Dedicated Wingtip Vortex Effect for F-35

[broderbund67]

Just as some modules get their own custom wing vapor effects when pulling G’s, the F-35 should also have a dedicated effect for its wingtip vortex vapor rather than using the generic default. The current effect applied to all aircrafts is too short and fades too quickly, whereas the real F-35 often leaves a distinct, somewhat persistent trail in certain flight regimes.

[Czar]

There is nothing special about F-35's visible wingtip vortex. All planes can leave massive trails IRL and it is dependent on the atmosphere conditions.

The effect should be improved globally actually.

Edited Saturday at 06:14 PM by Czar

[broderbund67]

Yes, that’s correct, but the intensity and persistence of vortex formation vary significantly between aircraft types. For example, at an airshow I observed the F-35 generating pronounced, sustained wingtip vortex trails, whereas the F-16 produced little to none under the same atmospheric conditions. Extended vortices on the F-16, such as in your first picture, are relatively uncommon. This comes down to aerodynamic factors—specifically wing planform, aspect ratio, and overall lift distribution—which determine how much and how consistently a wing generates vortical flow.

The F-35 has a relatively thick, broad wing with a moderate aspect ratio and significant lift loading, which promotes strong pressure differentials at the tips. That makes vortex generation more pronounced compared to sleeker, higher-aspect ratio designs like the F-16

[Czar]

4 minutes ago, broderbund67 said:

Yes, that’s correct, but the intensity and persistence of vortex formation vary significantly between aircraft types. For example, at an airshow I observed the F-35 generating pronounced, sustained wingtip vortex trails, whereas the F-16 produced little to none under the same atmospheric conditions. Extended vortices on the F-16, such as in your first picture, are relatively uncommon. This comes down to aerodynamic factors—specifically wing planform, aspect ratio, and overall lift distribution—which determine how much and how consistently a wing generates vortical flow.

The F-35 has a relatively thick, broad wing with a moderate aspect ratio and significant lift loading, which promotes strong pressure differentials at the tips. That makes vortex generation more pronounced compared to sleeker, higher-aspect ratio designs like the F-16

Don't ignore the other images especially the Eagle.

There is nothing pointing at the F-35 to have its own effect instead of improving the global effect.

 

Even airliners can display crazy vortexes without pulling Gs.

[broderbund67]

Yes, in humid conditions the F-15 will often show vortices, but the F-35 is notable because you can sometimes see them even in dry environments, like desert airshows, where other jets wouldn’t produce visible trails. I’m not saying the F-35 is “special” in that sense, but its vortices do appear more frequently and tend to last longer. That comes down to wing geometry and loading, combined with weather conditions. For the same humidity, the F-35’s vortices are generally more visible.

• F-15: Strong, but short-lived wingtip trails.

• F-35: More persistent, longer trails due to wing loading and geometry.

• F/A-18: Heavy vapor overall, but mainly from leading-edge and body vortices rather than wingtips.

[Czar]

All my time nerding out on aircraft footage, I haven't seen anything different on the F-35 in that regard.

Feel free to post direct comparisons in the same atmosphere conditions. It is going a bit to the realm of 'nobody cares that much', especially something regarding wingtip vortexes. Doubtful if something comes in that regard with the 35.

A global improvement would be nice, as in less sensitive to occurrence and longer trails.
 

 

Edited Saturday at 07:07 PM by Czar

[broderbund67]

Of course, it's just a detail but for me it's very characteristic of this plane. Applying the same effect to all aircrafts in DCS is inaccurate because it does not occur at the same frequency and it looks different depending on wing design.

Here are some direct comparisons below.

 F-35 in formation with an f-16 at the end of the video. No vortices for the F-16 

 

F-22 in formation with the f-35, not trail on the F-22:

F-22, A-10, F-15 and F-35 in formation:

 

[Czar]

10 hours ago, broderbund67 said:

Of course, it's just a detail but for me it's very characteristic of this plane. Applying the same effect to all aircrafts in DCS is inaccurate because it does not occur at the same frequency and it looks different depending on wing design.

Here are some direct comparisons below.

 F-35 in formation with an f-16 at the end of the video. No vortices for the F-16 

I see. Understood. ....but in real life, as seen, the effect is just the same as in the F-15s. There is zero visual difference.

F-22 flying in formation with it is not adequate because of the alpha and a low wing load at the flight regime. Obviously the 35 will generate vortexes easier because of the high wing load as you properly pointed out. The demonstration should have been at similar alpha, I think.

A-10s are no comparison.

DCS already takes into the account the alpha and without any change the F-35 will display the vortexes easier as the system automatically does it by default. You're right about that.

In the visual realm, although very nice looking DCS is already, the effect should be upgraded globally. Reason is because they all look the same in DCS, and are too skinny where it should be a thick cylinder like streak as in very humid conditions.

F-35s bellow:

F-22 bellow:

Visually, planes can do exact same visible vortexes effects. So it is where I'd say the effect should be upgraded globally.

F-35s can do easier? Yep, I agree. Keyword: easier. 
F-35s vortexes are longer? Not necessarily.
DCS Should have longer wingtip vortexes while its length varying based on air conditions? I agree with it too. I'm all for these improvements in visual goods.

I've also noticed the delta winged aircraft are very difficult to generate such effect (rare to non existent in photographs) while in DCS it is easy to do on the M-2000C. So an upgrade/tweak on that front should be also looked at, especially with the Eurofighter coming up.

Edited 17 hours ago by Czar

[broderbund67]

They don’t look the same in real life because the flow structures themselves aren’t the same. What you see (length, thickness, “ropey” texture, breakup) is set by how each airframe generates and distributes lift and where the shear layers roll up into vortices.

Why appearance differs by aircraft

• Lift distribution → tip roll-up strength. Vortex strength scales with local circulation Γ (Kutta–Joukowski). Airframes with more outboard loading (planform, washout, control-law scheduling) produce stronger, tighter tip vortices that persist longer and condense at lower ambient humidity.

• Planform & aspect ratio. Lower-AR, thicker, highly loaded wings (e.g., F-35) tend to form denser, longer-lived tip filaments; higher-AR wings with more even spanwise loading (e.g., F-15) generally yield broader, faster-breaking vortices under the same AoA/Nz.

• Leading-edge devices/LEX & chines. Jets with strong LEX/chines (F/A-18, F-35) generate leading-edge vortices (LEV) that interact with or overshadow tip vortices, changing the visible pattern (sheets, “fog banks,” twin ropes) versus a pure tip-only signature (typical F-15 in many regimes).

• Tip geometry & twist. Tip shape (raked/squared), dihedral, and washout alter the core radius and breakdown distance; that’s why some aircraft show thin, coherent “wires” far aft, while others show short, puffy trails that break down early.

• Compressibility & regime. At transonic/high-q, shocks and accelerated cores drop static pressure further, so condensation onset and thickness vary with Mach and control-surface schedule—again, airframe dependent.

• Persistence/visual thickness. Core pressure deficit and axial velocity set condensation envelope and entrainment rate. Strong, tight cores look like thick cylinders in humid air and remain visible well aft; weaker cores look skinny and dissipate sooner.

Concrete contrasts (same weather, comparable AoA/Nz)

• F-35: Lower AR, high wing loading, chines/LEV interaction → longer, denser, more persistent wingtip filaments; visible even in relatively dry conditions.

• F-15: Higher AR, more even spanwise loading, significant washout → tip vortices appear but break down sooner; less frequent long “cables” unless humidity/AoA are high.

• F/A-18: Often dominated by LEX/leading-edge vortices and canopy/forebody mist; wingtip trails are not the primary visual.

So the statement “there is zero visual difference” conflates a global humidity/AoA trigger with airframe-specific vortex morphology (core size, breakdown length, dominance of LEV vs tip, etc.). The physics guarantee different looks across types, and that’s exactly what photos and demo flights show.

Implication for DCS
A global effect tied only to AoA/Nz will miss these differences. Expose per-module parameters (e.g., reference W/S, AR, washout, outboard-loading coefficient, tip-geometry factor, LEX/LEV weighting, breakdown-length scale) and drive:

• Onset threshold (humidity × core Δp),

• Core radius / visual thickness,

• Persistence / breakdown distance,

• LEV vs tip contribution by regime.

That would capture why F-35 trails look longer/denser, F-15 trails shorter/softer, and F/A-18 shows strong LEV structures even when tip trails are modest.

[Vakarian]

Yeah, use more ChatGPT to prove your point...