Does aircraft size matter much more than many assume?

[artik]

3 points I noticed:

- There are many threads about how Yak-3 is tough, sometimes it looks like (according to the forum) that Yak-3 can take more punishment than P-47...
- Yak-3 is one of my favorite planes and I noticed that it catches fire easily, even small pings create damage easily.
- When I have P-38 in front of me, almost any canon burst and I hit. The P-38 is the easiest plane to shoot at, you almost don't need to aim - shoot anywhere and you hit.

Now if we take facts Yak-3 has one of the smallest wingspans in the game and P-38 is one of the biggest: 9.2 m vs 15.85 - almost twice.

So I come to my first conclusion:

the plane size matters much more or at least as much as its toughness (punishment it can stand)

Now, I see many discussions about the toughest plane, but almost none for the smallest one, so I come to the 2nd conclusion:

Many players underestimate the importance of the aircraft size - being a small target.

What do you think?

[Arlo]

[Dragon]

(Image removed from quote.)

+1

[Karnak]

Size absolutely affects effective durability.  The aircraft I use most of the time is actually pretty tough against things that can't focus on a particular part of it with a sustained burst such as auto-ack and long ranged defensive fire from buffs, much tougher than the Ki-84 against those things.  Against a fighter that can give me a sustained burst it feels fragile because it just gets drilled whereas the Ki-84 just seems to soak up the damage as it wiggles and jinks disallowing fire to be focused and causing more rounds to outright miss.  At least that is how it seems when I fly the Mossie and Ki-84.

[Fulcrum]

I do think size impacts toughness...but I think it's offset by the fact you tend to collect a good deal more bullets when in a large plane than a small one.  Example:  While flying the 110G this month I was pleasantly surprised to find it very durable, but at the same time I seem to take more hits from red guys at longer firing ranges (600 to 800 yards) than I do when piloting something smaller.  

Just my opinion and experience...YMMV.

[Scca]

I still think it's more about small being harder to hit.  A larger plane is tougher I would think, but would take more hits.  As with everything in this game, if you hit the right spot it doesn't matter, it's going down, Spitfire wings for example. 

I do think size impacts toughness...but I think it's offset by the fact you tend to collect a good deal more bullets when in a large plane than a small one.  Example:  While flying the 110G this month I was pleasantly surprised to find it very durable, but at the same time I seem to take more hits from red guys at longer firing ranges (600 to 800 yards) than I do when piloting something smaller.  

Just my opinion and experience...YMMV.

I tried your ride and found they have glass wings, but are otherwise pretty tough..

[Fulcrum]

I tried your ride and found they have glass wings, but are otherwise pretty tough..

Not so much....I've yet to pull them off even in a near terminal speed dive (the ailerons are another matter).  Again, I think it's not so much them being fragile ("Fra-ge-ley....it must be Italian!"  ) as they are bullet collectors.  But in the end it's all the same I suppose.

[Karnak]

As I said, at least in fighters I find that size goes up faster that durability goes up.  Bombers are a big jump though.

[hitech]

Think about how you define durability.

Definition #1 Average amount of bullets landed on plane to make it die.

Definition #2 Average amount of bullets fired at plane to make it die.

HiTech
 

[Copprhed]

(Image removed from quote.)

Thanks Arlo, you said what I was thinking...and improved the thread 1000% with a pic to prove it!

[Arlo]

Think about how you define durability.

Definition #1 Average amount of bullets landed on plane to make it die.

Definition #2 Average amount of bullets fired at plane to make it die.

HiTech
 

I reckon the first is durability. I'd suspect the second is accuracy/target size.

[Arlo]

Thanks Arlo, you said what I was thinking...and improved the thread 1000% with a pic to prove it!

Face it, all our brains are likely wired that way. 

[artik]

Think about how you define durability.

Definition #1 Average amount of bullets landed on plane to make it die.

Definition #2 Average amount of bullets fired at plane to make it die.

HiTech

I reckon the first is durability. I'd suspect the second is accuracy/target size.

The point is that even if you a fly, than you'll be devastated to nothing by a singe 5.56 mm round, but have you ever tried to kill a flying fly using a gun? A fly would be more durable than B-29.

So the target size is strongly connected to an ability to kill the target so it should probably be a part of durability equation.

[Scca]

Not so much....I've yet to pull them off even in a near terminal speed dive (the ailerons are another matter).  Again, I think it's not so much them being fragile ("Fra-ge-ley....it must be Italian!"  ) as they are bullet collectors.  But in the end it's all the same I suppose.

I have 13 kills, 5 deaths.  In all but 1 death, I lost the wing due to breakage outboard of the engine.  It was battle damage, not from velocity.  

[Fulcrum]

I have 13 kills, 5 deaths.  In all but 1 death, I lost the wing due to breakage outboard of the engine.  It was battle damage, not from velocity.  

Most of my deaths this month were due to my plane catching fire.  Of course, it's at the wing root, which then promptly explodes and blows the wing off so I suppose you could say they are an example of wing loss.