practice.

Edited October 5, 2018 by VicNighthorse

[CrazyDuck]

On 10/5/2018 at 5:05 PM, VicNighthorse said:

Was this unique to the Pe-2 or even Soviet aircraft? I had, perhaps foolishly, guessed that it was a widespread quite logical practice.

Good question. I know it was common on Russian designs, but I never heard about this being used elsewhere. Perhaps its effectiveness was questionable, or cost/benefit wasn't so clear as one would hope.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

In one of Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles videos about the F4F Wildcat it mentions it also used this system. And in the lend-lease.ru article about B-25s in Soviet service it's said that the B-25s were modified by the soviets to feature it.

Edited October 8, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Finkeren]

I might be wrong, but I think the inert gas system was a relatively novel idea around the start of WW2. I know that British long range bombers only started using a more advanced nitrogen system in 1944.

[InProgress]

From what i noticed, bf110 on fire explodes a lot, while pe2 just burns and that's all. Maybe bad luck or something, idk, just looks like it.

[Finkeren]

10 minutes ago, InProgress said:

From what i noticed, bf110 on fire explodes a lot, while pe2 just burns and that's all. Maybe bad luck or something, idk, just looks like it.

 

It would make sense, if the Bf 110 had no inert gas system and the Pe-2 did. Even if the fuel tank is punctured, the inert gas system would keep pumping oxygen deprived exhaust gasses into the tank, keeping the oxygen levels low and likely preventing a catastrophic detonation of the tank itself. The fire would be restricted to outside the tank (mostly in the airflow itself) doing much less damage than a fire inside the tank would.

[[TWB]80hd]

I will say that I definitely set 110s on fire, a lot, with 23mm AP ammo.

I had always assumed this was simply due to the AP rounds putting holes through parts of the engine not meant to have holes in them, and the resulting spew of fuel onto hot engine surfaces caused the fire(s)... Same with He-111s... AP rounds are my go-to vs. heavier aircraft (specifically the engines) due to this phenomenon.

 

(I mean, also you get to shoot any tanks you run across too, so there is that)

 

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

it happens but not the same..

BF 110 fires out of 100 shoot downs 60-75
Pe2 Fires out of 100 shootdowns 10-20 (even if it skids along ground at 600kph and brakes up they survive and it dont burn.)

But yeah bf110 is very broken.
even 30cal from Il2 gunner sets them on fire or M4 AAA

 

[Willy__]

20 minutes ago, =TBAS=Sshadow14 said:

BF 110 fires out of 100 shoot downs 60-75
Pe2 Fires out of 100 shootdowns 10-20 (even if it skids along ground at 600kph and brakes up they survive and it dont burn.)

But yeah bf110 is very broken.
even 30cal from Il2 gunner sets them on fire or M4 AAA

 

One could argue that its the other way around, that the pe2 is broken while the 110 is fine, but who knows...

 

I noticed that all axis planes apart from the 190 seems very easy to down, most of the times a single round is able to de-wing or de-tail a 109. But keeping on the topic, I noticed that you also get a much higher rate of PK while flying the 110 compared to the Pe2, and it doesnt matter if you take the armored headrest or not, I ended up always removing it so I have a better view to the back since it appears to do jack s@^$ anyways. Honestly I would hope that the IL2 would be more resistant, because right now the only reason to take it instead of the pe2 is because of the anti tank capabilities of the cannons, where as the pe2 is faster, carries more bombs, has a better gunner and is more resistant to damage. Guess we should change the name of the game to Pe-2 Battle of ____________ 

 

Edited October 13, 2018 by Willy__

[LukeFF]

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

yeah 110 catches on fire so easy because it has activators in wings when hit by russian bullet even if not hitting fuel it has a chance to auto start fires (only on LW planes)

that Entire post was joke.. obviously its no bias./