Spitfire tail damage

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

I understand - as I said above it's probably something unfinished from programming that will be fixed when they have time.

I'm sure they'll squash that bug when they can.

 

 

They'll have to classify it as a bug first...

 

It's been an issue as long as I've played (about 2 years). That means it's not an issue they currently identify as a bug that has any need of fixing.

[oFlyingDutchman]

Reading all this, long story short, something is wonky with the spit. Light damage to tail puts it into an unrecoverable spin.
I get it, damage may or may not kill an aircraft, depends on luck, however the spit has something strange going on there. Even the auto pilot has problems keeping the aircraft level, it goes up and down.
So yeah, bug report sent, no bias agaisnt any aircraft once again
Some of you need to remember that this is just a game, jesus
Cheers

[oc2209]

To follow up on a few of my earlier comments on the I-16:

 

It turns out that my vague impressions of it spinning out easily are only partially true. While it is less stable than the average fighter, it's nowhere near as unstable as the Spitfire when hit in the tail.

 

Here's a recording where the I-16 was hit multiple times in the tail:

 

Spoiler

 

 

The first time I hit him, when he lurched forward, I assumed he was about to spin or dive into the ground. That's why I did the lazy inverted maneuver, to watch. Instead the AI got a snap shot at me. Why he didn't use the cannons, we'll never know.

 

Anyway, you can tell the tail damage is causing a lot of pitch issues, but it still doesn't cause an outright spin.

 

Only blowing part of the stabilizer off could cause a spin:

 

Spoiler

 

 

So, just to drive the point home even further:

 

An I-16 can take cannon damage to its tail better than a Spitfire can.

[oc2209]

Okay, one last comparison. This is a good one, though.

 

I-16 hit in the tail once, enters spin at low altitude, recovers (playback is at 1/4 speed):

 

Spoiler

 

 

Spitfire IX, hit once in the tail, enters spin from higher altitude than the I-16; not only fails to recover, but manages to somersault (playback is at 1/4 speed):

 

Spoiler

 

 

Now, the bad news with the Spitfire is, I got sloppy and I hit him with 3 HE shells besides the tail hit. Once behind the cockpit, once in the port wing root, and again in the port wing root during the recording.

 

Nevertheless, I did hit him in the tail exactly once. And on the top of the rudder, no less. There is no direct hit to the horizontal stabilizer, elevators, or control linkages.

 

We therefore have to explain how damage to the top of the rudder would cause the plane to somersault after its pilot had successfully stopped the yaw rotation. At the very least, the plane should have hit the ground straight, and not inverted.

[oc2209]

One more. Really, I'm stopping now. Kind of addictive though.

 

This one is the best, I think. It's a Spitfire IX (not the unwieldy XIV that I began testing with), with a starting altitude of 3,000m; and I only hit the entire plane with 2x20mm. One HE, on the starboard elevator, and one AP on the starboard trailing wing edge. It was a 370m shot fired blind under my nose as he pulled out of a split-S. I was very lucky to hit him that cleanly. 

 

Without further ado:

 

Spoiler

 

 

I intentionally left the camera locked on my plane after showing the initial elevator hit, so you can see the spastic movements the Spitfire makes relative to what I'm doing.

 

The way he finally crashes is even more mysterious; I can't explain what appears to be stall behavior. I think we should assume a human would crash much sooner after the hit. That the AI heroically carried on for almost 3 minutes is a testament to its skill.

 

What it boils down to, is that there are a lot of inexplicable forces acting on the plane, all from a single HE tail hit. And unlike my other recordings, we can't blame it on low altitude, the heavier Spit XIV, or multiple HE hits.

[Sunde]

I too noticed this a while back and captured it, i lost half my elevator (obviously a problem) 
but the way it made the plane handle seemed very strange, note that the other elevator was functioning fine. 

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by Sunde

[oc2209]

10 hours ago, Sunde said:

I too noticed this a while back and captured it, i lost half my elevator (obviously a problem) 
but the way it made the plane handle seemed very strange, note that the other elevator was functioning fine. 

 

Thanks for sharing this, it's nice to see human reactions to the damage.

 

Funny thing is, the effects on flight behavior are almost as extreme from one 20mm HE hit to the tail, as having half the stabilizer blown off. It's the insanely strong pitch forces that are most baffling; their suddenness is what begins the spin and/or stalling, evidently.

 

As I showed in one clip, these pitch changes occur even when a rudder's top portion is hit, not the elevators. The implication there is that shrapnel damage is causing grossly exaggerated aerodynamic effects. Or, another way of looking at it, is that the horizontal stabilizer is entirely too sensitive, such that practically any damage to it is magnified tenfold.

Edited February 27, 2022 by oc2209

[Giggles]

Arent spitfires considered the drunken suicide machine for take offs and landings?  I vaguely remember a whoooooole  slew of complaint threads about spits being drunken bouncy bits due to the torque.... 

 

so wouldnt a hit to the tail surfaces  do something like send it down in flames?

[oc2209]

29 minutes ago, Giggles said:

Arent spitfires considered the drunken suicide machine for take offs and landings?  I vaguely remember a whoooooole  slew of complaint threads about spits being drunken bouncy bits due to the torque.... 

 

so wouldnt a hit to the tail surfaces  do something like send it down in flames?

 

Torque wouldn't do the things to the elevators/horizontal stabilizer that we see repeatedly from varying degrees of damage.

 

If the Spitfire has any unusual difficulty in takeoff and landing, it would be from the problems that all taildraggers with powerful engines have, compounded by the narrow track of the landing gear, and the lack of a locking tail wheel.

[Giggles]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

 

Torque wouldn't do the things to the elevators/horizontal stabilizer that we see repeatedly from varying degrees of damage.

 

If the Spitfire has any unusual difficulty in takeoff and landing, it would be from the problems that all taildraggers with powerful engines have, compounded by the narrow track of the landing gear, and the lack of a locking tail wheel.

i dont know, i tried dover blitz for a few minutes when my buddy had it set on the hardest settings, and the dang engine torque had me barely able to handle a spitfire in it. 

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Torque is an issue with many WW2 fighter aircraft. It is however separate from the issue being discussed in this thread.

 

The issue at hand is the odd programming applied to the Spitfire when damage is taken to the empennage (tail section), typically from even a small hit.  It acts like severe input lag on the elevator controls.  It feels like rapid control reversals that happen to the elevators only.  Real aeroplanes do not behave in this manner.  What should happen is decreased effectiveness of the elevators, not the tail bouncing uncontrollable up and down like a pogo stick powered by a Formula 1 engine.

[[CPT]Crunch]

It damn sure shouldn't be happening at top end air speeds, a flight surface simply doesn't cease to have any effects at all.

[=FEW=fernando11]

23 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

It damn sure shouldn't be happening at top end air speeds, a flight surface simply doesn't cease to have any effects at all.

My two cents, IIRC if you survive and make it home nursing the wobling plane, when you slow down to land, and hence, should "loose" elevator autority, the wobling diminish to the point that you can flare the plane at landing speeds with no issues...

 

So it might be that the damage casues spontaneous input reversal, magnified by the high elevator autority and again by the higher the air speed.

[oc2209]

23 minutes ago, =FEW=fernando11 said:

My two cents, IIRC if you survive and make it home nursing the wobling plane, when you slow down to land, and hence, should "loose" elevator autority, the wobling diminish to the point that you can flare the plane at landing speeds with no issues...

 

So it might be that the damage casues spontaneous input reversal, magnified by the high elevator autority and again by the higher the air speed.

 

But this just doesn't make sense for any plane.

 

Also, elevator authority again isn't an issue when the plane bucks severely up or down without any elevator input. This is not an issue of over-controlling. Rather, it's an issue of the plane making violent pitch changes with minimal control surface damage.

 

If you take one 20mm HE to the tail, it should require perhaps some trimming to compensate in order to fly straight. During hard maneuvers it should again come into play.

 

What should not occur is random, violent bucking with no elevator usage. Which is what happens time and time again. God forbid you actually touch your elevator controls--that's when the spin happens.

[Guest deleted@134347]

9 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Torque is an issue with many WW2 fighter aircraft. It is however separate from the issue being discussed in this thread.

 

The issue at hand is the odd programming applied to the Spitfire when damage is taken to the empennage (tail section), typically from even a small hit.  It acts like severe input lag on the elevator controls.  It feels like rapid control reversals that happen to the elevators only.  Real aeroplanes do not behave in this manner.  What should happen is decreased effectiveness of the elevators, not the tail bouncing uncontrollable up and down like a pogo stick powered by a Formula 1 engine.

 

the IL2 is behaving exactly the same way as the Spit, albeit at much lesser degree, which is survivable. One hit in to a tail section and any precise gun runs are no longer possible because the plane keeps pitching up and down all the freaking time. I've noticed a similar story with the FN, but those types of damages are very rare on them..

 

it is some inherent flight model issue across the board that uses same variables set at different values for various aircraft. For some it's 0, for some it's 25 and for some (Spit) it's 100.

[oc2209]

Here's an account I just happened to read, regarding a Fw-190D:

 

"Leutnant Karl-Heinz Ossenkop of I./JG 26 had suffered severe damage to his aircraft while attacking Grimbergen when its rudder and part of the starboard horizontal stabilizer were removed by the propeller of another D-9, but he managed to make it back to Twenthe, where he made an emergency landing."

 

A quick glance on Google maps tells me that the distance between Grimbergen, Belgium, and Twente, Netherlands, is several hundred kilometers. I won't venture a guess as the crow flies, since these are driving directions I'm using.

 

Point being, he flew for a while with half a horizontal stabilizer, and no rudder. Physically missing the stabilizer portion would do a lot more to stability than taking skin damage to a stabilizer, or so I would assume....

 

I honestly can't imagine flying very long without a rudder (in most planes, anyway) in this sim. But that's beside the point.

 

I cannot--nay, I refuse to--believe one HE hit to the tail can justifiably cause the behaviors we're seeing. Especially since we only see them to such an exaggerated extent in one plane, the Spitfire.

Edited March 3, 2022 by oc2209

[CUJO_1970]

A small hit to the empennage should not create a new unrealistic FM, no. Same with single 20mm hit. 

 

What would/should happen in the real world?
 

For a 2+ MG151/20MM HE strike to empennage of a Spitfire within 7 feet of the pilot - most likely should and did historically injure the pilot via chemical and shrapnel blast damage to the extent he bails out _or_ immediately returns to base. There is already a thread and RAF own study showing this result as it really happened. Some may not like that in a game context but that’s typically what will happen in reality. Benefit of chemical damage to kinetic damage - you just gotta get close. The chemicals also don’t care if they traveled 8 meters or 800 meters to get there, they are going to do the same amount of damage.

Multiple (2+) 20mm strikes to the _same_ vertical or horizontal stabilizer surface on a fighter will result in their destruction, almost always. First through structural then through wind load damage.

 

A single 20mm strike to the vertical or horizontal stabilizer 20mm or even higher caliber is definitely survivable though because you can still use other control surface and there are many cases where this happened historically and aircraft flew back to base, sometimes over long distances. These guys were still pretty fortunate though.

[Ram399]

11 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

like a pogo stick powered by a Formula 1 engine

 

Good lord that's a contraption I would like to see.
 

2 hours ago, oc2209 said:

What should not occur is random, violent bucking with no elevator usage.

It could be possible that the rapid pitching motion is being caused by the spiraling slipstream interfering with the damaged/loosened control surfaces, though I'm admittedly not certain whether or not that phenomenon is actually modelled so I could be wrong.

Though regardless of the cause this sort of response does not seem right to me at all and is way too overblown anyhow.

If you really want to see how badly the Spits are handicapped by this issue start a quick mission between 4 AI Bf-109 G4s and put them up against 4 AI Spit Mk.Vbs.
Its a slaughter every time- the 57th GIAP are free kills wherever they go in Kuban now.

[Denum]

8 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

I agree the Spit appears to have an issue there. However, I'm strongly in favor of fixing ALL it's faults, including the missing fast engine overheat when flaps are deployed, the missing gyroscopic forces, the missing strong pitch down momentum when deploying flaps, the missing pitch momentum when firing the guns,  the ability to continue controlled flight at 30 kph with flaps down and full power....

I'd say fixing the 109s UFO like low speed handling and ability to hang on its prop is pretty high up there also. If not higher. 

 

The Spitfires will atleast misbehave if mishandled. The 109s seem to be able to get out of just about any situation unscathed.

[JG27*PapaFly]

41 minutes ago, Denum said:

I'd say fixing the 109s UFO like low speed handling and ability to hang on its prop is pretty high up there also. If not higher. 

 

The Spitfires will atleast misbehave if mishandled. The 109s seem to be able to get out of just about any situation unscathed.

Watch my vid and you'll see that the spit only misbehaves if you don't know how to game it. That and coptering became public knowledge with my vid.

 

Put your money where your mouth is and go 1v1 against my spit this Thursday. We'll see then whether the 109 will be able to "get out of just about any situation unscathed."

[oc2209]

10 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

I agree the Spit appears to have an issue there. However, I'm strongly in favor of fixing ALL it's faults, including the missing fast engine overheat when flaps are deployed, the missing gyroscopic forces, the missing strong pitch down momentum when deploying flaps, the missing pitch momentum when firing the guns,  the ability to continue controlled flight at 30 kph with flaps down and full power....

 

With some of these things, you're probably asking for more complexity than the sim has to offer.

 

The pitch down during flap deployment does occur, in my experience. It's the only plane I can think of (in the sim) that has such a strong effect in that regard, so I'm not sure how much stronger it could/should be to be realistic.

 

Guns not affecting pitch is kind of a problem with every plane. Again, more of a broad sim issue than Spitfire-specific. The Yak-9T, for example, should not be able to fire more than 2 cannon rounds consecutively without moving the point of aim. This is according to original tests and reports. Yet in the sim, you can fire indefinitely without really feeling the recoil.

 

10 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

IRL the expected behavior after hits to the tail depends very strongly of the planes speed. This P-51 went into a 15 g pull-up and caused many casualties after ONE of it's elevator trim tabs came off at high speed.

 

This may well be true, but nevertheless, the Spitfire (and to a lesser extent the I-16) remains the only plane in the sim to display this kind of behavior. And beyond that, the speeds where we can witness the terrible pitch changes are typically across the entire flight spectrum--from 150-350 MPH, it doesn't seem to matter.

 

So either every plane needs to be more tail-sensitive, if that indeed more closely matches reality; or the Spitfire's sensitivity needs to be reduced so that it roughly matches other planes' reactions to tail damage in the sim, unless there's an overwhelming reason why it should behave so differently.

 

I've never come across any historical accounts of the Spitfire being especially vulnerable to tail hits.

[Ala13_UnopaUno_VR]

a wt plane has sneaked into the bos xd

 

[69th_Panp]

On 2/24/2022 at 2:52 AM, Asgar said:

Who says they’re fully functional? They can still be attached and have 0 functionality when you just cut the control wires

There's a lot more than just control cables in the spits tail, many if not all aircraft have multiple cables / bell cranks and tubes in their control systems, aircraft responses would vary depending on what was damaged and to what extent the control was damaged.

Spit tail Diag 

 

1 hour ago, dogefighter said:

There's some out of date info in that video. Spit and P47 flaps down behavior was adjusted a long time ago, and they can't pull as ridiculous maneuvers as before but there's still room for imporvement for sure. Unfortunately it's just not the Spits and P47 that can pull off questionable maneuvers. 

 

so funny 

never happen in real life 190

[Denum]

3 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

Watch my vid and you'll see that the spit only misbehaves if you don't know how to game it. That and coptering became public knowledge with my vid.

 

Put your money where your mouth is and go 1v1 against my spit this Thursday. We'll see then whether the 109 will be able to "get out of just about any situation unscathed."

There's been multiple FM changes to the Spitfire since this video was posted. Flaps down at low speed with negative G's will put the Vb/IX into inverted flat spins. The XIV just handles like a truck that slow so it's not worth mentioning. 

 

Hilariously enough the only change to the 109s was making the invincible tail slightly less invincible. 

 

Feel free to come fly on FvP. I'm not wasting an evening to prove the 109 is the superior UFO. 

[MisterSmith]

Three year old video's are not germaine to the topic. I will let video of the current FM's and any original documentation stand. Abide by the Forum Rules regarding FM discussions, that is all.

[JG27*PapaFly]

11 hours ago, MisterSmith said:

Three year old video's are not germaine to the topic. I will let video of the current FM's and any original documentation stand. Abide by the Forum Rules regarding FM discussions, that is all.

That's weird, because last week I flew the same spitfire maneuvers I showed in the vid: 50 kph, flaps down, maxed out engine stick full back. I had full control down walking speed. Exactly what changes were applied to the Spit FMs?

[56RAF_Roblex]

Historically the Spitfire (or at least the earlier, pre-Griffin ones) is not the same as most other aircraft when it comes to longitudinal stability ie its stability in that plane was very low.  The Center of gravity was extremely close to the neutral point which made the whole aircraft prone to oscillations (and made it hard to add weight further back which is why adding bigger/extra fuel tanks was difficult)  To visualise this,  imagine a bicycle where your weight was almost over the front axle and compare how that would behave compared to a bike where your weight is 1 or 2 feet further back (as in most bikes).  The rear wheel would be very prone to lifting up.  Now one thing that would help the Spitfire stay stable is a good tailplane but the Spitfires tailplane was barely adequate for the task so it would not be a huge leap to imagine that damage to that tailplane would have a larger effect on the spitfire than most other fighters.
 

Edited March 8, 2022 by 56RAF_Roblex

[ZachariasX]

As if visual damage in a game is exactly the DM status...

[Holtzauge]

Maybe a bit off topic but in some sense connected to the tail damage flight characteristics: Didn't the later Spitfires have ballast in the tails? IIRC then the Griffon installation and five blade prop was so much heavier than the earlier Merlin versions leading to the need for ballast in the tail?

 

Anyone have any data on this like a weight and balance sheet? If there was ballast added, then you would for sure not add more than needed and in that case why add so much that you make the plane unstable/marginally stable? If this is the case, then there are two questions: Why does the Mk XIV we have in game feel so unstable and why is it so negatively affected by damage to the tail?

 

A good way to find out would be to first of all find out if ballast really was added. If so, then what was the c.g location in relation to MAC on the Mk XIV? Anyone have any data on this?

[ZachariasX]

5 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

A good way to find out would be to first of all find out if ballast really was added. If so, then what was the c.g location in relation to MAC on the Mk XIV? Anyone have any data on this?

AFAIK, the Spit14 has the (default) CoG about 4.25 cm more forward at normal T/O weight. But I would need to find the original source again to be sure. But I would not be surprised if the more forward CoG was intended (and hence not compensated entirely with bob weights) to make the plane a bit tamer, given the added power. Some creature safety at last.

 

The Spit9 has the CoG such that the plane is neutral in pitch and the pilot needs not to make a pitchup input on the stick in gentle turns. Just roll her and she keeps the nose level in turns you'd use for common flying going places.

 

The Spit14 not only has a CoG that makes her a tad more stable, she also has a larger tail and elevator fins. AFAIK this forces larger control surfaces/movements for the same pitch/yaw input.

 

The amazing thing about the Merlin Spit is that it flies and feels (within reason) like a very light aircraft. But as soon as you make it a tad more stable and force more work on the elevator for turns, subjectively this will certainly be felt, and I think this is the main compalint why pilots would say that the Spit "is less maneuvrable" then before as you might just feel that you require more work on the stick to do the same. But the aircraft in plain numbers lost little or nothing in maneuvrability. You get better ailerons, and the added weight is offset by the added power. What we have I'd rather say is a plane that just follows your instinct that turned into one that starts to require some work for doing so. What I would expect is a slightly heavier aileron as well as a requirement for slightly more control deflection for the same result. Hence, while the 14 loses no real "maneuvrability" (except goofing around at slow speed), the pilot certainly can have a bona fide reason to claim that "it feels less maneuvrable".

 

Yet the bottom line of anyone flying it was that it was a fantastic aircraft. And then think of the Mk.XII that has almost the baby Spit airframe with the Griffon in front. That must have been THE hot rod!

 

If you enlarge the tail and elevator fins, that is what you notice in terms of control. And you need that extra surface to hold all that power alt lower speeds. This changes the handling dynamics a bit. But it certainly doesn't make it a whale.

 

The Griffon added a mere 150 kg to the Merlin (and everyone and their dog are screaming about how that made the plane "less maneuvrable"). The DB-601 gained 150 kg to become the DB-605 (and nobody raised a fuss about the added weight killing maneuvrability) and then it gained another 170 kg to become the DB-603 (and nobody raised a fuss about the added weight killing maneuvrability). Nuff said.

 

There for sure are ballast compartments in the Spitfires, even here in the Mk.V:

Whether they actually had weights installed in what verssion, that is a different question, but the provision for ballast is there.

 

[Holtzauge]

Nice info @ZachariasX. If the tailplane is larger that of course moves the AC backwards and that in combination with a more forward CG means more stability which in turn means that it should not feel as unstable as the other Spitfires or be as sensitive to damage to the tailplane. However, I must confess I have not flown the Mk XIV in-game that much since I don't like the way it handles: it's too unstable for my liking. However, if they really did add ballast in the Mk XIV IRL, which I think they did for the same reasons as it was done in the later Me-109's, then it makes no sense to do so to the level it becomes marginally stable which is the way I think it feels in-game.

Edited March 10, 2022 by Holtzauge

[oc2209]

This is odd rudder behavior that may or may not be pertinent to the topic:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Most of those early hits were 15mm cannon, by the way. I killed the pilot with 7.9mm because I was tired of wasting the 15mm.

 

What I'm wondering: is the AI moving the rudder like that to compensate for some kind of aerodynamic damage effect?

 

If the rudder controls were severed, it wouldn't move at all. Typically, destroyed control linkage will return the control surface to a neutral position.

[oc2209]

On 3/8/2022 at 10:15 AM, 56RAF_Roblex said:

Historically the Spitfire (or at least the earlier, pre-Griffin ones) is not the same as most other aircraft when it comes to longitudinal stability ie its stability in that plane was very low.  The Center of gravity was extremely close to the neutral point which made the whole aircraft prone to oscillations (and made it hard to add weight further back which is why adding bigger/extra fuel tanks was difficult)  To visualise this,  imagine a bicycle where your weight was almost over the front axle and compare how that would behave compared to a bike where your weight is 1 or 2 feet further back (as in most bikes).  The rear wheel would be very prone to lifting up.  Now one thing that would help the Spitfire stay stable is a good tailplane but the Spitfires tailplane was barely adequate for the task so it would not be a huge leap to imagine that damage to that tailplane would have a larger effect on the spitfire than most other fighters.

 

I'm sure there is a logical reason why the Spitfire's tail isn't like every other plane. The question, however, is this: is the effect exaggerated? Is it warranted that a single 20mm HE shell anywhere on the horizontal stabilizer should cripple the plane?

 

There's a big difference between 'tail damage having a greater effect on stability than an average plane' and 'can't fly more than 3 seconds without bucking up and down like a rodeo bull'.

 

On 3/8/2022 at 10:24 AM, ZachariasX said:

As if visual damage in a game is exactly the DM status...

 

This is a worthless argument.

 

It can be clearly established that one HE impact occurs in several of these recordings. It can be clearly established that all control surfaces retain functionality after the impact. It can be clearly established that the AI is capable of controlling very heavily damaged planes of all types, while only with the Spitfire does it lose the ability to compensate for 1x20mm HE tail hit. And finally, we, as players, can feel the extremes of even a single tail hit when we're piloting Spitfires.

 

The damage model is not so complex that this:

 

Spoiler

 

 

...isn't exactly what it looks like. One 20mm hit. Elevators still move. Plane unflyable. End of story.

[Sitaro]

On 2/24/2022 at 4:20 AM, Strewth said:

Well.......................................
If you read my replies, you may have noticed my reference to the elevators directly responding to my joystick movements.
I would think that severed control wires may not show that exact comparison. Wouldn't you?

 

You assume these people actually read. they skim, latch onto one thing and start spouting. 

[oc2209]

Something interesting happened yesterday. During the course of experiments not related to Spitfire tail damage, I severely damaged a Spitfire's tail, mid-turn, with only AP ammunition.

 

Recording:

Spoiler

 

 

As you can see, the Spitfire can fly just fine with 2/3 of its tail gone. So when a single 20mm HE hit causes a Spitfire to spin out of control, or thereafter be crippled to the point of being unflyable, it's apparently not an issue related to the Spitfire being inherently unstable.

 

That makes it more an issue of HE impacts causing too much aerodynamic damage to the entire tail structure, regardless of where the impact occurs.

[Rache-der-Boote]

On 3/20/2022 at 6:14 PM, oc2209 said:

That makes it more an issue of HE impacts causing too much aerodynamic damage to the entire tail structure, regardless of where the impact occurs.

If only people would have reported this issue earlier!

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Necro post, but still the Spit IX when hit in the tail from 20mm or flak, result 4/5 chance for elevator been destroyed and player need to bail out because plane is out of control and can't fly straight.

[Hook_Echo]

I'm hoping it gets fixed in the next update when they release the Spit IXc. This would be our best chance.