Does Wake Turbulence Seem Overdone?

[dresoccer4]

I'm in a Spitfire and just shot up a P-51 enough so its engine seized up. I then stopped firing and flew up next to it as the pilot attempted to glide it down into a field (brave chap).

 

I pull up on its rear 45, then slightly moved behind it...that's when all of the sudden I hit its massively strong wake turbulence and get rolled 30 degrees right and 10 degrees up. Needless to say, this little P-51D without a spinning prop almost caused me to crash in a fiery blaze. 

 

As an IRL SEL pilot I'm well aware of the dangers of wake turbulence and am always a little nervous coming into land behind the big birds. But I've never experienced a C172 wake turb strong enough to flip me on my back. Anyone else feel like its wayyyy overdone?

 

The wake turb feels the same behind a powerless ww2 bird as it does behind the A-50. 

[LithiumR]

Yes. It's seems about right in modern jets but for warbirds it's a little crazy. I ended up turning it off even though I'm a big fan of it in jets. I have no idea if it's realistic in the warbirds though... I know if you are trying to take out a B-17 good luck!! or any dogfight against any warbird for that matter. Wake turbulance throws me around like crazy!

[Sickdog]

This is a bit of an old thread but wanted to breathe some life into it and chime in as a RL pilot of a large corporate jet and formally regional airliners. Myself and other RL pilots I fly DCS with all agree it's way too much. The wake we feel from each other's hornets coming in to land feels like something from a "HEAVY" aircraft, granted I've never flown a hornet IRL so I can't comment on that precisely. I think a great solution to this would be a slider scale in the settings so those of us that think it's too unrealistic on one side of the spectrum can set what we think is more realistic than the next guy, or ED for that matter... increase or decrease the effects to our heart's content. 

[Swift.]

On 1/3/2022 at 12:34 AM, Sickdog said:

This is a bit of an old thread but wanted to breathe some life into it and chime in as a RL pilot of a large corporate jet and formally regional airliners. Myself and other RL pilots I fly DCS with all agree it's way too much. The wake we feel from each other's hornets coming in to land feels like something from a "HEAVY" aircraft, granted I've never flown a hornet IRL so I can't comment on that precisely. I think a great solution to this would be a slider scale in the settings so those of us that think it's too unrealistic on one side of the spectrum can set what we think is more realistic than the next guy, or ED for that matter... increase or decrease the effects to our heart's content. 

I'm hearing the same thing over and over aswell. Combine that with the way that you cant do an interval takeoff in viper using the RL techniques because the wake is so strong you'll just flip.

I think it is very clear right now that there is something wrong with wake turbulence across all modules. Whether its something like the magnitude being a fixed value regardless of the generating airframes lift and weight or something else, idk. But it is broken right now

[GumidekCZ]

I have same thoughts, but not only about the magnitude, but also about coniclal angle of the influenced air volume. According to what I heard from real pilot, he thought that the cone is spreading to sides behind the plane too quick. But may be this can be also the result of the larger magnitude the is IRL.

I would be nice option to have in DCS to actualy VISUALIZE the speed vectors of affected air volume to distances like 1-4 km behind the airplane. Bu my gues is that this would be too much performance drop to any PC.

[smire666]

I have another question, pointed to the future... Will be the smoke from wingtip-smokewinders affected by the wake-turbulence? I meant, if the smoke-streams will reducing the distance between them a bit? I saw a video with the Viper on takeoff in DCS with wingtip-vortices curved in this manner, but also the video with parallel wingtip-smoke...