I can't imagine why they would change that configuration, unless they illiminated the pumps and used air pressure to force the fuel through the lines.
We burned up an F86 once because an Afterburner boost pump, which turned at 10,000 rpm had a bearing go out and the heat melted the seal and ignited the fuel in the tank. It didn't explode. It just burned. If the tank hadn't been vented(to exhaust fumes) it probably wouldn't have burned.
I have worked on furnaces that were hard to light with igniters. Sometimes the fuel would build up and when it finally lit it would burn furiously but it didn't explode. That fuel oil,like JP4, has to be atomized for efficient ignition to occur.
They don't use spark plugs on diesel engines. They drive the cylinder air temperature up with pressure and then spray atomized fuel into the combustion chamber. They often have to use ether to get them going. In cold weather they do not shut them down, because they are so hard to get started.
No I'm afraid you can't convince me that the center fuel tank exploded.
Times have changed. Please go to the NTSB website and review the Boeing submission to the report. Here is the address:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA800/exhibits/boeing_submission.pdf
After reading it, you will have a better understanding of the 747 fuel system. Let me give you a hint...it isn't at all like the F-86. No one is argueing that it is hard to ignite liquid Jet A. But as I've said previously, what explosively ignited was the vapor. Your anecdotes about burning fuel are all interesting, but moot.
"No I'm afraid you can't convince me that the center fuel tank exploded."
That's fine, but can you convince the engineers at Boeing that it didn't?