Jump to content


Dear WG, lets talk the Hurricane II


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

Wombatmetal #1 Posted 23 December 2017 - 06:46 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 754 battles
  • 729
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

Okay the plane is new and it's early to talk about a buff, but there is one figure that seems wrong, that is the rate of climb.

 

If we look at the Premium Plane, the Hurricane IID, the rate of climb is 

 

43.2 m/s

 

The Hurricane II the rate of climb is 

 

23 m/s

 

The Hurricane II has better ordnance and altitude performance. Ironic that the plane with better altitude performance can't climb.

 

The IID beats the II in every other category.

 

I don't want to beat this into the ground, but it seems like an oversight. The IID is hardly OP. Yet it is far and away superior than it's tech tree counterpart. Please fix.

 

Thanks



Mercsn #2 Posted 23 December 2017 - 11:14 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1069 battles
  • 2,966
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

 

 

TL/DR:  Absolute Maximum Climb rate under boost from 50m to 550m for both aircraft is identical, per testing limitations, at about 55 m/s.  Maximum climb rate without boost is 35 m/s for the Hurricane II (tech tree aircraft) and 37 m/s for the Hurricane IID (premium aircraft).  Please scroll to the bottom of the post for a relevant quote regarding such stats as "climb rate". 

 


 

Note: the following body, up until the "testing stats" section, was written prior to testing.


 

"The IID beats the II in every other category."


 

The IID is...meh, maybe ok if you're really good with aiming large caliber shell lobbers.  The II on the other hand is a little monster!  I actually, didn't compare the stats on the 2 planes, but I did fly them back to back just trying to get my new Hurricane II crew their daily double bonus in the premium IID.


 

I've never been fond of the IID, it's cool looking is about all I would say it has going for it.  So, I wasn't expecting much from the Hurricane line, at all.  What a pleasant surprise it was to find out a Hurricane II with 12 little MGs is a fun plane.  What an even more pleasant surprise to find that a tier 5 Hurricane II with 4x 20mm cannons is a little monster...and a hungry one judging by how fast it chews things up!


 

It's funny that you broach the idea of needing to talk buffs once more people have them and there's more data.  But...from my first match with 20mm equipped Hurricane II, I was afraid of nerfs.


 

As for the statistics about climb rate...I wouldn't be surprised if it's a typo.  The planes feel very similar to me.  And, if anything, the II feels more useful when pointed up because those cannons will reach out and touch someone who's in an entirely higher altitude band.


 

As far as altitude, two things.  First, you mention that the II has a higher altitude range than the IID (I haven't verified this for myself, taking your word for it).  Regardless of climb rate, the II will have more effective rate of climb simply due to the fact that it's performance will start dropping off later than the IID as it climbs.   And, since their altitude range is fairly low to begin with, rate of climb is "meh" for actual in-match performance because you're going to start getting penalized relatively soon if you gain altitude in either craft...because of the altitude band effect.


 

Second, and Mnbv_ would probably agree (he's the stats guy who hates the altitude bands and strives to collect data on the game's FM and altitude bands), the way that altitude is compressed in the game and the way altitude band impacts aircraft performance means that climb rate is...not an entirely meaningful stat.


 

The IID is not in any way superior to the II in terms of how they actually perform in a match.  WG, please don't touch a thing.  Destroyer, do you own the IID and have you flown it back to back with the II?


 

-Testing stats


 

I did some climbing tests with both.  I used the Hurricane II first and it has more climb angles because I was trying to find the maximum angle it would climb 500m without stalling. Since both craft performed so similarly, I didn't repeat all the steps. This maximum sustainable angle for a 500m climb is 60 degrees pitch up.  Also, both aircraft have a sustained climb angle of about 16 degrees (the angle at which they will maintain speed while climbing, up until their respected altitude limit 900m (Hurricane IID) and 1000m (Hurricane II), performance gradually falls off after that until it hits the service ceiling.


 

The absolute maximum climb rate for both aircraft is approximately 9 seconds to climb 500m from 50m to 550m.  I was manually hitting the timer start stop and seat-of-pants pulling up to 80 degrees, so the 0.3 sec difference (longer time for the Hurricane IID recorded) was likely due to how quickly I got the nose to 80 degrees pitch up, how soon I began pitching up after hitting "start" or how long the delay may have been in hitting "stop" after reaching 550m.


 

the 550m "stop" altitude comes up pretty quick under boost, so 100% accuracy is not possible with this test.  I tried to be as consistent with all timing and maneuvers as I could be, but I'm human.  Regardless, the data gives a very good idea of the comparative climbing performance of the two aircraft.  Here's the results:


 

-Hurricane II (Tech Tree plane, max engine, max airframe, max guns, no bombs or rockets, no equipment, 100% pilot with no skills)

22.4 sec 50m to 650m (until stall) at 40 degrees, start ias 360kph
26.8 m/s

 

 

19 sec 50m to 960m at 80 deg, start ias 360kph with 10 sec boost
47.9 m/s

9 sec 50m to 550m at 80 deg, start ias 360kph, with boost 
55.5 m/s

 

 

14.2 sec 50m to 550m at 60 deg, start ias 360kph, no boost
35 m/s

14.7 sec 50m to 550m at 50 deg, start ias 360kph, no boost
34 m/s

15.9 sec 50m to 550m at 40 deg, start ias 360kph, no boost
31.5 m/s

25 sec 50m to 550m at 20 deg, start ias 360kph, no boost
20 m/s

top speed 530kph at 50m, full 10 sec boost, starting from 360kph

top speed 355 at 50m, no boost (tough getting nose perfectly level so varied 350-360 depending on if I was pitched slightly up or down, re-tested and it seems to stabilize around 355kph).

service ceiling 2190m (when scale turns red)

 


 


 


 

-Hurricane IID (premium, stock configuration, no equipment, 100% pilot with no skills)

22.4 sec 50m to 740m (until stall) at 40 degrees, start ias 360kph
30.8 m/s

18.5 sec 50m to 975m at 80 deg, start ias 360kph with 10 sec boost
50 m/s

9.3 sec 50m to 550m at 80 deg, start ias 360kph, with boost
53.8 m/s

13.3 sec 50m to 550m at 60 deg, start ias 360kph, no boost
37.6 m/s

top speed 530kph at 50m, full 10 sec boost, starting from 360kph

top speed 360kph at 50m, no boost  (the IID seemed less fidgety and sat almost perfectly stable at 360kph regardless of a slight pitch up or down, possibly indicating a higher "controllability" stat than the Hurricane II -a stat which was removed from the plane info display with the patch that introduced the Hurricane II).

service ceiling 2090m

 


 

An interesting thing about the game's FM (flight model) is that the steeper you pitch up, the faster you will climb until a low-speed stall occurs.  There doesn't appear to be a point where climbing with faster airspeed at a shallower angle offsets climbing with a lower airspeed at a steeper angle, until the point of stall (at least with the Hurricane II).


 


 


 


 

In the meantime, I'll leave this excerpt from John Deakin's (the guy has over 39,000 flight hours in all sorts or aircraft including WWII war birds) website Advanced Pilot, regarding climb rate:

Vx is the slowest (IAS), and is the Maximum ANGLE of climb.  It allows one to climb to altitude within the shortest horizontal distance.
 
Vy is slightly faster, and is the Maximum RATE of climb. It allows one to climb to altitude in the shortest time
With increasing altitude, Vx increases slightly while Vy decreases, until they are the same at the absolute ceiling, where the airplane cannot go higher.
...
With increasing altitude, Vx increases slightly while Vy decreases, until they are the same at the absolute ceiling, where the airplane cannot go higher.
...
In my own time (which includes 5,000 hours or so of heavy-duty bush flying), I have NEVER seen a single case where either Vx or Vy was appropriate.  They are what I call “Useless Speeds,” of interest to only those who study aerodynamics, and check pilots, who adore them.  The graph above (graph of Vx and Vy, omitted in this forum post) is interesting because it illustrates an important principle, but as a day-to-day tool it is 100% useless.
 
A quote from Dr. Rogers:
 
    Pilots know how TO fly airplanes
    Aeronautical Engineers know HOW airplanes fly.
    Seldom do the twain meet.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Edited by Mercsn, 24 December 2017 - 11:34 AM.

All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

Mercsn #3 Posted 23 December 2017 - 01:01 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1069 battles
  • 2,966
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

Lol, the OP gets a +1 for an unsubstantiated QQ and I get nothin' for the hour or so it took me to test, check my results and type that up.


 

I hope somebody was "triggered".

:medal:


Edited by Mercsn, 23 December 2017 - 01:01 PM.

All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

Zigfreid #4 Posted 23 December 2017 - 01:38 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 6418 battles
  • 1,421
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    07-31-2013

View PostMercsn, on 23 December 2017 - 07:01 AM, said:

Lol, the OP gets a +1 for an unsubstantiated QQ and I get nothin' for the hour or so it took me to test, check my results and type that up.


 

I hope somebody was "triggered".

:medal:

 

​+1 And Merry Christmas my friend

mnbv_fockewulfe #5 Posted 23 December 2017 - 02:07 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 247 battles
  • 2,722
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostMercsn, on 23 December 2017 - 01:01 PM, said:

Lol, the OP gets a +1 for an unsubstantiated QQ and I get nothin' for the hour or so it took me to test, check my results and type that up.


 

I hope somebody was "triggered".

:medal:

 

I'll put your data into a graph when I get a chance. Did you test anything under boost?

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


Mercsn #6 Posted 23 December 2017 - 04:49 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1069 battles
  • 2,966
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

View Postmnbv_fockewulfe, on 23 December 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

 

I'll put your data into a graph when I get a chance. Did you test anything under boost?

 

I tested each plane with boost. Starting at 50m altitude at 360kph airspeed. I applied boost as I pitched up to 80 degrees and started timer. Timer stopped at 550m. Result was approximately 9 secs to climb 500m for craft.

 

I guess I should go back and do a 60 degree climb under boost. That might be where WG got their climb rate since it would be slower than at 80 degrees. It might fall around 43 m/s that WG published for climb rate. 


All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

Mercsn #7 Posted 23 December 2017 - 05:15 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1069 battles
  • 2,966
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

View PostZigfreid, on 23 December 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

 

​+1 And Merry Christmas my friend

 

My faith in mankind is restored. 

:honoring:


All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

Wombatmetal #8 Posted 23 December 2017 - 05:45 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 754 battles
  • 729
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013
Well done

Mercsn #9 Posted 23 December 2017 - 06:14 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1069 battles
  • 2,966
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

View PostDestroyer_Suzukaze, on 23 December 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

Well done

 

:honoring:

All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

Pogo68 #10 Posted 23 December 2017 - 07:02 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1541 battles
  • 1,362
  • [-BFS-] -BFS-
  • Member since:
    11-06-2012

View PostMercsn, on 23 December 2017 - 03:14 AM, said:

-Testing stats


 

I did some climbing tests with both.  I used the Hurricane II first and it has more climb angles because I was trying to find the maximum angle it would climb 500m without stalling. Since both craft performed so similarly, I didn't repeat all the steps. This maximum sustainable angle for a 500m climb is 60 degrees pitch up.  Also, both aircraft have a sustained climb angle of about 16 degrees (the angle at which they will maintain speed while climbing, up until their respected altitude limit 900m (Hurricane IID) and 1000m (Hurricane II), performance gradually falls off after that until it hits the service ceiling.


 

The absolute maximum climb rate for both aircraft is approximately 9 seconds to climb 500m from 50m to 550m.  I was manually hitting the timer start stop and seat-of-pants pulling up to 80 degrees, so the 0.3 sec difference (longer time for the Hurricane IID recorded) was likely due to how quickly I got the nose to 80 degrees pitch up, how soon I began pitching up after hitting "start" or how long the delay may have been in hitting "stop" after reaching 550m.


 

the 550m "stop" altitude comes up pretty quick under boost, so 100% accuracy is not possible with this test.  I tried to be as consistent with all timing and maneuvers as I could be, but I'm human.  Regardless, the data gives a very good idea of the comparative climbing performance of the two aircraft.  Here's the results:


 

-Hurricane II (Tech Tree plane, max engine, max airframe, max guns, no bombs or rockets, no equipment, 100% pilot with no skills)

22.4 sec 50m to 650m (until stall) at 40 degrees, start ias 360kph
26.8 m/s

 

 

19 sec 50m to 960m at 80 deg, start ias 360kph with 10 sec boost
47.9 m/s

9 sec 50m to 550m at 80 deg, start ias 360kph, with boost
55.5 m/s

14.2 sec 50m to 550m at 60 deg, start ias 360kph, no boost
35 m/s

14.7 sec 50m to 550m at 50 deg, start ias 360kph, no boost
34 m/s

15.9 sec 50m to 550m at 40 deg, start ias 360kph, no boost
31.5 m/s

25 sec 50m to 550m at 20 deg, start ias 360kph, no boost
20 m/s

top speed 530kph at 50m, full 10 sec boost, starting from 360kph

top speed 350-360 at 50m, no boost (tough getting nose perfectly level so speed settled somewhere between 350-360 depending on if I was pitched slightly up or down).

service ceiling 2190m (when scale turns red)


 

-Hurricane IID (premium, stock configuration, no equipment, 100% pilot with no skills)

22.4 sec 50m to 740m (until stall) at 40 degrees, start ias 360kph
30.8 m/s

18.5 sec 50m to 975m at 80 deg, start ias 360kph with 10 sec boost
50 m/s

9.3 sec 50m to 550m at 80 deg, start ias 360kph, with boost
53.8 m/s

13.3 sec 50m to 550m at 60 deg, start ias 360kph, no boost
37.6 m/s

top speed 530kph at 50m, full 10 sec boost, starting from 360kph

top speed 360kph at 50m, no boost  (the IID seemed less fidgety and sat almost perfectly stable at 360kph regardless of a slight pitch up or down, possibly indicating a higher "controllability" stat than the Hurricane II -a stat which was removed from the plane info display with the patch that introduced the Hurricane II).

service ceiling 2090m

 


 

An interesting thing about the game's FM (flight model) is that the steeper you pitch up, the faster you will climb until a low-speed stall occurs.  There doesn't appear to be a point where climbing with faster airspeed at a shallower angle offsets climbing with a lower airspeed at a steeper angle, until the point of stall (at least with the Hurricane II).

 
 

 

The best sustained climb angle and max climb angle with and without boost something that should be in the stats

 


DICTA BOELCKE for WoWP
    1. Try to secure the upper hand before attacking.
    2. Always continue with an attack you have begun
    3. Open fire only at close range, and then only when the opponent is squarely in your sights
    4. You should always try to keep your eye on your opponent, and never let yourself be deceived by ruses
    5. In any type of attack, it is essential to assail your opponent from behind
    6. If your opponent dives on you, do not try run away from his attack, but fly to meet it
    7. When over the enemy's lines, always remember your own line of retreat
    8. It is better to attack in groups of four or six. Avoid two aircraft attacking the same opponent

vonluckner #11 Posted 23 December 2017 - 07:35 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 534 battles
  • 84
  • [PLSGO] PLSGO
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Good to know it's climb rate is in line.

Mercsn #12 Posted 23 December 2017 - 08:17 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1069 battles
  • 2,966
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

View PostPogo68, on 23 December 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:

 

The best sustained climb angle and max climb angle with and without boost something that should be in the stats

 

 

It's stated in the post. 17-ish degrees (no hash marks between the 5 digit incements) is the best sustained climb angle. I didn't record the rate since purpose was to find max for both to compare with each other and stats page. 

 

Maximum climb angle is 90 degress, straight up. The 500m climb at 80 degrees used about 9 seconds of boost (out of ten). 

 

The game doesn't work the way RL does where at some point Vy will achieve faster overall climb rate than Vx. The arcade flight model and severe altitude compression result in Vx (maximum angle) being the fastest way to climb up to the "optimum altitude". From optimum altitude to service ceiling WG degrades performance in such a way that there is no angle that will maintain steady airspeed. Above optimum altitude you must use boost or continually decrease pitch angle to maintain airspeed. 


All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

Pogo68 #13 Posted 23 December 2017 - 10:36 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1541 battles
  • 1,362
  • [-BFS-] -BFS-
  • Member since:
    11-06-2012

View PostMercsn, on 23 December 2017 - 12:17 PM, said:

 

It's stated in the post. 17-ish degrees (no hash marks between the 5 digit incements) is the best sustained climb angle. I didn't record the rate since purpose was to find max for both to compare with each other and stats page. 

 

I know.

I read and understood the post.

Just commenting that that information should be in WOWP's plane info page for all flyable aircraft.

 


DICTA BOELCKE for WoWP
    1. Try to secure the upper hand before attacking.
    2. Always continue with an attack you have begun
    3. Open fire only at close range, and then only when the opponent is squarely in your sights
    4. You should always try to keep your eye on your opponent, and never let yourself be deceived by ruses
    5. In any type of attack, it is essential to assail your opponent from behind
    6. If your opponent dives on you, do not try run away from his attack, but fly to meet it
    7. When over the enemy's lines, always remember your own line of retreat
    8. It is better to attack in groups of four or six. Avoid two aircraft attacking the same opponent

CamuMahubah #14 Posted 24 December 2017 - 03:15 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1213 battles
  • 282
  • [SEELS] SEELS
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

Mercsn=Nerd

 

Pay attention kiddies class is in session!

 



StoptheViolins #15 Posted 24 December 2017 - 05:32 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1470 battles
  • 839
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Keep in mind that the IID was the last of the II series.  Ideally we should be able to equip different strike packages on the IID as that model marked the production shift from the Hurricane being a fighter to a GA only role.  The two 303s were for indication of what the under wing cannon would hit.

Mercsn #16 Posted 24 December 2017 - 11:08 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1069 battles
  • 2,966
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

View PostPogo68, on 23 December 2017 - 04:36 PM, said:

 

I know.

I read and understood the post.

Just commenting that that information should be in WOWP's plane info page for all flyable aircraft.

 

 

View PostCamuMahubah, on 23 December 2017 - 09:15 PM, said:

Mercsn=Nerd

 

Pay attention kiddies class is in session!

 

 

@Pogo68, Ah, I misunderstood and thought your comment was directed at me instead of at WG

 


 

@Camu, lol I just like to know how things work, figuring out what WG was trying to do and figuring what they actually ended up doing was always a fun part of the Beta, for me.  Here, I just happened to be very pleasantly surprised by how fun the Hurricane II was compared to the Hurricane IID and, since I had both available, figured I'd go see how they actually worked in the game.  Since altitude is "broken" in this game, by it's severe compression, I was able to examine two things at once with this experiment.

:playing:


All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

CamuMahubah #17 Posted 24 December 2017 - 02:51 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1213 battles
  • 282
  • [SEELS] SEELS
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostMercsn, on 24 December 2017 - 11:08 AM, said:

 

 

@Pogo68, Ah, I misunderstood and thought your comment was directed at me instead of at WG

 


 

@Camu, lol I just like to know how things work, figuring out what WG was trying to do and figuring what they actually ended up doing was always a fun part of the Beta, for me.  Here, I just happened to be very pleasantly surprised by how fun the Hurricane II was compared to the Hurricane IID and, since I had both available, figured I'd go see how they actually worked in the game.  Since altitude is "broken" in this game, by it's severe compression, I was able to examine two things at once with this experiment.

:playing:

 

Somebody's gotta do it!

 

That was weird though tonite going after that missile base...I was like MB?  What is he trying to say?  And then you said something in Chinese and I'm really bad at Chinese language.  And then we got roflstomped in that "MB" cap like I knew we would in fighters.

 

And then we won..by killing all the bad guys!

 

So I know your mad scientist ways are at the very least strange..

 

GG buddy now get back to work on your experiments!

 

Are you using live pilots in these experiments?

 

You know what I think I was one of your Guinea pig pilots tonite!






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users