• NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t know if I’m blind, but I’m not seeing too many holes?

    Back during ww1 or ww2 they figured out that the planes that came home with many holes in them, didn’t take catastrophic damage and instead reinforced where there weren’t holes.

    So it’s hard to know if these holes are catastrophic or not

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know if I’m blind, but I’m not seeing too many holes?

      Are you looking at the full sized pictures or the shrunk ones? Here’s just one with the holes see circled in red:

    • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was WW2. WWI planes did not get armour. They were made typically of wood and canvas and used engines with the same output as a moped. Also, the example you provide is for planes that were hit in mid flight and lived to RTB for examination. This helicopter was hit on the ground and abandoned. Assuming any of the holes aren’t catastrophic would be a dire mistake.

    • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The survival bias diagram you usually see for this is not necessarily for a single plane but for a number of them and aggregated into the diagram you’re familiar with.

      • towerful@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also, this was for planes that returned home. IE they could still fly.
        If they were hit like that on the ground, they would probably be written off. Cause it would be an unknown possible death sentence.