3 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

A bounce is really no more or less likely with a tailwind; groundspeed doesn't have much to do with it.

Thanks for the explanation. 

I encountered some very strong turbulence arriving into EDNY Friedrichshafen in SWS' Kodiak. I've got around 100 hrs in light aircraft IRL, but never experienced anything like this. Beta version 8888, realism mode, turbulence effect scale at 60 and turbulence set to low in MSFS. 

I used historical weather at 071231z. METAR according to https://metar-taf.com/history/EDNY: 071220Z 25007KT 9999 FEW013 BKN030 OVC041 13/11 Q1015

I.e. not very strong surface winds. So, not really sure how to interpret this. To me it seemed excessive and probably unrealistic. I would not expect strong mechanical turbulence at this location (I think), neither much thermal turbulence. 

 

Edited May 7, 20242 yr by Cpt_Piett

I would try the same scenario in different airplanes, heavier MSFS default airplanes. it seems as if this Kodiak doesn't have enough inertia. that METAR doesn't show any turbulence whatsoever.
 

Edited May 8, 20242 yr by turbomax

8 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

To me it seemed excessive and probably unrealistic

Would you just make adjustment with the slider? 🙂

The Kodiak is not a heavy aircraft, for sure. But I’ve flown much lighter aircraft IRL in much stronger winds. So it seemed excessive when considering the wind strength of 7kts. I’ve said before that turbulence seems better with 8888, but I’m starting to reconsider that. 

21 minutes ago, reecemj said:

Would you just make adjustment with the slider? 🙂

Sorry, I don’t understand. The turbulence slider in ASFS?

58 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

The Kodiak is not a heavy aircraft, for sure. But I’ve flown much lighter aircraft IRL in much stronger winds. So it seemed excessive when considering the wind strength of 7kts. I’ve said before that turbulence seems better with 8888, but I’m starting to reconsider that. 

Sorry, I don’t understand. The turbulence slider in ASFS?

There is a turbulence slider in the settings

8 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

There is a turbulence slider in the settings

Ok. So, default on that slider is 50. I’m using realism mode where default is 60. I know I can reduce it. My point is: is it excessive at default?

Or could it be something weird with the Kodiak flight model? I don’t normally fly it. Tempted or test with a different aircraft. Although I’ve noticed a considerable turbulence increase when in the Fenix as well.

Edited May 8, 20242 yr by Cpt_Piett

16 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Perhaps it was the higher ground speed that made it tricker. 

definitely more challenging. what the experts, non simulators, have to say:

"since you have higher ground speed and sink rate, you need even more pitch during flare... These effects combined leave not much room for mishandling which can happen on a bad day."

https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/567591-tailwind-landing.html

 

"The amount of energy the aircraft has (and thus its landing distance) is roughly proportional to the square of the groundspeed."

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2485/why-is-tailwind-during-final-approach-and-landing-so-dangerous

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/66282/how-beneficial-are-flaps-when-landing-with-a-tailwind

 

30 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Ok. So, default on that slider is 50. I’m using realism mode where default is 60. I know I can reduce it. My point is: is it excessive at default?

Or could it be something weird with the Kodiak flight model? I don’t normally fly it. Tempted or test with a different aircraft. Although I’ve noticed a considerable turbulence increase when in the Fenix as well.

The B8888 release notes indicated an exponential increase in turbulence above 50. So 60 might be a bit high. I'm still trying to dial mine in and although I generally like 75, I think it might be too much. I'm going to dial it back to 50 and see. Also, the Kodiak FM could definitely be an issue as it hasn't been touched for a long time. It's long overdue for an update.

2 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I encountered some very strong turbulence arriving into EDNY Friedrichshafen

try here  in Michigan for some really challenging weather:

The National Weather Service issued the first tornado emergency on record for Michigan on Tuesday, as severe weather impacted the region.

Multiple particularly dangerous situation tornado warnings were in effect for southeast Michigan Tuesday evening. A tornado emergency was issued for Union City -- marking the first tornado emergency for the state on record, going back to 1999.

The National Weather Service warned there was a "confirmed large and destructive tornado" over Union City at 6:11 p.m. ET Tuesday.

The mayor of Portage, Michigan, near Kalamazoo, said her city suffered "extensive damage to both residential and commercial properties" after two tornadoes went through the area. Power was down on Tuesday night in the area, with downed trees and wires hindering repairs, she said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/1st-tornado-emergency-on-record-for-michigan-issued/ar-BB1lXjR8?ocid=AMZN

Edited May 8, 20242 yr by turbomax

There are a few reports of issues with the SWS Kodiak - not related to turbulence specifically but data communication so I'd try other a/c. The default Cessna208B is similar to the Kodiak.

I have had to turn down my turbulence settings over time since B8888.
Been getting knocked around pretty heavily in the Fenix at FL380 quite a bit.

 

Thanks to historical weather, I’ll just try different aircraft. If it still seems excessive, I’ll go down to 50 on the slider.

7 hours ago, turbomax said:

since you have higher ground speed and sink rate, you need even more pitch during flare... These effects combined leave not much room for mishandling which can happen on a bad day."

This is definitely not right.  Sight picture does not change in a meaningful way with headwind vs tailwind.  You're still flying the wing in the same energy state (at least you should be) meaning that the same pitch change will yield the same result (level off, etc).  Now, yes, descent rate will be marginally higher to maintain the same glidepath, but not really enough to matter.  That's more of a factor farther out on approach when you might have a more significant tailwind, but no one is trying to land with 30+ knots on the tail at the surface.  For the minor tailwinds you'll actually land with, descent rates aren't meaningfully different, and you definitely do not want to try to change landing sight picture. 

Think about it like this:  your last landing was with a 10kt headwind. This one is with calm wind.  Will you change your sight picture or flare behavior?  Obviously, no. 

So if your last landing was with calm wind, and this one is with a 10kt tailwind... Should you change your sight picture?  You have a 10kt difference in groundspeed, just like you did in the first example.

10 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Thanks for the explanation. 

I encountered some very strong turbulence arriving into EDNY Friedrichshafen in SWS' Kodiak. I've got around 100 hrs in light aircraft IRL, but never experienced anything like this. Beta version 8888, realism mode, turbulence effect scale at 60 and turbulence set to low in MSFS. 

I used historical weather at 071231z. METAR according to https://metar-taf.com/history/EDNY: 071220Z 25007KT 9999 FEW013 BKN030 OVC041 13/11 Q1015

I.e. not very strong surface winds. So, not really sure how to interpret this. To me it seemed excessive and probably unrealistic. I would not expect strong mechanical turbulence at this location (I think), neither much thermal turbulence. 

 

Nope, wouldn't expect much mechanical turb with 7kts, nor much in the way of thermals with overcast skies.  I've always felt like the sim overdoes turb; I remember thinking that about x plane as well.  It strikes me as devs going overboard in order to convince people: "look how realistic our physics are!  The plane is not on rails, but in continuously moving air!"

The problem with that is, in nice conditions, smooth air is pretty common.  

I don't know if AS uses turb in a different way, but even the default sim behavior seems often overdone to me.

Edited May 8, 20242 yr by Stearmandriver

8 hours ago, turbomax said:

 

"The amount of energy the aircraft has (and thus its landing distance) is roughly proportional to the square of the groundspeed."

 

Basic physics indeed.

E=1/2 ×m×v^2

Same for braking distance in cars. Double the speed, four times as much  braking distance.

Double the mass and braking distance would be twice as much also. However, heavier, faster expensive cars have much better braking systems than cheap cars. A porsche 911 brakes a hell of a lot better than my Toyota yaris that's for sure 😉

 

Anyways,  back to active sky...

Cheers!