Just for the record, Spitfire...

[Noir]

In AH, the spit, like all other planes, can soak a few 20mm hits if these are well distributed. The pictures seems in line with what we have ingame, except that the modeling of the impacts is superior.

[Guppy35]

How can we know what exactly the structural damage was to downed aircraft that lost a wing in flight for example? We don't have the other half to make a comparison with. Therefore, define normal circumstances.

Do you know if photo 8 also is of ZFP Guppy?

Yep, other side

[Guppy35]

Those pictures are significant because under normal circumstances each one of those aircraft would have been lost, because they got lucky, not because the Spitfire would, on a regular basis, take multiple cannon shells to the wing and continue on without structural failure.

Pictures like that survive precisely because they are NOT a good indicator of how good an aircraft is at absorbing fire, just like the story about Johnson's P-47.

The point is, when folks say this or that about damage to any bird in the game, it really depends on where you hit them.  Just cause you hit em with a 'tater' doesn't mean it has to go down.

The Spitfire was a tough bird, as were most combat planes.  They had to be for what they had to do.

[Motherland]

The point is, when folks say this or that about damage to any bird in the game, it really depends on where you hit them.  Just cause you hit em with a 'tater' doesn't mean it has to go down.

The Spitfire was a tough bird, as were most combat planes.  They had to be for what they had to do.

I understand this, I only meant that just because these Spitfires took some damage doesn't meant that the ingame spitfire should become a tank.

How can we know what exactly the structural damage was to downed aircraft that lost a wing in flight for example?

Simple; if these circumstances were normal, they wouldn't be noteworthy enough to have deigned a photo

[STXAce8]

I don't think it takes a 30mm well....

[JOACH1M]

I don't think it takes a 30mm well....

anything over 23mm doesn't end well with single engined planes

[MachFly]

Even looking at Guppy's pictures I don't think the Spitfire should be remodeled. Take a look at my pictures in the OP, I think that shows about the same amount of damage. But I would love for HTC to make the damage look more realistic, not just bullet holes but the skin getting ripped off and large chunks of wing missing in the middle, ect.

[MachFly]

As for the spitfire, I think its the easiest plane the shoot down in the game if the wings take the damage and you can actually make the shot. They are made of paper!

zero... 

You say that only because it is the most common thing you get the shoot at (because most noob fly it), also if the Spitfire is flown my someone who knows what they are doing you wont be able to get a good shoot and wont be able to take it down (see OP). There are a lot of planes that are easier to shoot down.

[Karnak]

I don't think it takes a 30mm well....

My Spit XIV took a 37mm round from a Yak-9T once at something like 1,200 yards range.  Got a hole in my radiator though.  Still made it home.

The Yak-9T only stuck with me because I had to keep dodging the attacks of an Me262.  Things got a lot more interesting after I took the radiator hit.

[MachFly]

My Spit XIV (the one I borrowed from MachFly) took a 37mm round from a Yak-9T once at something like 1,200 yards range.  Got a hole in my radiator though.  Still made it home.

The Yak-9T only stuck with me because I had to keep dodging the attacks of an Me262.  Things got a lot more interesting after I took the radiator hit.

Fixed   

That's one thing that is unrealistic about AH's Spitfire. Since in reality the Spitfire has two radiators, HTC decided not to model that for just one plane. Instead they made it extremely difficult to destroy. I have also lost the radiator in the Spitfire a few times and all those times were with a 30mm from a 262 or K4, as the radiator absorbed all hits the airplane survived.

[Guppy35]

I understand this, I only meant that just because these Spitfires took some damage doesn't meant that the ingame spitfire should become a tank.
Simple; if these circumstances were normal, they wouldn't be noteworthy enough to have deigned a photo

Agreed.  Not suggesting it at all.  Just trying to take away the idea that it was made of paper and fell apart easy

[nrshida]

I understand this, I only meant that just because these Spitfires took some damage doesn't meant that the ingame spitfire should become a tank.

No one was suggesting it should become a tank, I myself was suggesting the wings shouldn't pop off spontaneously unless you destroy the main spar and leading edge.

Simple; if these circumstances were normal, they wouldn't be noteworthy enough to have deigned a photo

I agree they are certainly noteworthy, I just don't see your inference that they are not representative of what the airframe could cope with.


My experiences of Spitfires in Aces High are that the wings are particularly vulnerable to fire, detaching completely with a short accurate burst. Compared with other aircraft in Aces High they are way below average for damage resistance, don't you agree?

These pictures seem to contradict that notion. These are not a few lucky pings from a rifle-calibre MG, something substantial and probably explosive landed right on target and yet they flew on.

[MachFly]

My experiences of Spitfires in Aces High are that the wings are particularly vulnerable to fire, detaching completely with a short accurate burst. Compared with other aircraft in Aces High they are way below average for damage resistance, don't you agree?

These pictures seem to contradict that notion. These are not a few lucky pings from a rifle-calibre MG, something substantial and probably explosive landed right on target and yet they flew on.

Take a look at the pics in the OP, I think the wings are just fine.

[nrshida]

The wing hits are MG in that screenshot?

[MachFly]

The wing hits are MG in that screenshot?

I can't tell you which ones are machine guns or canons, but they're both there.