Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MachFly on May 08, 2011, 02:37:24 AM
-
Spitfire can actually take fire...
Spit14: shot by: Niki, P47, P51, & 190
(http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7753/ahss252.jpg)
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/777/ahss253.jpg)
Seafire: shot by: B-17, auto ack, & manned ack:
(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/9526/ahss318.jpg)
(http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/8995/ahss317.jpg)
(http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/6089/ahss316.jpg)
Note: Have higher quality picture if need be
-
Those are obviously shopped :noid
:D
-
Those are obviously shopped :noid
:D
You mean Aces Highed :)
-
Having a Russian pilot gives you immunity to damage :)
-
cheater :lol
seriously, you know something. Spits tend to lose their wing after 3 20mm pings to the same spot especially when they are pulling high G-s.
-
I knew no one would believe me if I'd just say it so that's why I posted the pictures.
I'm going to go fly my Spit14 though base ack now :bolt:
-
Of course it can. So can the A6M2.
It just takes less damage than some other aircraft in its weight category, such as the Bf109.
-
Of course it can. So can the A6M2.
It just takes less damage than some other aircraft in its weight category, such as the Bf109.
A lot of people tend to think that in can take as much damage as a zero, in reality (as far as you can see) it can take a lot more.
-
I knew no one would believe me if I'd just say it so that's why I posted the pictures.
I'm going to go fly my Spit14 though base ack now :bolt:
haha i belive you just looks like if one more .22 hit and the whole plane is falling apart
Btw zeeks are tough little rides until you can ping the fuel tank.
-
haha i belive you just looks like if one more .22 hit and the whole plane is falling apart
That's the only reason why I landed the seafire, had fuel and ammo but could not figure out why I'm still flying. On the spit14 however I landed when I was low on fuel and ammo and had 6 kills.
Btw zeeks are tough little rides until you can ping the fuel tank.
You have to try not to hit them, and that's incredibly hard.
-
I was just going to ask for another Spitfire or 190 thread. Thank you.
-
I'm just waiting for all the pictures of the spits twirling toward the ground missing a wing :devil
-
That looks a lot like a72 which was captured deep into rook territory last night which caused 15 vulchers to do nothing but fly up the runway, turn around, down the runway.....up the runway....down the runway.
Of course, I was able to spawn, instantly bail, and run to the edge of town on foot and garner 4 proxy kills as they tried to strafe me dead.
-
A lot of people tend to think that in can take as much damage as a zero, in reality (as far as you can see) it can take a lot more.
I see no such thing in those shots. While I don't fly the A6M2 much, I have landed quite a few shot up A6M5s. Spitfires seem to lose wings easier than A6M5s do, and the wings are about the same size.
-
I see no such thing in those shots. While I don't fly the A6M2 much, I have landed quite a few shot up A6M5s. Spitfires seem to lose wings easier than A6M5s do, and the wings are about the same size.
Yeah but lilting up a zero is the same thing as taking it's wing off, you have to agree it's very easy to lit them up (especially if you use 30cas).
-
That looks a lot like a72 which was captured deep into rook territory last night which caused 15 vulchers to do nothing but fly up the runway, turn around, down the runway.....up the runway....down the runway.
Of course, I was able to spawn, instantly bail, and run to the edge of town on foot and garner 4 proxy kills as they tried to strafe me dead.
Spit14 picture is a few weeks old and the seafire picture is a few days. I think your mistaken.
-
I'm just waiting for all the pictures of the spits twirling toward the ground missing a wing :devil
Ofcourse there will be those pictures, I can post them myself if you want, but I can also post pictures of P47s and 190s with no wing. I'm not saying it's impossible to take the wing off, as a matter effect it's not hard, it's just not as easy as most people think (2 shots wont do it).
-
Ofcourse there will be those pictures, I can post them myself if you want, but I can also post pictures of P47s and 190s with no wing. I'm not saying it's impossible to take the wing off, as a matter effect it's not hard, it's just not as easy as most people think (2 shots wont do it).
Probably because those are BBs.
-
Probably because those are BBs.
I can't prove what was shooting at me (I do not have a video), if you choose not to believe me that's fine. If you decide to believe me I wrote down the list of aircraft that were shooting at me in the OP and you know what kind of guns they have.
-
Is this thread suggesting that graphical presentation of damage has something to do with the amount of damage registered to model?
-C+
-
Is this thread suggesting that graphical presentation of damage has something to do with the amount of damage registered to model?
-C+
What are saying?
-
Ofcourse there will be those pictures, I can post them myself if you want, but I can also post pictures of P47s and 190s with no wing. I'm not saying it's impossible to take the wing off, as a matter effect it's not hard, it's just not as easy as most people think (2 shots wont do it).
It will on a 152. Had a set of b26 take my wing clean off with 1 burst from waist guns at 1k!
:huh (I was below top turret range, way front of the tailguns, about 2:00 position)
-
It will on a 152. Had a set of b26 take my wing clean off with 1 burst from waist guns at 1k!
:huh (I was below top turret range, way front of the tailguns, about 2:00 position)
Not necessarily, some people will say that a quick burst from a P47 or a niki will also take the wing off but my experience shows it wont. All depends on where exactly you get hit and how many Gs your pulling at the time.
-
I'm just waiting for all the pictures of the spits twirling toward the ground missing a wing :devil
How about missing both wings? :devil :joystick:
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/Aces%20High/Foldingwings.jpg)
-
Fine we'll get off topic
How about missing both wings? :devil :joystick:
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/Aces%20High/Foldingwings.jpg)
I've done better...
(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/333/ahss297.jpg)
You know what happened next.
[/hijack]
-
Oops, sorry-I meant the 152's wing will fly off with a small burst :salute
-
Oops, sorry-I meant the 152's wing will fly off with a small burst :salute
ah cc
-
You know what happened next.
I'm seeing a Claw embedded in asphalt. :neener:
-
I'm seeing a Claw embedded in asphalt. :neener:
lol
I should get a vultch medal for that :devil
-
cheater :lol
seriously, you know something. Spits tend to lose their wing after 3 PIU PIUs to the same spot especially when they are pulling high G-s.
-
Your Spitfire XIV survived because those planes that were shooting at you were really spraying and praying. If either of those planes had hit at their convergence point you would have lost that wing. Also lucky that the cannon hit on the side of your fuselage wasn't in a vital area or your plane wouldn't have survived that hit.
At least in the Spitfire XIV's case, you survived by a little bit of luck and from the other guys not being able to shoot very well rather than because the Spitfire was a damage sponge.
ack-ack
-
Sometimes any airframe will amaze you. I primarily fly Spits but I have to tell you that they really are Faberge Eggs with cannons when it comes to damage. :aok
-
You're Spitfire XIV survived because those planes that were shooting at you were really spraying and praying. If either of those planes had hit at their convergence point you would have lost that wing. Also lucky that the cannon hit on the side of your fuselage wasn't in a vital area or your plane wouldn't have survived that hit.
At least in the Spitfire XIV's case, you survived by a little bit of luck and from the other guys not being able to shoot very well rather than because the Spitfire was a damage sponge.
ack-ack
Agreed, if I would have let anyone get a good shot I would probably not survive. But the same can be said for a P-47, if hit with a good burst at the convergence point it would not survive either.
AKAK, I'm sure you know and understand this already but there are a lot of people in AH who honestly think that Spitfire's wing will come off with one or two shots (not bursts). So those pictures are to show people that it's not as fragile as most think.
-
(http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b461/snax6/machfly.png)
2 pings :devil
-
(http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b461/snax6/machfly.png)
2 pings :devil
so...the wing is still attached... :)
...and those are not pings, their taters
-
(http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b461/snax6/machfly.png)
2 pings :devil
Wait.....that's me!!!!!!! :furious :furious :furious
lol
-
:rofl I only saved the film because you snagged me on climb out :mad:
I had to get ya back! :rofl :airplane: :joystick:
-
:rofl I only saved the film because you snagged me on climb out :mad:
I had to get ya back! :rofl :airplane: :joystick:
Could you email me the video please? I'd like to see what exactly happened.
email: machfly5@gmail.com
Thanks
-
Could you email me the video please? I'd like to see what exactly happened.
email: machfly5@gmail.com
Thanks
Yea, but when I'm home from class I send it
-
Thanks
Take your time
-
Agreed, if I would have let anyone get a good shot I would probably not survive. But the same can be said for a P-47, if hit with a good burst at the convergence point it would not survive either.
Really... so your saying that a spitfire is as durable as a P-47??! :huh :headscratch: I'd really like to see how. Did a spitfire take a full auto load from a 190, no. The P-47 was a tank and could take that kind of punishment, the only reason why the P-47 sucks so bad at durability in AH is because it's undermodeled and the uber ack.
-
the Spitfire was a damage sponge.
ack-ack
:lol LOL, go look at some real gun footage
-
Really... so your saying that a spitfire is as durable as a P-47??! :huh :headscratch: I'd really like to see how. Did a spitfire take a full auto load from a 190, no. The P-47 was a tank and could take that kind of punishment, the only reason why the P-47 sucks so bad at durability in AH is because it's undermodeled and the uber ack.
I don't remember ever saying that the Spitfire is as durable as a P-47, I said that contrary to popular belief it wont go down after two shots.
How do you know that in real life P-47 could take more fire and that our ack is over modeled? Are you an engineer who worked on it or did you fly one in combat? Please tell me as if you are I'd have lots of questions for you.
-
Really... so your saying that a spitfire is as durable as a P-47??! :huh :headscratch: I'd really like to see how. Did a spitfire take a full auto load from a 190, no. The P-47 was a tank and could take that kind of punishment, the only reason why the P-47 sucks so bad at durability in AH is because it's undermodeled and the uber ack.
He never stated that the Spitfire was as rugged as the P-47, you misunderstood because you lack the basics of reading comprehension.
:lol LOL, go look at some real gun footage
Again, please point out where I said the Spitfire was a "damage sponge". If you were to have someone that can comprehend what people write, have them read to you my original post again. They'll explain it to you slowly that I was telling MachFly his survival was more due to poor gunnery of the other player and the lack of hitting MachFly at the convergence point of the other guy's guns. Had the other guy been a better shot, MachFly's Spitfire wouldn't have absorbed the damage that his plane did.
Really... so your saying that a spitfire is as durable as a P-47??! :huh :headscratch: I'd really like to see how. Did a spitfire take a full auto load from a 190, no. The P-47 was a tank and could take that kind of punishment, the only reason why the P-47 sucks so bad at durability in AH is because it's undermodeled and the uber ack.
How is the P-47 (which model?) under modeled? Or is this claim come from the same place you pulled your claims of the Spitfire XVI or did you watch something of YouTube again?
ack-ack
-
No P-47 ever took anything close to the entire ammo load of an Fw190.
The flaw with only looking at some of the amazing shots of pulverized aircraft that limped home is that all the data points of the ones who only took a few rounds and didn't come back are missing from that method of "toughness determination".
I have seen a photo of a Ju88 that was shot down by a single 20mm hit from a Spitfire, and not to the cockpit.
For the little it is worth, I have read quite a few accounts of Spitfires that came back shot up too.
-
It is my PERCEPTION that P-47s are not at all hard to shoot down.
Here are what SEEM like the toughest plane to me.
#1. The Tempest/Typhoon. These are DEFINITELY at the top of my list. Except for their radiators, they just seem to absorb tons of damage.
#2. The F4F/FM2. This one makes a certain amount of sense.
#3. The Yaks
#4. The Hellcats.
#5. The Corsair.
Now, here are some of the odd points...the P-47 does not seem particularly hard to shoot down, nor particularly easy. The Corsair definitely seems to take abit more, which is just odd considering their relative sizes and construction. The 109s appear to be about as tough as the 190s, if not actually more so, which is just odd.
However, without access to specific data about the damage modeling, this is all just perception and speculation.
-
It is my PERCEPTION that P-47s are not at all hard to shoot down.
Here are what SEEM like the toughest plane to me.
#1. The Tempest/Typhoon. These are DEFINITELY at the top of my list. Except for their radiators, they just seem to absorb tons of damage.
#2. The F4F/FM2. This one makes a certain amount of sense.
#3. The Yaks
#4. The Hellcats.
#5. The Corsair.
Now, here are some of the odd points...the P-47 does not seem particularly hard to shoot down, nor particularly easy. The Corsair definitely seems to take abit more, which is just odd considering their relative sizes and construction. The 109s appear to be about as tough as the 190s, if not actually more so, which is just odd.
However, without access to specific data about the damage modeling, this is all just perception and speculation.
I think it also has to do with the size, for example: the Yaks are hard to shoot down because they are small and the P-47s are easy because they are huge and you can't miss them.
-
No P-47 ever took anything close to the entire ammo load of an Fw190.
But since Thrash99 heard about the story of Johnson vs the FW 190, he probably believes that this was the norm for P-47s being able to take a punishment.
ack-ack
-
I have seen a photo of a Ju88 that was shot down by a single 20mm hit from a Spitfire, and not to the cockpit.
I'd like to see that if you could pull it up please.
-
But since Thrash99 heard about the story of Johnson vs the FW 190, he probably believes that this was the norm for P-47s being able to take a punishment.
ack-ack
I'm only saying that because if you look at that to the P-47 in AH, it dies pretty fast don't you think? I can't see a couple of 20s hitting the wing and snapping it in half or the entire part comes off, it would have to make a hole to what a 30mm does to do that, which it obviously can't do in that in a couple hits.
-
Mach, I am at no Internet at my house (doing this from phone) and I cannot upload it as of now :eek:
-
Mach, I am at no Internet at my house (doing this from phone) and I cannot upload it as of now :eek:
Thant's fine, when ever you get a chance.
Thanks again
-
Shaddup about Spitfires not being tough. Like any bird it all depends on where you hit them. Picture is worth 1000 words. here's 12,000 words on Spitfire toughness. Spit I, Spit IIb, Spit V, Spit IX, Spit XIV and Spit XVI all included. Wings, fuselages, tails, elevators, horizontal tail plane etc. Those aren't mosquito bites on those Spits that all brought thier pilot's home :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/damage13.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/damage9.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Damage8.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Damage7.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/damage12.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/damage4.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/damage3.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Damage1.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/damage2.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/damage5.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Damage6.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/damage10.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Harding.jpg)
-
Shaddup about Spitfires not being tough. Like any bird it all depends on where you hit them. Picture is worth 1000 words. here's 12,000 words on Spitfire toughness. Spit I, Spit IIb, Spit V, Spit IX, Spit XIV and Spit XVI all included. Wings, fuselages, tails, elevators, horizontal tail plane etc. Those aren't mosquito bites on those Spits that all brought thier pilot's home :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/damage13.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/damage9.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Damage8.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Damage7.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/damage12.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/damage4.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/damage3.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Damage1.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/damage2.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/damage5.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Damage6.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/damage10.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Harding.jpg)
Interesting
Thanks for posting
-
Great pictures Guppy, many thanks for posting those. Looks to me like the AH's Spitfire damage model needs revising in the light of some of those pictures.
-
[..]
However, without access to specific data about the damage modeling, this is all just perception and speculation.
That specific data has got to be in the form of a programming language. Even if its spread over a couple thousand lines, I would still like to see it. It might be possible to translate it for everyone into a simple chart. But then again, that must be an industrical secret.
My only comment on the damage model is that wings are too fragile because no matter how strong it is, it will always come in 2 removable parts unlike the WW1 damage model. I removed a whole wing tip from planes by just shooting at the very last inch of their wing tip with 50 cals while it whould only remove a couple of rivets in real life.
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!
EDIT:
You guys realise the amount of whine and comments HiTech would recieve if they EVER even thought about remodeling the damage model? Think about it? (hint to the last GV change)
-
Great pictures Guppy, many thanks for posting those. Looks to me like the AH's Spitfire damage model needs revising in the light of some of those pictures.
No, those pictures don't mean the Spitfire needs to have its damage model looked at.
ack-ack
-
No, those pictures don't mean the Spitfire needs to have its damage model looked at.
ack-ack
Well I am by no means a Spitfire expert, but simply observing the consequences of those presumably cannon round impacts, I do see one consistency in every wing shot; the main spar is untouched. I understand in the Spitfire the Main spar formed a D-shaped box with the relatively thick-skinned leading edge, as it was originally intended to be part of an evaporative cooling system?
Anyway, I would conjecture that you'd need to destroy that naturally strong structure for the wing to pop off like they do in Aces High. In one of those pictures the wing has lost a good deal of the skin both top and bottom, from right behind the main spar to the aileron, and apparently most of a rib too and he clearly got down safely, structure still hanging together.
I appreciate HTC must model the real damage by a discrete abstraction, but those aircraft got their pilot's home safely and look a lot tougher then the fragile sports cars as currently depicted in AH.
:salute to Reginald Mitchell I say.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
I don't think it takes a 30mm well....
-
I don't think it takes a 30mm well....
anything over 23mm doesn't end well with single engined planes
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :D :bolt:
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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
The wing hits are MG in that screenshot?
-
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.
-
I just compared your picture with one of my own which I had titled "ventilated spit" - No competition there, you have a heck of lot more holes. Perhaps we should have a competition to see who can land a fighter with the most holes. I have a good chance there, since I am usually on the receiving end of fired ordinance :frown:
-
:lol
Fell free to post it.
-
That screenshot of the Spit wing taking 2 taters and surviving, wth?
1 Tater should always be enough to de-wing a spitty. Proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZZGaEEi8Ek
-
The wing didn't detach in your film.
-
I've always considered the spitfire to be fragile (at least when viewed from the cockpit of my F4U). It's a plane I can consistently destroy with a single (fairly short) burst. Obviously, hitting at convergence and getting enough rounds into a small-enough space matters too.
All this talk of the D-tube wing construction, etc, has me interested. Do any of you have the ability to dissect the damage suffered in this short burst on a previously-uninjured spitfire?
I've shortened the clip to just the 8 seconds that really matter (no other rounds were fired by either one of us). By my count, I only fired 93 rounds in a 1-2 second burst (I'm not sure how many of those 93 actually hit him), and scattered them all over the place. There are hits on both wings, down the length of the fuselage, and across the stabilizers. A wing comes off, there's an engine/fuel fire, and a pilot wound. I'm surprised that the tail didn't come off.
Anyway, can anyone tell how many hits are sustained by the right wing, and how many of those are likely to be damaging the spar/D-tube? I'm also curious about the G's on the spit's airframe. Fairly low speed, going up, etc, I wouldn't think they'd be all that high?
Here's the clip-
http://www.4shared.com/file/Fg_NOSib/Spit_kill_0022.html
-
I've always considered the spitfire to be fragile (at least when viewed from the cockpit of my F4U). It's a plane I can consistently destroy with a single (fairly short) burst. Obviously, hitting at convergence and getting enough rounds into a small-enough space matters too.
All this talk of the D-tube wing construction, etc, has me interested. Do any of you have the ability to dissect the damage suffered in this short burst on a previously-uninjured spitfire?
I've shortened the clip to just the 8 seconds that really matter (no other rounds were fired by either one of us). By my count, I only fired 93 rounds in a 1-2 second burst (I'm not sure how many of those 93 actually hit him), and scattered them all over the place. There are hits on both wings, down the length of the fuselage, and across the stabilizers. A wing comes off, there's an engine/fuel fire, and a pilot wound. I'm surprised that the tail didn't come off.
Anyway, can anyone tell how many hits are sustained by the right wing, and how many of those are likely to be damaging the spar/D-tube? I'm also curious about the G's on the spit's airframe. Fairly low speed, going up, etc, I wouldn't think they'd be all that high?
Here's the clip-
http://www.4shared.com/file/Fg_NOSib/Spit_kill_0022.html
Seems like you hit his right wing 14 times. I don't have the blueprints of Spit9's wing so I could not match that to your hits, but I think the hits on the first quarter of the wing (from the left) were more significant than the second quarter as the 1st quarter has more structural parts.
The exact amount of rounds required to take the wing off would depend on a lot of factors, such as type of bullet (size, speed, and canon or not), the angle at witch your bullets hit the wing, which part of the wing your bullets hit, the speed the aircraft is moving at, and the G loading.
Good hit BTW.
-
Well, to draw some sort of comparison, I've been searching through my films for a similar shot on a "tougher" target. This is one I've found so far, on an F4U.
http://www.4shared.com/file/rKRrseJ7/Rolling_scissors_SFOX_F4U_1559.html
91 rounds fired (I don't know how many hit?) on a "healthy" target. Once again, it's just the few seconds of the shot. No other shots were fired by either of us. The damage is pretty similar, but the tail is damaged here too.
Also, as similar as this looks to the spit film, I had to sort through GOBS of F6F, F4U, F4F, etc, films to find one where the wing came off. It's much more common (for me) to get a kill on the pilot, or cut the tail off of these planes; where the wing-nipping is much more common against spits. I'm not sure why.
-
I think it is very useful to cross reference Guppy35's photographs with STEELE's video, but just observe and don't take any prejudicial expectations with you.
-
Not sure if it was End of the World Rubber Bullet Syndrome yesterday but at 1 base I shot up 4 different Zekes...each one firing only Cannon and landing bursts of 5-6 on all areas of the aircraft. Only 1 of the Zekes I hit showed any damage and was leaking fuel. I could of swore that you used to be able to hit a Zeke in the inner part of the wing and Poof, up in flames it went. Like I said, could of been RBS, but all I know is I have noticed since the patch a lot of Aircraft being torn to pieces with no visible damage or going down like they used to and have heard a lot of complaints from a number of different guys. Hopefully next patch will correct these minor problems... :bhead
-
Not sure if it was End of the World Rubber Bullet Syndrome yesterday but at 1 base I shot up 4 different Zekes...each one firing only Cannon and landing bursts of 5-6 on all areas of the aircraft. Only 1 of the Zekes I hit showed any damage and was leaking fuel. I could of swore that you used to be able to hit a Zeke in the inner part of the wing and Poof, up in flames it went. Like I said, could of been RBS, but all I know is I have noticed since the patch a lot of Aircraft being torn to pieces with no visible damage or going down like they used to and have heard a lot of complaints from a number of different guys. Hopefully next patch will correct these minor problems... :bhead
I think it's just you (and someone else), and there is no bug involved.