![]() ![]() This both extinguishes the fire and seals the leak. As soon as the tank is punctured, regardless of a fire or not, the rubber in the middle layer will react with the fuel and swell until the hole is reasonably obstructed. Your description of a self-sealing fuel tank remaining on fire when lit is the exact situation of the sealing mechanism failing. Self-sealing fuel tanks added cost and weight, yet seem easily defeatable with incendiary bullets. But maybe someone can explain the rationale held at the time. I realize this is a complex question, because cost-benefit analysis is a complex thing. I remember reading about a lot of bomber pilots in WW2, who took hits in the legs from flak, and some of them started sitting on their flak jackets all the time. However, if you're taking flak, it seems to me you've got many problem-areas under the aircraft to worry about. I know there is accident protection and flak fragmentation protection. So the question is, why have them at all? It seems so easy to defeat the system by just using incendiary bullets, which must be a whole lot cheaper than the rubbery fuel tank. The wing will be punctured, and the fuel will either explode, or catch fire and remain on fire. In other words, a self-sealing fuel tank will not protect against incendiary bullets. I just read this question and answer, which seems to confirm my fears that an incendiary bullet will still destroy you if it hits your fuel.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |