[OPINION] Wake turbulance is too much

Me and a buddy were fighting the other day and the amount of times we both were almost killed by wake turbulence knocking out of the sky outnumbered the actually amount of kills by many many many times. In the end we just had to turn it off because of the amount of times it essentially ended the fight either by killing the other person or by rolling them almost completely upside down. This behavior seems a bit absurd the amount it rocks your plane. I'd expect it if it was something like an airliners wake I flew into not another F18's especially when were only at 330kts. And when compared to HB's own in house wake turbulence its night and day, yes the F14's a bigger jet but we've never had this happen to use in the F14. Has this been noted as I did a quick search and found mention of this in an F16 thread but it seems it extends beyond that jet (even though it is worse in the F16)

It's best to turn it off. I've seen a Mirage get sucked up and flipped on the ground by wakes from a relatively slow plane from above. It's completely unrealistic and I don't know what whacky formula ED used to calculate the strenght of them.

It also impacts FPS

I don't agree. There was an occasion I read about years ago where two German F-104Gs were on takeoff, and the wake vortex from the first one flipped the second one over. That's a slow flying plane, it's on takeoff. These forces are incredibly powerful and violent.

I just thought of this mental exercise on the intensity of wake turbulence...

I'd expect it if it was something like an airliners wake I flew into not another F18's especially when were only at 330kts.

45,000 x 5 = 225,000

So those wings have to make 225,000lbs to accomplish a 5G turn? Gonna do a quick google what airliner weighs around 102 tons....

...This 757-200 has a MGTOW of 115 tons.. you're probably pretty close to this amount of lift in BFM.

How close were you guys to each other when you hit the wake?

I agree, it depends on the amount of air you are actually displacing.

I just thought of this mental exercise on the intensity of wake turbulence...

 

 

What's a good CAP weight for a Hornet? 45,000lbs? You're probably pulling.. what... sustained 5G's in BFM practice?

 

 

45,000 x 5 = 225,000

 

 

So those wings have to make 225,000lbs to accomplish a 5G turn? Gonna do a quick google what airliner weighs around 102 tons....

 

 

...This 757-200 has a MGTOW of 115 tons.. you're probably pretty close to this amount of lift in BFM.

 

How close were you guys to each other when you hit the wake?

I believe the wake turbulance is either incomplete or quite bugged to be honest, cases of aircraft on the ground flipping over etc, as for the Hornet and Viper I do know that they are extremely sensitive to there own "old" leftover turbulence, as is very easy to notice when your'e doing pretend airshows and are flying trough the same spot over and over again.

Actually about a month back I lost a wing in the F-18 fighting a friend who was in the Viper, about 20-30 meters behind pulling 6-7g, just as I passed his tail it pitched so violently that I blacked out instantly combined with the lost wing.

I believe the wake turbulance is either incomplete or quite bugged to be honest, cases of aircraft on the ground flipping over etc, as for the Hornet and Viper I do know that they are extremely sensitive to there own "old" leftover turbulence, as is very easy to notice when your'e doing pretend airshows and are flying trough the same spot over and over again.

Actually about a month back I lost a wing in the F-18 fighting a friend who was in the Viper, about 20-30 meters behind pulling 6-7g, just as I passed his tail it pitched so violently that I blacked out instantly combined with the lost wing.

From the wiki article:

20 September 1999 – A JAS 39A Gripen from Airwing F 7 Såtenäs crashed into Lake Vänern in Sweden during an air combat maneuvering exercise. After passing through the wake vortex of the other aircraft, the Gripen abruptly changed course, and pilot Capt. Rickard Mattsson, got a highest-severity warning from the ground-collision warning system. He ejected from the aircraft, and landed safely by parachute in the lake.

7 January 2017 – a private Bombardier Challenger 604 rolled three times in midair and dropped 10,000 ft (3,000 m) after encountering wake turbulence when it passed 1,000 ft (300 m) under an Airbus A380 over the Arabian Sea. Several passengers were injured, one seriously. Due to the G-forces experienced, the plane was damaged beyond repair and was consequently written off.[33]

In the latter example, the A380 is flying straight and level. There is a huge weight difference between that and a Challenger so the result makes sense. The 6-7G that you say you were pulling will increase the wake turbulence accordingly, as well as it's impact on other aircraft.

Also, why would who made the wake turbulence matter to the aircraft flying through it? I've noticed this too and I don't see why it wouldn't be a problem. If you're doing it with absolutely no wind, then it won't move and will stay on the runway. ED do model the effect of wind on the turbulence, set a breeze so it moves off the airshow area before it completely dissipates.

I always thought wake turbulences are stronger the slower you are, because of the higher AoA?

I believe the wake turbulance is either incomplete or quite bugged to be honest, cases of aircraft on the ground flipping over etc, as for the Hornet and Viper I do know that they are extremely sensitive to there own "old" leftover turbulence, as is very easy to notice when your'e doing pretend airshows and are flying trough the same spot over and over again.

Actually about a month back I lost a wing in the F-18 fighting a friend who was in the Viper, about 20-30 meters behind pulling 6-7g, just as I passed his tail it pitched so violently that I blacked out instantly combined with the lost wing.

I once flew into my own turbulence in a Pipper going 100kts and 30 degree bank and that turbulence still put me in some 45-50 degree bank and blocked my controls for a second.

Now imagine what the turbulence does to a heavier, faster and more G-pulling aircraft

LOL! I live ca 30km from Såtenäs.

Don't really get the point of your post though...

Now imagine what the turbulence does to a heavier, faster and more G-pulling aircraft

It doesn't really work like that.

I never said you couldn't fly trough your own turbulence, but I have never seen a Gripen, Hornet or Viper losing control during a Solo display just because of flying trough it's own wake. Numerous of times in DCS have i been flipped almost upside down due to this, if that's accurate I'm pretty sure airshows wouldn't be allowed. Witch brings it to my conclusion that something is flawed in the simulation of wake turbulence, and that's all i meant with that post.

It doesn't really work like that.

Then you say that a Jet has the same turbulence like a Piper and that it doesn't depend on speed, weight and load factor and more?

Or care to explain?

I always thought wake turbulences are stronger the slower you are, because of the higher AoA?

This is something we'll understood and that can be demonstrated by analytical analysis of Navier-Stokes équations

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

Then you say that a Jet has the same turbulence like a Piper and that it doesn't depend on speed, weight and load factor and more?

 

Or care to explain?

I do not say that.

It's not that simple though:

1. There are many components of air disturbance behind a flying object (even if it's not an airfoil) interacting with each other. We just tend to focus on wingtip vortices because they create the strongest roll moment on a trailing object.

2. Design of wing and flight regime play the most important role in magnitude of wingtip vortices.

3. Wing designed for military jets is significantly different compared to wing designed for a GA aircraft or an airliner. You cannot directly compare them without proper analysis.

For example, an airliner with massive wing vortices in landing config can have significantly weaker vortices during cruise, and even stronger vortices at slow speed in clean config. It is clearly designed with efficient cruise regime in mind. Military jets have different requirements.

I never said you couldn't fly trough your own turbulence, but I have never seen a Gripen, Hornet or Viper losing control during a Solo display just because of flying trough it's own wake. Numerous of times in DCS have i been flipped almost upside down due to this, if that's accurate I'm pretty sure airshows wouldn't be allowed. Witch brings it to my conclusion that something is flawed in the simulation of wake turbulence, and that's all i meant with that post.

Probably because they are aware of it and manage it. Also, like I already said if you have no wind it won't move.

Why do airliners have to wait 2-3 minutes to takeoff if the aircraft preceeding them was a heavier design? It's because the wake vortex can persist at dangerous intensities for some time.

Edit: A bit of research on the interwebs shows many pilots talking about hitting their own wake. The thing is, that the wake generally descends. If you hit your own wake, that means you descended during your own turn, or are just lower than when you last passed over the area.

If you watch the ED visualistation video here:

You will see that it does in fact descend. This video is actually very good at showing you what is going on. IMO it is very impressive work.

Good alititude management would likely resolve the issue with hitting your own wake. Goes for me too as I have hit my own doing the same thing.

There is obviously an issue with the wake dispersing on the deck. As evident by the way that interval takeoffs in DCS are interrupted by dangerous wake turbulence but they are fairly routine in real life.

Another note, if the kc135 mprs basket was directly in the middle of its wake as dcs would suggest, then wouldn't the basket itself be affected by the wake irl and therefore be spinning and wobbling all over the place.

Again, I disagree.

The wake being persistent is real. Real world operations accounts for wake turbulence. There may be an issue in DCS if it is generated prior to rotation, but after that no, it starts.

I have found what I think is the F-104 incident I spoke of earlier, where the pilot of the second aircraft in a crosswind did not allow enough separation, and the wake moved into him due to the crosswind, whereas normally he probably would have been fine. I beleive the rolling that the pilot couldn't stop is the wake vortex, it certainly fits, but the description here is limited.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/55716

DCS does model this, and again, the wake descends. If you allow a realistic separation time it will probably not be an issue.

Another thing that happens that DCS currently doesn't model is the need for takeoff separation due to the exhaust of other aircraft.

You can see that happen here at 1:02.

There is obviously an issue with the wake dispersing on the deck. As evident by the way that interval takeoffs in DCS are interrupted by dangerous wake turbulence but they are fairly routine in real life.

 

Another note, if the kc135 mprs basket was directly in the middle of its wake as dcs would suggest, then wouldn't the basket itself be affected by the wake irl and therefore be spinning and wobbling all over the place.

You can see that happen here at 1:02.

What I see there is an aircraft doing an interval takeoff that isn't flipped over by waketurb. Sure there is an effect on the aircraft as its stationary but that looks more like jetwash. In DCS the group I fly with have done interval take offs like this before, and regardless of whether we do the 10second mil, 15second AB, or 20second instrument interval we are always without fail almost flipped into the ground on takeoff. If the effect was as strong in real life as it is in DCS then interval takeoffs wouldn't be allowed for the extreme risk they pose to aircrew.

If I may direct you to the timestamp (

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.

Well then you didn't read my post, because what happened to you is exactly what happened to the F-104 from that post (except he DID crash), and I was explicitly talking about the jetwash as a challenge on takeoff that ISN'T modelled in DCS.

What I see there is an aircraft doing an interval takeoff that isn't flipped over by waketurb. Sure there is an effect on the aircraft as its stationary but that looks more like jetwash. In DCS the group I fly with have done interval take offs like this before, and regardless of whether we do the 10second mil, 15second AB, or 20second instrument interval we are always without fail almost flipped into the ground on takeoff. If the effect was as strong in real life as it is in DCS then interval takeoffs wouldn't be allowed for the extreme risk they pose to aircrew.

 

If I may direct you to the timestamp (

) where we conduct a 3-ship interval takeoff. As No2 you can clearly see the extreme effect the wake turbulence has on my aircraft after the USAF specified 15 second interval.

Started rolling to the left on formation take-off in crosswind conditions

That certainly doesn't sound like the minimal crosswind interval takeoff that I posted.

No, he was in a formation takeoff. But why would it dissipate in 15 seconds? A wake vortex is at its worst when the plane is slow. It wouldn't fully dissipate, but it wouldn't be as dangerous after 15 seconds. The F-104 was TOO close as it says. The point is that the vortex was still powerful enough to overpower his control authority at those speeds.

Also, it wasn't THAT violent in your video and equal weight aircraft under a heavy classification don't have a wake vortex spacing requirement. But, does it really make sense that you'd have no effect at all? Of course you would, it's still there. Medium to light classification is 5 miles.

It seems like you expect nothing? Why do you think your uncommanded roll is unexpected? That seems unreasonable to me.

That certainly doesn't sound like the minimal crosswind interval takeoff that I posted.