Jump to content

[OPINION] Wake turbulance is too much


nighthawk2174

Recommended Posts

I think the point is that the wake is dramatic on the same size and type of aircraft. Like yes a small aircraft would get thrown around by a slow and clean F14 but a f18 would be effected less. 

 

I haven't tested it recently, does the turbulence dissapate as it should over the ground or not? This was a bit issue for some online servers as aircraft would be damageed and flung into the ground due to the wake not going away. 

RTX 2080ti, I7 9700k, 32gb ram, SSD, Samsung Odyssey VR, MSFFB2, T-50 Throttle, Thrustmaster Rudder Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, =Mac= said:

So how do you account for the differences between left drogue difficult plug-ins and right drogue nighmarish plugins? The only difference SHOULD be just the angle of bank to correct for the air flows.

I don't know. Well, on the right side your jet is couple of feet closer to the engine jet wash perhaps. I made a vid of a right side connect into KC135. I've done a lot of refueling from C130s, on either side but 135 was definitely harder. Not because of the wake or jet wash but the wing dihedral takes some getting used to. I really had to work on keeping the single point of reference (refueling pod) where I wanted, while maintaining the proper basket picture closing on my probe, without fixating on it. I don't know how else I can describe it...

You can see the visible part of the wingtip vortex, way above my approach. I did have to counter the slight roll but did not trim.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Gripes323 said:

I don't know. Well, on the right side your jet is couple of feet closer to the engine jet wash perhaps. I made a vid of a right side connect into KC135. I've done a lot of refueling from C130s, on either side but 135 was definitely harder. Not because of the wake or jet wash but the wing dihedral takes some getting used to. I really had to work on keeping the single point of reference (refueling pod) where I wanted, while maintaining the proper basket picture closing on my probe, without fixating on it. I don't know how else I can describe it...

You can see the visible part of the wingtip vortex, way above my approach. I did have to counter the slight roll but did not trim.

 

I don't have a problem with the dihedral. I saw it when I first went from the KC-130 to the KC-135MPRS. I expected the possible disorientation. What I focus on is the top of my HUD as it aligns with the refueling pod(?). However, the dihedral is not what gives me a problem. As I approach, the need to bank (away from the tanker's fuselage) gets stronger. Perhaps that's as it should be. I contend that it is a bit too strong. I should like to state, though, that my problem is that, as soon as I plug in, that need to bank disappears. The physics of needing-then-not-needing is thus incorrect.

For whatever reason, the need to bank on the right is about the same but the intensity during approach is not linear but, I would guess, logarithmic. This increase in difficulty is what people are complaining about: left versus right.

The Hornet is best at killing things on the ground. Now, if we could just get a GAU-8 in the nose next to the AN/APG-65, a titanium tub around the pilot, and a couple of J-58 engines in the tail...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Andartu said:

And it doesn't matter if it is the left or the right one. There is really no difference aside from the looks that are unusual cause most of the time you go left.

There are a lot of people here that would disagree with you.

I successfully refuel left or right all the time. Nevertheless, I notice the same difference that everyone else is reporting.

The Hornet is best at killing things on the ground. Now, if we could just get a GAU-8 in the nose next to the AN/APG-65, a titanium tub around the pilot, and a couple of J-58 engines in the tail...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, =Mac= said:

... I should like to state, though, that my problem is that, as soon as I plug in, that need to bank disappears. The physics of needing-then-not-needing is thus incorrect...

Perhaps less turbulence from the right outboard engine passing over your left wing as you get closer?  Perhaps something else.  That's why I don't bother messing with the trim, just hold whatever correction is required until done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Gawd, I would never be able to trim for that. I even tried Baro autopilot. I am just like you, Gripes: just fight the dynamics until plugged in, then relax a bit until the dam thing banks for a turn without calling it.

The Hornet is best at killing things on the ground. Now, if we could just get a GAU-8 in the nose next to the AN/APG-65, a titanium tub around the pilot, and a couple of J-58 engines in the tail...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, =Mac= said:

Gawd, I would never be able to trim for that. I even tried Baro autopilot. I am just like you, Gripes: just fight the dynamics until plugged in, then relax a bit until the dam thing banks for a turn without calling it.

That's about right...  Staying through transitions from level to turning and back is definitely harder then behind an S3, from which 90% of my tanking was done so far, mostly a recovery tanker. I got so used to gassing up in a turn that it became my preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...