Ditching vs Landing?

[debuman]

I think this has been brought up before, but I was unable to find an answer.  This happened to me today, and i was wondering how this works.
If I mess up the landing in my Spitfire, snap off the landing gear, bend the prop, break off a wing, etc., and the plane comes to a stop on the runway (even in a totally unflyable condition..), I get the message "You have landed successfully".
But, even if I land and don't break anything, and the plane is still in perfect condition but a foot or two off the runway - you get the "You have ditched" message.
How is that you "successfully" land a totally unflyable plane, but "ditch" an aircraft that could easily be towed or pushed back on the runway, given some gas, and immediatley taken off again?

I know that if I were in aircraft maintenance, which plane I'd rather work on....Why is this?

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by debuman
I think this has been brought up before, but I was unable to find an answer.  This happened to me today, and i was wondering how this works.
If I mess up the landing in my Spitfire, snap off the landing gear, bend the prop, break off a wing, etc., and the plane comes to a stop on the runway (even in a totally unflyable condition..), I get the message "You have landed successfully".
But, even if I land and don't break anything, and the plane is still in perfect condition but a foot or two off the runway - you get the "You have ditched" message.
How is that you "successfully" land a totally unflyable plane, but "ditch" an aircraft that could easily be towed or pushed back on the runway, given some gas, and immediatley taken off again?

I know that if I were in aircraft maintenance, which plane I'd rather work on....Why is this?

I've always thought the ditching thing was dumb. Alot of forward airfields were nothing more than dirt strips and in some cases flattened grass strips. I have suggested a 'safe area' that encompasses a circle extending from the outer perimeter of town to the opposite side of the field plus 1k. Bringing a plane or vehicle to rest within this area would be a safe landing.

I also agree that there needs to be some plane integrity check for a safe landing. A plane that is essentially 'totalled' rendering it unflyable really shouldn't be considered as having landed safely.

Zazen

[Chortle]

And the real answere for why it is not changing.

Landing is suppose to be a goal, wanting to survive and make it back to base, and acctualy land on the runway is suppose to be a challeng. Making the area bigger just dimishises the reward for accomplishing a task. So those requesting bigger areas, are you saying you suck so bad , you can't even land your plane on a runway?

As to the fuel idea, how is screwing up and not saving gas to get back to base any different then getting damaged, infact shouldn't be the other way around?

Isn't it more of a chalange landing a plane with a missing wing piece on the base?

Vehicles are a different issue. I never have been able to come up with an solution Im happy with.

HiTech

Taken from this thread. Do the same search for 'ditching' and you'll find many others like it.

[Delirium]

I wouldn't mind seeing a function where this could be done in scenarios.

This way, you could get a better accounting of what makes it back to base. Heck, should the Allies write off a P51 that lands 10 feet from the runway?

For online MA play, keep it the way it is imho.