AAR under wake turbulence

[Eaglewings]

Just bagged one aar with wake turbulence enabled.

A bit difficult with wake turbulence but doable with great help from O+.

 

The turbulence kept pushing me to the right, had to come from under and constantly banking against the push to the right.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Eaglewings

[BarTzi]

I get the same drift/roll to the right while making contact with the basket (constantly have to push the stick and fight with it while I'm taking fuel). Was wondering if it is the way it is supposed to be, and how the real pilots deal with it (rudder? trim?).

 

Hopefully, some pilots can provide inputs :)

[Lymark]

+1

 

Trimming left seems to ease the right bank tendency a bit, but I still need to fight with the joystick constantly more than I feel like I should

[AG-51_Razor]

Just bagged one aar with wake turbulence enabled.

 

 

Where/how do you enable it??

[Kayos]

Where/how do you enable it??

 

Options / Gameplay I think it was.

[Eaglewings]

Options / Gameplay I think it was.

Correct. It is in the list of check boxes under game play in option section.

 

I was kind of surprised at first when I was a long way from the Tanker and almost at the same altitude, effect was strong. I initially thought my pitch and roll axes were messed up.

 

 

 

I seems the turbulence goes a long trail behind the tanker.

 

AAR is a new experience with wake turbulence.

[SirJ]

Compared to RL examples where a Gulfstream was flipped by the wakes from an (long gone A380)

[BarTzi]

Compared to RL examples where a Gulfstream was flipped by the wakes from an (long gone A380)

 

I know that video, but I'm talking about the moments in which you are taking fuel. We are not crossing the wake on purpose and placed slightly lower than the tanker itself.

 

It doesn't look like these guys are having any trouble with it at all.

 

This is why I was hoping some real-life Hornet pilots can shed some light on this and provide some tips or insights.

[RED]

I know that video, but I'm talking about the moments in which you are taking fuel. We are not crossing the wake on purpose and placed slightly lower than the tanker itself.

 

It doesn't look like these guys are having any trouble with it at all.

 

This is why I was hoping some real-life Hornet pilots can shed some light on this and provide some tips or insights.

The video also shows differences in procedures. In DCS the tanker deploys the hoses when you formed up and not before. The primary hose should be the one on the outside of the turn and not the one on the inside (DCS tanker only do left hand turns -> right hose should be the first option for the leading aircraft).

[Eaglewings]

I know that video, but I'm talking about the moments in which you are taking fuel. We are not crossing the wake on purpose and placed slightly lower than the tanker itself.

 

It doesn't look like these guys are having any trouble with it at all.

 

This is why I was hoping some real-life Hornet pilots can shed some light on this and provide some tips or insights.

Yeah it would be great to have a real pilot perspective on this.

I watch the video, there was no turbulence when the aircraft pulled to the side of the tanker. Watching from a 2d screen can not tell if they pulled up that close to get into the trail from the wings of the tanker.

 

The diving under may probably be the move to avoid the whirling wind from wings of the tanker.

 

Real life tactics on this will dispel wrong assumptions.

[SirJ]

This morning I tried approaching from below using the Viking as a gas station.

It worked quite well in terms of approach - while taking fuel and staying loooow on the hose it was ok - when climbing maybe 10ft the wake was close to not manageable...

 

 

Perhaps ED will dial in the parameteres in the future.

[maxTRX]

This morning I tried approaching from below using the Viking as a gas station.

It worked quite well in terms of approach - while taking fuel and staying loooow on the hose it was ok - when climbing maybe 10ft the wake was close to not manageable...

 

 

Perhaps ED will dial in the parameteres in the future.

 

I wasn't even aware this feature was there. After enabling it I chased down an S3, joined up on the inside of his turn, took some gas and never saw any difference. I stayed close and below the tanker. Off to experiment some more...:pilotfly:

[maxTRX]

I think I found it... once. I guess S3 doesn't produce that much of a wake or... I don't know.

I made a clip (of course:P) After plugging in behind S3 I shifted my position slightly up, left, right (some of it unintentionally, lol) and nothing. Then, once disconnected I backed off slightly and I saw a roll... to the left perhaps hitting the right vortex? I'll try a big tanker next.

https://youtu.be/KOHCY_L59mw

[SirJ]

nice video...

Try to fly some 100ft behind the S3, and creep your way from one side to the other...due to the vortex'es you will never make it to "the other side". the turbulent air will roll you always towards the wing tips of the tanker.

 

 

maybe I will make a vid tomorrow

[Eaglewings]

I think I found it... once. I guess S3 doesn't produce that much of a wake or... I don't know.

 

I made a clip (of course:P) After plugging in behind S3 I shifted my position slightly up, left, right (some of it unintentionally, lol) and nothing. Then, once disconnected I backed off slightly and I saw a roll... to the left perhaps hitting the right vortex? I'll try a big tanker next.

 

https://youtu.be/KOHCY_L59mw

Yeah, starting perhaps from 2.17 in the video is the wake turbulence. It would sweep you to one side.

For me at first, I thought my pitch /roll axes were off.

 

However the turbulence is more pronounced when you are some distance behind the tanker.

At close range the effect is subtle I think.

[Nagilem]

That is very odd - I hear from those on the thread it isn't much, but when I try the S3, my aircraft starts randomly rolling left or right AND gets pushed nose high or low, and not just toward the outside of the wing. And not just a little bit either. Once it starts bucking, the area the hose will stay connected seems small and quickly disconnects. I have to almost dial in 2.5 to 5 degrees to counter the effect and it will not trim out (immediately starts rolling the opposite direction no matter how much trim I try to dial in). I'll be the first to admit, I'm not the best at AAR, but I have no problem with getting a full tank without disconnecting with the S3 with wake turb off.

 

Would also like to hear from a hornet driver if that is truly realistic.

Edited June 9, 2019 by Nagilem

[maxTRX]

I wonder if the airspeed plays a role here. I usually place the tanker in orbit at 270, 280 kts.

What was your a/s Nagilem? Perhaps the drogue floats slightly lower at lower a/s? just guessing...

Edited June 10, 2019 by Gripes323

[PeneCruz]

Most wake turbulence is generated from the wingtip vortices of the tanker, this is generated by the cross flow over the wing to the tips, IRL you can fly just outside/inside this trailing wake with no effect. In very close you may get some down-wash directly behind the trailing edge of the wing or some localized buffet off the Flap Track Canoes. Below and inside the wingtip it is smooth air hence the location of the AAR Pods.

 

The limiting factor in DCS is probably how each Aircraft Wake "attachment" is modeled. I guess they will get tweaked over time to generate a predictable wake.

[Nagilem]

@Gripes - Tried both 315IAS and 275IAS. *Slightly* better at lower speed. KLC135MPRS is much heavier and difficult to manage than the S3, though the S3 is closer to the engine.

 

@PeneCruz - I am finding the wake turbulence more behind the engines than the wingtip for what its worth... I am having to deflect the stick the entire time I am connected, almost as if the tanker is in a turn (which he is not). Trying it while the tanker actually is in a turn is much much harder. As you said, maybe its a matter of WIP.

 

Sadly, with this as an option, it will be turned on in MP and left on period so its not something that I can avoid by turning off in my game.

 

The big question is - how much does wake turb affect the real jet while tanking?

[Eaglewings]

 

@PeneCruz - I am finding the wake turbulence more behind the engines than the wingtip for what its worth... I am having to deflect the stick the entire time I am connected, almost as if the tanker is in a turn (which he is not). Trying it while the tanker actually is in a turn is much much harder. As you said, maybe its a matter of WIP

 

 

This is exactly my experience.

 

The wake turbulence is not peculiar to Tankers.

I was trying to catch up with a M-2000 in a formation flight and while way off behind, the turbulence hit me in the Hornet.

 

It would take real life experience to determine if as it is presently need further tweaking.

[AG-51_Razor]

Can anyone say if this is the same "effect" that HeatBlur implemented in their F-14B module or is this something different?

[PeneCruz]

This is exactly my experience.

 

The wake turbulence is not peculiar to Tankers.

I was trying to catch up with a M-2000 in a formation flight and while way off behind, the turbulence hit me in the Hornet.

It would take real life experience to determine if as it is presently need further tweaking.

 

I fly around lots of jet wake IRL, it needs tweaking. The wingtip vortices don’t appear to be attached correctly to all aircraft. They are onboard of the tips in most cases. Obviously in close jetwash Behind the engines is an issue however IRL jetwash dissipates quickly behind the aircraft. Wingtip votives do not and extend many miles behind the jet. Airframe turbulence is super localised and dissipated only a few meters behind the aircraft.

 

The Phoenix wake is over exaggerated on the tomcat having spoken to a guy that’s fired then IRL. Who observed the heat blur video. It’s all a mater of adjustment with the models.

[Eaglewings]

I fly around lots of jet wake IRL, it needs tweaking. The wingtip vortices don’t appear to be attached correctly to all aircraft. They are onboard of the tips in most cases. Obviously in close jetwash Behind the engines is an issue however IRL jetwash dissipates quickly behind the aircraft. Wingtip votives do not and extend many miles behind the jet. Airframe turbulence is super localised and dissipated only a few meters behind the aircraft.

 

 

 

The Phoenix wake is over exaggerated on the tomcat having spoken to a guy that’s fired then IRL. Who observed the heat blur video. It’s all a mater of adjustment with the models.

Good real life insight.

I thought the effect was too strong from far behind the aircraft producing the turbulence.

The intensity should dissipate over distance and effect stronger when near and directly in the trail zone.

[sledge1stgw]

I personally think this effect is way too aggressive with the hornet. Compared to that, refuelling the F14 (in OpenBeta with wake turbulence on) is a walk in the park. flying the hornet I am hardly able to hit the basket due to the sensivity of the pitch in combination with the waketurb.

Makes it 10 times more difficult (just my opinion)

 

 

BR

Sledge

[TacKen]

Actually, wake turbulence can trail pretty far behind an aircraft and give some medium chop along with rolling and pitching moments when you hit it. Occasionally in congested airspace, you would hit some wake turbies in clear air on a sunny day. You would hit it, feel jostling along with some thunderous buffeting sounds. Not enough to kick off the autopilot, but enough to jostle and cause some roll or pitching. You would look around and there would not be a plane in sight. Wake turbulence falls at about 500 feet per minute. It all depends on the type aircraft and how heavy it is.

 

 

 

In typical fashion, min separation timing is 3 minutes when departing behind a heavy type aircraft. After the heavy departs, the following aircraft is held for 3 minutes before allowed to depart from the same runway. Even when landing or following a heavy aircraft at same altitude or less than a 1000ft, there is spacing. For a heavy following another heavy, it's a 4 mile separation. For a light aircraft following a heavy, its a 6 mile separation. This goes to show that wake turbulence trails at a long distance and has tremendous effect. I flew heavies for a long time. This is the reason that "heavy" is attached to the call sign of heavy type aircraft, reminds everyone of the wake turbulence rules for that aircraft.

 

 

 

Once during a formation departure in a KC10, we departed Al Udeid following another KC10 just to get formation beans knocked out since our departure times were so close. I departed 30 minutes early to get it done. It was night and we were at the non standard mile in trail. He was in the clouds so I lost him in the turn as I was at 350kts trying to rejoin. We had him on TCAS and was using the weather radar to skin paint him. While trying to move upwind of his turn and cut him off, I passed through his wake in the clouds at a mile. The jet snapped to 60 degrees left and it was all I could input with right yoke to stop the roll and get her rolling to the right. It caught me off guard because based on the winds on my nav display, I should have been upwind.

 

 

Since the wake turbulence falls so slow, you are never in it during refueling(heavy perspective). You approach the tanker at the bottom of the block a thousand feet below. Once the tanker and your ready light lines up, you start the reverse ILS up to the tanker and you are out of it. You do get the down wash from the wing and fuselage and there is a burble that you power through initially to reach the contact position. You will also feel the tanker's engines push you towards center if you got out there far enough. The 135 has a small envelope, so its easy to get pushed by their engines when off center versus the wide area on a 10.

 

 

As for the wing drogue pods, the turbulence funnel at the wing tips are narrow and stretched out at refueling speeds. Wake turbulence is a big factor when a plane is heavy, low and slow. A receiver should be able to descend from the wing position and drift back behind the drogue and approach without issue. I may have, a few times joined the boom to watch drogue refueling from our wing pods. I never seen a fighter bothered by our wake during position changes and refueling. When you think about it, the drogue is inside of and below the wake turbulence. That's why its stable when deployed. In the KC10, there was a warning about extending the slats with a wing pod drogue deployed. The turbulence from the slats would cause the drogue to violently spin and possibly make contact with the wing/slats(it happened before). If a wing pod drogue was stuck out and you could not jettison the hose, you had to do a no slats with flaps landing.