[OPINION] Wake turbulance is too much

[randomTOTEN]

You are absolutely right about the lift, but you forgot to compare wingspan... that affects exactly as the weight.

I didn't try to factor in the wingspan because I don't know how that affects the aerodynamics.

I just did some reading, and am reminded of the relationship between Aspect Ratio and Induced Drag. If it interpret that correctly, the Hornet's wings have a lower AR than an airliner, thus they would impart more induced drag, caused by more aggressive wingtip vorticies...:smartass:

Let me know if that's anywhere close.:book:

 

But I just fly the things, I don't design them! This stuff is all pretty hazy for me; I had to crack a book. I've encountered wake in BFM once (F-5 against F-14 **EDIT: In DCS**) and it was just as aggressive as I would expect, but I had altitude to recover.:music_whistling:

[jojo]

There is no question.

F-16 and M-2000C can get wings ripped off. I have seen HUD footage with 25G.

 

I got wings ripped off 600m behind MiG-29.

 

This is way overdone and doing more bad than good.

[RentedAndDented]

There is no question.

F-16 and M-2000C can get wings ripped off. I have seen HUD footage with 25G.

 

I got wings ripped off 600m behind MiG-29.

 

This is way overdone and doing more bad than good.

 

 

Watch this then, it's an old USAF training video. It also deals with the interval takeoffs.

 

 

[maxTRX]

Watch this then, it's an old USAF training video. It also deals with the interval takeoffs.

 

 

 

I thing the description of flying through wake vortex during BFM is spot on and that would be my choice of words to describe how startled I was when I flew through it couple of times already in VR. Somehow I could "almost" feel it just from visual effect only:huh:

I think vids like this should be mandatory here.

[RentedAndDented]

I thing the description of flying through wake vortex during BFM is spot on and that would be my choice of words to describe how startled I was when I flew through it couple of times already in VR. Somehow I could "almost" feel it just from visual effect only:huh:

I think vids like this should be mandatory here.

 

 

So I haven't experienced wings coming off in DCS, but breakups in the civilian world do happen. It might be a damage model issue rather than a vortex modelling issue because you might not experience catastrophic structural failure in the fighter because of it, but he says quite clearly structural damage and overstress is a concern.

[Knock-Knock]

Watch this then, it's an old USAF training video. It also deals with the interval takeoffs.

 

 

 

 

I have nothing to add to the discussion, I just want to thank you for that link :thumbup:.

[RentedAndDented]

I have nothing to add to the discussion, I just want to thank you for that link :thumbup:.

 

 

No worries, it's very educational isn't it? I hope it gets more views now.

[maxTRX]

I flew through JF17's wake and this time I recorded it.

 

It was nice to see at least one realistic aspect of AI JF17, other laws of physics don't apply:huh:

 

Final part of the gun fight.

 

[Magic Zach]

Wake turbulence is still overdone

A quarter of these...or any at the close six or low six, wouldn't be possible in DCS.

 

BIGNEWY said that there was a performance bump for wake turb planned, but it'd be disappointing if they don't change it in any other way when there is clearly something up.

 

Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk

[mkiii]

I still find it hard to believe that a fighter sized aircraft such as an F-16 or A-10 can not fly in close formation with an identical aircraft without being tossed all over the sky if you fly anywhere near it's wake. I have seen a fair few 4 ship take-offs of Jaguar, Buccaneer and Tornado, and never saw any sign of the rear pair(s) jiggling around in the wake of the lead-ships. And as for F-104s I don't recall any more than 1 or 2 ships on those, but they don't hang around on take-off or have much in the way of wings to be affected anyway bloody missiles ;)

The link to the USAF video above is talking about flying small light trainers such as the T-38 through the wake of heavies, and specifically at low approach speeds. - that I understand.

 

If it is a realistic representation, then the red arrows must have magical powers. Their smoke is only affected by the turbulence of their own engines. Maybe it's just that British aircraft are better? :music_whistling:

[RentedAndDented]

On 10/23/2020 at 8:50 AM, mkiii said:

I still find it hard to believe that a fighter sized aircraft such as an F-16 or A-10 can not fly in close formation with an identical aircraft without being tossed all over the sky if you fly anywhere near it's wake. I have seen a fair few 4 ship take-offs of Jaguar, Buccaneer and Tornado, and never saw any sign of the rear pair(s) jiggling around in the wake of the lead-ships. And as for F-104s I don't recall any more than 1 or 2 ships on those, but they don't hang around on take-off or have much in the way of wings to be affected anyway bloody missiles ;)

The link to the USAF video above is talking about flying small light trainers such as the T-38 through the wake of heavies, and specifically at low approach speeds. - that I understand.

 

If it is a realistic representation, then the red arrows must have magical powers. Their smoke is only affected by the turbulence of their own engines. Maybe it's just that British aircraft are better? :music_whistling:

 

Smaller wings tend to generate more wake turbulence. The winglets on planes apparently work to reduce that by effectively increasing wingspan without actually increasing it, and is why Boeing is considering foldable wingtips.

The reason the smoke isn't apparently affected is because the wake turbulence is directly behind the wingtips, and when it is very close to the aircraft it's quite narrow. The vortex expands and slows over time, which is why approaching the tanker in DCS you might feel some effect if you approach from behind, but on or nearer to the basket it's very small or nonexistent.

In any event, DCS is not giving us real wake turbulence, it's giving us as good an approximation as they can fit into a tight CPU budget and for that limitation I think it's very good.

[hazzer]

Hello,

 

I am wondering if there are ever any plans to fix the wake turbulence? As in its current state it is best left off, especially regarding the effect It has aircraft on the ground with others flying overhead low or taking off. 

[randomTOTEN]

On 1/15/2021 at 12:51 AM, RentedAndDented said:

The winglets on planes apparently work to reduce that by effectively increasing wingspan without actually increasing it, and is why Boeing is considering foldable wingtips.

Not really.

What they do is change where the vortex is located in relation to the wing. The change in location provides an aerodynamic benefit for the generating aircraft, equivalent to an extension in wingspan.

 

I don't think the effects in DCS are overdone.

Edited February 6, 2021 by randomTOTEN

[nighthawk2174]

I don't know it really seems very suspicious to me the amount aircraft get thrown around and how long the effect lasts for tactical sized aircraft.  If it was something like a tanker sure, but i'm doubtful.  HB's F14 wake model feels far more believable to me.

[hazzer]

I have been trying to find an answer for some things regarding wake turbulence and I came across this thread again. Which is marked as 'opinion' of which it is filled with facts. 

 

It is obvious the wake turbulence is not a complete feature and needs major work. A p51 on final flipped out and crashed because another p51 landed 10 seconds prior. You would expect slight wake turbulence but nothing so extreme from the same type. 

I suggest eagle dynamic look at the minimum wake seperation distance recommendations to avoid wake https://images.app.goo.gl/qecigH2aY8yXCosUA. 

 

Also as per the post from Shahdoh, the wake can literally destroy aircraft. When in reality its effect is none existent at ground level. This post was from over a year ago and this issue has not being resolved. So large multiplayer servers are missing out on a great feature. Please can we get this fixed? 

On 4/15/2020 at 1:55 PM, Shahdoh said:

The AO (Aerobatics Online) server had to turn off the wake turbulence due to it being used as a weapon as one could flip a whole line of aircraft on the ramp with a single low pass from a fighter sized aircraft.

 

 

[hazzer]

Is this being investigated? Not sure why it is marked as "opinion" becuase it is not. 

[Sickdog]

I wish ED would comment on this, other than just saying "opinion" under the thread title. I feel it's way too much, and when I've flown SF260 Marchetti's in real life in close formation (performing drills behind the lead) and simulated ACM, there is more of a "buffet" feeling passing through the wake behind the other aircraft, rather than a violent rolling motion. As for larger/heavier aircraft, I've flown through airliner wakes in a large corporate jet and have felt a wide variety of effects from a violent jolt to a violent roll almost 20-30 degrees, but that was from something big. Lighter aircraft just don't create the wakes we experience in DCS in real life, in my humble "opinion". Oh no, look what I just did there!  Maybe we need a poll and/or more RL pilots chiming in to get ED's attention.

[=Mac=]

When we AAR on the MPRS with Hornets, most everyone wants to refuel on the left drogue because the right drogue is rather difficult compared to the left. This shows that the modelling isn't quite right. Most real-life AAR with small fighters (F/A-18s and F-16s) show a smooth and steady approach to a drogue. This is not possible in DCS at the moment.

For me, when I approach on the left, I have to bank left way too much just to keep the approach manageable. This effect gets worse as I approach closer to the drogue. Once I plug in, the effect becomes considerably less. When I approach on the right drogue, it's almost like trying to balance a basketball on your finger (without the gyroscopic spin). To me, it's ridiculous.

[Mad_Shell]

3 hours ago, Sickdog said:

I feel it's way too much, and when I've flown SF260 Marchetti's in real life in close formation (performing drills behind the lead) and simulated ACM, there is more of a "buffet" feeling passing through the wake behind the other aircraft, rather than a violent rolling motion. 

Since you're a real pilot, I think you should be more aware of the enormous  differences between a SF260 Marchetti and fighter jets. The plane you've flown is several times slower, and 20 times lighter than a F-18... I let you imagine the difference in the turbulence produced. If you watch the USAF video posted above in the thread, at 18:25 it is said that a T38 collided with another one because it was flipped around by the leader's vortex. T38 are 4 times lighter than a F-18. So yeah, even light airframe can produce serious turbulences. 

 

1 hour ago, =Mac= said:

When we AAR on the MPRS with Hornets, most everyone wants to refuel on the left drogue because the right drogue is rather difficult compared to the left. This shows that the modelling isn't quite right. Most real-life AAR with small fighters (F/A-18s and F-16s) show a smooth and steady approach to a drogue. This is not possible in DCS at the moment.

For me, when I approach on the left, I have to bank left way too much just to keep the approach manageable. This effect gets worse as I approach closer to the drogue. Once I plug in, the effect becomes considerably less. When I approach on the right drogue, it's almost like trying to balance a basketball on your finger (without the gyroscopic spin). To me, it's ridiculous.

Keep in mind the smooth irl approaches you see on youtube are by pilots with more and better training than you. They know exactly where to position, how to approach different aircraft, the right distances, etc... And I've seen some pretty smooth approaches with wake turbulence in DCS. 

[=Mac=]

9 hours ago, Mad_Shell said:

Keep in mind the smooth irl approaches you see on youtube are by pilots with more and better training than you. They know exactly where to position, how to approach different aircraft, the right distances, etc... And I've seen some pretty smooth approaches with wake turbulence in DCS. 

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.

[Sickdog]

Quote

Since you're a real pilot, I think you should be more aware of the enormous  differences between a SF260 Marchetti and fighter jets. The plane you've flown is several times slower, and 20 times lighter than a F-18... I let you imagine the difference in the turbulence produced. If you watch the USAF video posted above in the thread, at 18:25 it is said that a T38 collided with another one because it was flipped around by the leader's vortex. T38 are 4 times lighter than a F-18. So yeah, even light airframe can produce serious turbulences. 

I was referring to the wake in DCS felt by the warbirds, my mistake I didn’t specify. I am very aware of those differences, but you should also be aware the worst wake turbulence is caused by heavy, clean, and SLOW. So perhaps you just learned something new. Regardless, I believe the wake turbulence is too strong, and so do other guys I fly with in DCS, former air force and navy pilots that have flown small fighters and trainers, sorry they’re not on here to challenge your assertions. And as for in real life, I fly a 99,000 lb MGTOW corporate jet, I have a much better understanding of wake turbulence in that size jet than that Marchetti, that was just an example of when I purposely flew through a lot of wake in a maneuvering situation. I get it it’s still a threat in real life for fighters, but in my “opinion” and other professional pilots/former military pilots it’s still overdone. 

[Mad_Shell]

35 minutes ago, Sickdog said:

I was referring to the wake in DCS felt by the warbirds, my mistake I didn’t specify. I am very aware of those differences, but you should also be aware the worst wake turbulence is caused by heavy, clean, and SLOW. So perhaps you just learned something new. Regardless, I believe the wake turbulence is too strong, and so do other guys I fly with in DCS, former air force and navy pilots that have flown small fighters and trainers, sorry they’re not on here to challenge your assertions. And as for in real life, I fly a 99,000 lb MGTOW corporate jet, I have a much better understanding of wake turbulence in that size jet than that Marchetti, that was just an example of when I purposely flew through a lot of wake in a maneuvering situation. I get it it’s still a threat in real life for fighters, but in my “opinion” and other professional pilots/former military pilots it’s still overdone. 

You keep saying it seems overdone, but when I see examples like the T38 in the USAF video , or in this video with a plane of 5 tons flipping around the following aircraft, it really doesn't seem overdone in DCS. 

 

Edited January 3, 2022 by Mad_Shell

[Sn8ke]

I’m a pilot IRL. Wake turbulence is real, and it is very violent. The sudden, un-commanded roll experienced in DCS is exactly what happens in real life, although it may not be perfect. 

[Sickdog]

Sn8ke, nobody here said it isn't "real", and nobody said it isn't "very violent", but I still think it is over modelled when flying though wake created by a hornet on landing feels like wake from a 757. Well, we can all agree to disagree as to the extent wake turbulence is modelled in DCS. Perhaps my idea of a slider scale to adjust to what we all "think" is realistic is the best option, otherwise we'll all be going round and round forever debating how it is modelled in DCS. I doubt ED will do this, but it sure would be nice. 

[Andartu]

13 hours ago, =Mac= said:

When we AAR on the MPRS with Hornets, most everyone wants to refuel on the left drogue because the right drogue is rather difficult compared to the left. This shows that the modelling isn't quite right. Most real-life AAR with small fighters (F/A-18s and F-16s) show a smooth and steady approach to a drogue. This is not possible in DCS at the moment.

For me, when I approach on the left, I have to bank left way too much just to keep the approach manageable. This effect gets worse as I approach closer to the drogue. Once I plug in, the effect becomes considerably less. When I approach on the right drogue, it's almost like trying to balance a basketball on your finger (without the gyroscopic spin). To me, it's ridiculous.

Honestly, you maybe should go right more often to practice it. 

If you do it right you won't notice the wake at all, at least only to a minimum. But basically it is quite easy to stay completely out of the wake.

You always approach the drogue from below. 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.

What you notice when you are coming up right behind the drogue just before contact is a minimal wake that wants to pull you to the fuselage of the tanker. That you can just counter with a bit of trim to make your life easier.

Edited January 3, 2022 by Andartu