Ki-27 too durable & strange behavior

[major.kudo]

I think Ki-27 don't have to make weaker, too.
When behavior of AI and cockpit speedometer, and some others are improved, Ki-27 be more better plane in this game.

-

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Some evidence that perhaps the Ki-27 wasn't as fragile as the game makes it out to be:

http://img.imagesia.com/fichiers/d6/...d6am_large.jpg

This picture's plane is not Ki-27. It's navy Type 96 Carrier based Fighter, "Mitsubishi A5M".
Pilot is IJN 1st class flight sergeant Kashimura.
In china front, he collided with P-36 during a battle.
But he learned extraordinary flight technique, and he landed at his base with this plane.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by major.kudo

This picture's plane is not Ki-27. It's navy Type 96 Carrier based Fighter, "Mitsubishi A5M".

Thanks for the correction. Identification of the A5M and Ki-27 can be difficult from certain angles!

But, my point stands that early war Japanese planes perhaps aren't as fragile as IL2 "thinks" they are. Obviously, Sgt. Kashimura was the lucky exception the law of averages, but the picture proves that a plane like the Ki-27 (and, obviously, the A5M) can still fly with significant wing damage.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Thanks for the correction. Identification of the A5M and Ki-27 can be difficult from certain angles!

But, my point stands that early war Japanese planes perhaps aren't as fragile as IL2 "thinks" they are. Obviously, Sgt. Kashimura was the lucky exception the law of averages, but the picture proves that a plane like the Ki-27 (and, obviously, the A5M) can still fly with significant wing damage.

but I think it is rather a general IL2 problem than plane specific. IRL planes with missing wing sections were often still controllable e.g.:
http://www.sas1946.com/images/images...xfordcrash.jpg
or
http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps8e32bbf5.jpg

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

but I think it is rather a general IL2 problem than plane specific. IRL planes with missing wing sections were often still controllable

I agree. But, it's not necessarily the fault of the damage model.

Remember that in IL2 damage to the plane triggers a set of "damage textures, which overlay the base skin and make missing parts of the plane vanish. There are 3 levels: D0 (undamaged), D1 (light damage), D2 and (heavy damage).

When a part breaks, there's also an "end cap" model which appears.

Damage textures are made by artists, rather than flight modeler, so there is a great deal of "artistic license" in what sort of damage the D1, D2 represents. This artistry often isn't realistic.

Modelling errors come in when the plane breaks. The folks making 3D models (again, not necessarily that knowledgeable about how airplanes work) have to set the places on the model where parts break. If you set these break points incorrectly, you can get some very strange effects.

Artists' errors for "end cap" models (the graphic which appears after a part breaks off) can also make damage appear unrealistic.

If you wanted greater realism, someone would have to dig into each plane's flight model and figure the minimum wing surface area required for a damaged plane to fly. You then revise wing damage textures so that the D2 and endcap damage models are historically accurate.

[major.kudo]

Another angle photo of Sgt.Kashimura's A5M.
The distinction isn't even easy from this angle.

Yes, Sgt.Kashimura's single wing flight was very rare case.
Maybe even his singular ability would be difficult.
But I don't think the Japanese planes durability was which paper as same, either.

I'm thinking most airplanes of IL-2 has low durability overall.
Many of WWII pilots thought they killed enemy planes.
But almost airplanes are returned to their base actually.
If airplanes of IL-2 have begun to smoke once, can't return to a base certainly mostly.

[major.kudo]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps8e32bbf5.jpg

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1473474254

[Pursuivant]

Comparing the durability of modern jets to WW2 aircraft isn't far.

First, they're much bigger aircraft. Seriously - the F-15 is almost as big as a B-17.

Second, construction methods and materials have improved dramatically in the last 70+ years.

Third, the power-to-mass ratios of a modern fighter is just incredible compared to WW2 planes. As long as you have some degree of directional stability and fuel to keep them running, those engines will pretty much keep you in the air.

So, it's no surprise that a modern jet can come home safely with half of one wing missing.

For WW2 fighters, my guess is that the better ones could lose about 1/3 of a wing surface and still be able to fly. For underpowered planes, perhaps about 20%, maybe less.

Given the A5M's high power to mass ratio, it doesn't surprise me that it could survive with 1/3 or more of its wing missing (although notice that it lost its aileron on the damaged wing at some point).

[Pursuivant]

In general, I think that all aircraft in the game are too vulnerable to airframe damage from small caliber bullets. Unless you get a "golden BB" scenario where a small amount of damage causes an increasingly severe chain of failures, all you're doing is punching a hole the diameter of one of your fingers through a tough skin of aircraft aluminum or plywood. For a .50 caliber/12.7mm bullet, you're just punching a hole the diameter of your thumb.

It takes a lot of holes of those sizes to tear apart something as big as an airplane on their own. To help the failure along, you need the forces of gravity and air resistance.

To really start tearing an airplane apart, you need something that will make a big hole, like a 20mm HE cannon shell which will blast a hole the diameter of a man's fist, or a 30mm HE cannon shell which will blast a hold the diameter of a man's head.

.303 caliber

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...982c3fd093.jpg

.50 caliber/12.7mm

http://www.118ahc.org/Resources/Newsome50cal-65.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...tz/spinner.jpg

20mm & .303 caliber

http://i.imgur.com/EAwcYfz.jpg

(Notice that the He-111 in this picture took dozens of small caliber bullet hits - look at the fuselage.)

20mm AP

http://i.imgur.com/lQYtUdR.jpg

20mm HEI
https://www.upload.ee/image/4123820/20mmHEcardoor.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...R8c4krw6pv6QpA

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...R8c4krw6pv6QpA

Test of 30mm (L) and 20mm Minengeschoss ammo:
http://i.imgur.com/0A6e0J2l.png

https://youtu.be/ZoLLDi-M3fk

In an enclosed space, the 30mm cannon could do a lot more damage:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/4...e07050e0_o.jpg

http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/mk108blenheim.jpg

37 mm
http://i44.tinypic.com/6z30k8.gif

Video of .50 caliber vs. modern aluminum plate:

[Ice_Eagle]

Remember also we are talking about multiple hits. My 50 cal guns are sighted too 300ft (100 meters +/-) good grouping, all wing root hits on ki-27, wing should blow off,
it does not.. ever. Ki-43 no problem.