View Single Post
  #9  
Old 01-19-2012, 10:44 AM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Probably related to the size of the wing, and associated "hit points". The Spit has big wing, probably and so more 'hit points'.

The old Il2 DM model worked I believe the following way: the wing was divided up to two or three sections, each had a number of hit points before failure. Looking at the numbers, it simply seem to have been related to the wing area of the plane. This basically made larger wings stronger and harder to destroy, which I believe is a bit a simplistic, since it is large the failure of wing spars that causes catastrophic damage, blowing the skin off (which's hit point does seem to be right if related to skin area) will just larg. It also ignored different thickness of sheeting and construction tecnhiques used on wings, ie. in case of the Spitfire, the leading edge was quite thick material, 1.5-2mm thick I believe, and beared the loads supported by a relatively thin but ductile spar, the rest of the skinning being pretty thin. On the 109 a different techique was used, a single robust spar was used in the centre, along with a rather thick skin all the way, not just the leading edge.
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org
Reply With Quote