• NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months 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
      8
      ·
      11 months 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:

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Oh damn ya I was looking at the smaller zoomed one. I tried to see if I was doing something wrong even but failed at that. Thanks, much appreciated.

      • Tosti@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        You are cheating by counting each entrance hope at the top and exit hole at the bottom separately… /s

    • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months 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
      2
      ·
      11 months 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.