Raxx: Its a common misconception that Japanese planes were "fragile" and "weak", mostly due to their early fighters like the Zero's, lacking pilot armour and self sealing tanks. Japanese Engineers learned their lesson quickly and late war aircraft like the N1K2 included armor, self sealing tanks, and were designed much more robustly.
Bullethead: No your not imagining things
I noticed the very same thing, and several squad members that popped in last night to test out the George, also commented on this fact of its extremely fragile tail and control surfaces, and the fairly fragile wings. I was going to mention this in another post but since you brought it up, I will comment in this thread.
Pyro, is the N1K2 intentionally this fragile? If so could you please comment on the historical data and reasoning for this?
It is my understanding, that the N1K2 had both adequate pilot armour and self sealing fuel tanks, so I wouldnt' think there would be a need to artifically weakened the "toughness" of the aircraft (like the Zero in WB's) to simulate this proverbial achilles heel.
Combat reports from WWII, repeatedly state that American HellCat pilots were shocked at the durability of the N1K2, and that it absorbed much more punishment than typical of earlier models of Japanese fighter aircraft.
Last night I repeatedly died when I lost the entire tail (horizontal and vertical) to single ping long distance passes, where most of the enemy tracers visibly missed the aircraft. Again mostly due to flying style, these deaths were to the typically weaker armed aircraft in AH's, P-51's and Me-109's (1x20mm armament ususally according to priv conversations with their pilots afterwards).
Theoretically the N1K2 should be as robust an aircraft, as any other of its general size, weight, and type of construction. Aluminum is Aluminum, and it doesn't matter if its American, British, German or Japanese, since it doesn't change its physical properties.
I'm not asking for the N1K2 (9,500 lbs) to be as robust as the P-51 (11,600 lbs) or the F4U (14,200 lbs), but realistically it should be more robust than either the Me109G-10 (7,400 lbs), the Spitfire IX (7,500 lbs), or the La-5fn (7,400 lbs). Note: Weights are approximate combat weights, and are used to merely indicate size of construction.
And we all know how much of an aerial tank the Spitfire in AH is.
Yes guys, I realize its a beta and damage values are being adjusted often (before someone says it)
But I just wanted to express my concern to Pyro, and beg that we don't fall back to the fallacy that "Its a Japanese plane, so its made of tissue paper and should be extremely weak under enemy fire".
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
