Flaming Fuel Tanks

[alien01]

In the 7^th edition rules, the rules for putting out fires are on p. 21. They are a continuation of the rules for rolling a 6-sider to determine what happens after your Engine’s hit capacity is reduced to zero. They say “if the engine is burning the pilot must sideslip”.

The 7^th Edition rules regarding fires starting are in three places: Engine Critical #3 which says “Engine on fire”; The aforementioned rules for engine hit capacity reduced to zero which say “2 or 3 = Engine catches fire”; and Forward Fuselage critical hit #7 which says “2 or 3 = Engine running but on fire”.

So far, so good. All fires start in the engine and we know how to put them out.

8^th Edition Rear Fuselage critical hit #11 isn’t a problem because it includes it’s own instructions for extinguishing the fire. Engine Critical #3 isn’t a problem because it still says “Engine on fire” The potentially problematic difference in the pieces of the 8^th Edition that we have so far is that Forward Fuselage critical hit #3/5 says “plane is on fire”.

A literal minded rules lawyer will say that we only have rules for putting out engines that are on fire, NOT planes. In fact, this has already been said.

I can see three ways to put an end to this particular boondoggle.
1. Revise the instructions for putting fires out to cover the forward fuselage critical hit.
2. Revert to the older language for the forward fuselage critical hit.
3. Add to the new critical hit instructions how to put it out (I’d suggest “extinguish same as engine fire”).

I’d prefer #3.

The above is the text of an e-mail I sent to Mike C. It addresses the issue of getting the rules consistent without explicitly addressing whether sideslipping should help with a fuel tank fire.

Some planes had their fuel tank behind the cockpit, some had it in front. Some had a gravity tank in the center wing, some didn't. Without doing a gregat deal of research and customizing the critical hit chart for each plane, there's no way to make it accurate for all planes.

My understanding is that, although sideslipping would sometimes put out the fire, the primary purpose was to fan the flames away from the pilot and from the structure of the plane. As long as the fuel tank is in the fuselage, sideslipping would do one of those two objectives. Or, if it wouldn't do it well in the case of a fire in a fuel tank inside the rear fuselage, you can at least argue that it's plausibly possible, given that there is enough damage there to cause the critical hit in the first place.

[Stephen]

alien01 said:

A literal minded rules lawyer will say that we only have rules for putting out engines that are on fire, NOT planes.

I wouldn't chalk that up to "rules lawyers." I'd chalk it up to plain English. When a rule says that it applies to engine fires, I generally figure that it applies to fires in the engine.

Without doing a gregat deal of research and customizing the critical hit chart for each plane, there's no way to make it accurate for all planes.

a) We could be generally accurate by saying that engine fires require sideslips to fan flames from the cockpit but fuel tank fires, the vast majority of which were directly underneath or behind the pilot, do not.

b) Or we could make it inaccurate for all planes by doing the opposite.

My understanding is that, although sideslipping would sometimes put out the fire, the primary purpose was to fan the flames away from the pilot

Yes...

and from the structure of the plane.

... and no.

Airplanes did not stop flying because of fire. They would continue flying long after the cockpit became uninhabitable by the pilot. Raymond Bell, Merian Cooper and a bloomin' host of other pilots flew their planes to the ground despite being horribly burned. The plane didn't know it was burning... it would fly just fine for quite a while after catching fire. The problem was the pilot burning, not the plane.

The pilot would get to the ground as fast as humanly possible and, unless the frontal location of the fire demanded sideslips, performing aerial maneuvers was the absolute LAST thing on his mind. If there was any way of avoiding them he would not waste the time... he'd get down, down, down by any and all means as quickly as he could.

I believe unifying the sideslip rule for all fires is inaccurate and is one more instance in which we deny the player the right to fly his own plane, mandating that the rules do it instead.

That said, Ken just spoke to MC about it and the debate is dead... sideslips will be required for all fires in the 8th edition.

[albpilot]

I honestly could care less how it's resolved other than I want the one that's quickest and easiest to play out.

[Stephen]

I'd like the one that offers the broadest range of pilot options that a reasonable interpretation of realism allows.

I am on a Holy Crusade against flight by legislation. Join the cause!

[alien01]

I'm afraid I'm against the cause (at least a bit). Players sitting in a comfortable chair in a toasty room (or a cool one in summer) will do the most impossible things. For example in the case of a fire as you said above "The pilot would get to the ground as fast as humanly possible". Left to their own devices players would have every other plane on fire fight it out until it falls apart. (You can form your own estimate of how generous I am in assuming that the other half of the time players would dive for the ground asap.)

[Stephen]

Of course many of players who have low level pilots in the air will do just that, which is why we have the rule that after three turns you're toast. So let them fry themselves. At least they'll have the option of doing so, which is better than constantly legislating how people must fly their planes in the way that we see fit.