burst into flames

USAGE SUMMARY

"burst into flames" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use this phrase to describe an explosive, instantaneous reaction or event, such as: The building suddenly burst into flames and was quickly engulfed in a roaring fire.

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Wiki

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

Cars burst into flames.

The New York Times

A few others burst into flames.

The Economist

Then it burst into flames.

The Guardian - Money

Then she burst into flames.

The New York Times

The plane burst into flames on impact.

The New York Times

Unfortunately, it crashed and burst into flames.

The New York Times - Books

The car immediately burst into flames.

The New York Times

It would probably burst into flames.

The New Yorker

He's had the occasional machine burst into flames.

The Washington Post

Primitive oil wells burst into flames all over his film.

The Economist

But some of the earliest Nanos burst into flames.

The Economist

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When describing a slower, less dramatic fire, consider using alternatives like "caught fire" or "ignited".

Common error

While "burst into flames" is acceptable in news and general writing, it can sound overly dramatic in formal or scientific contexts. In those cases, prefer more neutral language like "combusted" or "ignited".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "burst into flames" functions as a verb phrase describing a sudden and intense ignition. As confirmed by Ludwig, it effectively conveys a dramatic and rapid onset of fire, often implying destruction or danger. Examples show its use across diverse contexts.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

60%

Wiki

20%

Science

10%

Less common in

Formal & Business

5%

Academia

3%

Reference

2%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "burst into flames" is a widely used and grammatically sound verb phrase that vividly describes sudden and intense ignition. Ludwig confirms its correctness and common usage. While suitable for news, general writing, and even some informal contexts, its dramatic tone may not always be appropriate for formal or scientific writing. Alternatives like "ignited" or "combusted" may be preferable in such cases. The phrase frequently appears in news and media, vividly painting dramatic scenarios.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

erupt in fire

Focuses on the sudden and forceful nature of the ignition.

catch fire suddenly

Highlights the unexpected and rapid onset of burning.

ignite rapidly

Emphasizes the speed at which the object starts burning.

go up in flames

A more colloquial expression indicating complete destruction by fire.

be consumed by fire

Highlights the completeness of the burning process.

become engulfed in flames

Stresses the encompassing nature of the fire.

take fire instantly

Focuses on the immediate ignition without delay.

combust spontaneously

Emphasizes the lack of external cause for the fire.

flare up intensely

Highlights the intensity and quick rise of the flames.

blaze suddenly

Emphasizes the visual spectacle of the sudden fire.

FAQs

How can I use "burst into flames" in a sentence?

"Burst into flames" is used to describe something that suddenly and intensely catches fire. For example, "The car crashed and immediately burst into flames."

What can I say instead of "burst into flames"?

You can use alternatives like "erupt in fire", "catch fire suddenly", or "go up in flames" depending on the context.

Is it appropriate to use "burst into flames" in formal writing?

While grammatically correct, "burst into flames" may be too dramatic for formal writing. Consider using more neutral terms like "ignited" or "combusted".

What's the difference between "burst into flames" and "caught fire"?

"Burst into flames" implies a more sudden and intense ignition than "caught fire", which can describe a slower or less dramatic process.