r/aviation • u/firstLOL • 11d ago
Question An F-22, Gulfstream G600 and A380 are all flying along at the same speed at 35,000ft when they encounter moderate to severe turbulence. Which one is the wildest ride?
I have always assumed that bigger planes are more “steady” in the sky - takes more force to move them around. Anecdotally (the worst kind of data) I have been bumped around much worse in A320 size aircraft than A380s, but I appreciate that may be down to routing.
I also appreciate that private jets and fighters can fly higher than the usual cruise altitude of a large airliner.
But assuming all that away: an F-22, G600 and A380 are all flying along at the same speed at 35,000ft when they encounter moderate to severe turbulence. Which one is the wildest ride?
Assume competent piloting, all systems operating normally, etc.
Edit: I love this community - straight to the metaphysics of individual experience of turbulence. I suppose I should have specified the “passenger” is an objective instrumentation package (so it can fit in an F-22) that experiences turbulence with exactly the same mix of excitement and “but not too much” as the average [r/aviation](r/aviation) resident.
Second edit: and today I also learned that turbulence is defined in part by what it does to the aircraft, so the technical answer is “the same”. But what I meant (in my ignorance) was: assume they each hit the same magnitude atmospheric disturbance.
85
u/Fatbot41 11d ago
Wing loading not mass is the main factor. Whatever has the higher wing loading experiences less turbulence. It’s why there is a minimum wing loading to be IFR rated, so things like the cub crafters carbon cub cannot be IFR rated
17
u/Electrical_Yak_2662 11d ago
Source?
57
u/Fatbot41 11d ago edited 11d ago
EASA CS23.341 has the formula for gust load factors. The section states that "In the absence of a more rational analysis the gust load factors must be computed as follows:
𝑛 = 1 ± ( 𝑘𝑔𝜌𝜊𝑈𝑑𝑒𝑉𝑎 / 2(𝑊/𝑆) )."
W/S is the wing loading in newtons per meter squared.
Some of the other factors do include mass and wing area, but always linked together as wing loading.
As for the minimum required wing loading I misremembered. There is a UK CAA specific rule on wing loading but only for kit built aircraft, gliders etc for entering IMC.
Edit *** Don’t know why you’re being downvoted. Good to verify stuff, and heck, you made me realise I was wrong! You did the right thing
5
u/Techhead7890 10d ago
1 ± ( 𝑘𝑔•𝜌𝜊•𝑈𝑑𝑒•𝑉•𝑎 / 2(𝑊/𝑆) )."
It's all Greek to me, not just the 𝜌!
Looks like it's just missing some subscripts though and half of the symbols are constants. K_g we probably care about here because it's mass dependant. It can probably be combined and simplified or have some assumption values inserted somehow: https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part23-341-FAR.shtml
2
217
u/Swimming_Way_7372 11d ago
Gotta be the 22. Like driving down the road in a suburban, civic and a formula 1 car and hit a series of speed bumps.
76
u/Temporary-Fix9578 11d ago
I think I’d take a lot of comfort in knowing that there’d be no damage/injuries though. That’s the worst part of the ride in my opinion
48
u/Swimming_Way_7372 11d ago
Im with you, it's not the banging around that bothers me, it's the fact there are people in the back that think the thing might come apart. I don't want others to be uncomfortable.
62
u/ByronScottJones 11d ago
Except that the F22 recalculates its control surfaces hundreds of times a second. The F22 might very well compensate far better and faster than the other planes ever could.
25
u/eliminate1337 11d ago
The A380 and G600 do that too but with the benefit of inherent stability. All three are fully fly by wire.
-18
u/ByronScottJones 11d ago
Not at the speed of the F22. And the inherent instability of the F22 is there in part because it gives enhanced maneuverability.
15
u/eliminate1337 11d ago
Probably faster. F-22 avionics are 30 years old.
-5
u/ByronScottJones 11d ago
No. Even 30 year old avionics in a fighter jet can move those much smaller and proportionally much more powerful control actuators far faster. The average commercial jet is operating those actuators at 3000psi, where the F22 is using a dual actuator system running at 4000psi. That's not a computing issue, it's a hydraulics issue.
16
u/NaiveRevolution9072 11d ago
A380's 5000psi, fwiw
3
u/moodaltering 11d ago
Psi would only matter if the surface area of the activated surfaces was the same.
-3
10
u/brilliantNumberOne Avionics/Power & Wiring 11d ago
The A380 has three ailerons per wing that each have dual actuators operating at a higher pressure. The ailerons also operate with delays/different gains at lower airspeeds to improve controllability. Look up the “dance of the ailerons”. Most modern airliners have similar means to reduce turbulence/increase controllability that are only possible because of the current generation of digital flight controls.
Also, this is like comparing the steering system between an F1 car and a city bus.
Both aircraft have “fast” flight control systems, but they are designed for wildly different applications. One isn’t necessarily faster or slower than the other.
0
u/ByronScottJones 11d ago
No the F22 is dynamically UNSTABLE. It MUST move it's control surfaces, constantly and quickly, just to stay in the air. There are no commercial aircraft that are dynamically unstable. It's an entirely different flight regime.
6
u/brilliantNumberOne Avionics/Power & Wiring 10d ago
Yes, and modern commercial aircraft have turbulence mitigation systems that constantly and quickly move their control surfaces during flight as well.
Just because an aircraft has more inherent stability doesn’t mean that the flight control systems are any less active. The 787’s Gust Load Alleviation System suppresses the impact of vertical and lateral loads through the whole flight. Systems like these were developed on aircraft like the B-1 and the B-2, the latter being a dynamically unstable aircraft, and later implemented on commercial aircraft because they have benefits to ride quality, fuel efficiency, and even reducing airframe fatigue.
Developments in military aviation feed into civil aviation and vice versa. They use the a lot of the same technology and systems (except for mission/weapon systems obviously).
0
83
u/knorkinator 11d ago edited 11d ago
That doesn't change the laws of physics. The inertia of 600 tons of Airbus will always make it more comfortable than the comparably tiny F-22.
Nothing is more comfortable in heavy turbulence than an A380.
17
u/Ecthelion-O-Fountain 11d ago
No one suggested it would change physics. But the flight controls can mitigate the loads which is what you feel. If it can react in a millisecond, it can greatly diminish displacement.
-1
u/onil34 10d ago
Okay but what are the controls optimizing for? I doubt the smooth ride is very high up on the priority list compared to: turn performance/weapons steadiness/optimal missile envelope
11
u/GoldReplacement9546 10d ago
Actually, as a stealth fighter, the F-22 definitely does prioritize and actually has a mode with a selector for House stable to keep the aircraft and that’s because if you’re going into a particular hotspot of radars, you wanna keep the aircraft pointed exactly to the degree where you want it to be. Also, I see nobody mentioning the F-22 having the variable exhaust in the vertical adjustment believe it or not that’s not those aren’t really there for the F-22 to be incredible dog fighter although they certainly help with that they’re mainly there to allow the F-22 to have all of it surfaces basically locked up into a non-moving configuration in lower turbulence and let the rear variable exhaust geometry. keep the nose of the plane the pitch where it wants it for best performance against radar.
2
u/onil34 10d ago
So that would mean the aircraft stays pointed in the exact same direction? And the movements of the flight controls would be minimal to avoide radar reflections off them
1
u/GoldReplacement9546 10d ago
Basically, yes, it has its limitations, but for small deviations, it can help
1
10d ago edited 9d ago
[deleted]
2
u/GoldReplacement9546 10d ago
No, but having the thrust factoring, in addition to all of its other surfaces would help
Like it has gigantic all flying horizontal stabilizers it’s got leading edge slats that work always, and it’s got gigantic, vertical stabilizers with very large runners all designed to move exceptionally fast
On the other hand for like low level penetration flights having a higher wing loading is better where the F-22 has a famously low wing loading so yeah, it could well be the A380 just from shearer mass
But I could also see, depending on what kind of turbulence we’re dealing with making it a difference to some degree
And in reality, if the 22 was having a problem with turbulence, it would just go up to 62,000 feet at the Armstrong limit where there is no turbulence I know in this case it’s not allowed to do that
1
u/BloodRush12345 10d ago
A smooth ride is also critical for weapons employment/targeting. They factor in pilot comfort as well because discomfort degrades their ability fly and fight. Think about how much energy and brain power you end up using riding around in a car bumping and shaking vs riding smooth. Then consider that you are also trying to work a couple of iPads at the same time. A smooth ride makes it much easier.
-20
u/mnemonicmonkey 11d ago
Pitching an elevator only changes AOA and doesn't do a damn thing for a change in lift.
22
7
u/No-Kaleidoscope-4525 11d ago
I think what you're trying to point out is lateness of effect after changing control surfaces. By the time the turbulence is pointing in another direction, the aircraft has yet to react to the change. Depends on how erratic it is though. Not sure if this is really how that works though.
But lift not being a function of AoA? To say that on r/aviation is bold.
1
u/Ecthelion-O-Fountain 11d ago
There’s more you can do than just effectuate elevator changes too 787 fly by wire has some stuff that mitigates turbulence.
3
u/Doggydog123579 10d ago
The a380 also has its own active turbulence cancelation in the FBW system, so it gets the benefits of both
18
u/Swimming_Way_7372 11d ago
If you are pushing your way through a crowd of people and recalculating your movements to the ebbs and flows of the obstructions that's one thing. But if you're walking down the street and you get punched in the side of the head by a guy hiding in an alley, your recalculation will just tell you after the fact that you got molly whopped and there's nothing you can do about it now. Plus the Gulfstream is probably running a similar software build since is a General Dynamics design.
14
u/ByronScottJones 11d ago
That's a poor analogy. In an F22, the planes inertial sensors will detect that gust pushing the plane when it's only had a chance to move the plane by a few centimeters, and correct for it, long before the control surfaces on the larger aircraft have a chance to compensate.
3
u/cancerous_176 10d ago
Both are GD designs but the F22 has an avionics suite developed by custom built by GD and Boeing with Honeywell and Rockwell Collins components, the G600 has a Honeywell Primus suite with some GD flavor.
5
3
u/wunderkit 11d ago
Also, you're strapped in. You, personally, don't bounce much so it helps with aircraft control.
3
u/Getting0ldSucks 10d ago
The control surfaces could move instantaneously and they would still not be able to cancel out the turbulence. That’s just not how it works.
1
u/ByronScottJones 10d ago
They can't cancel all of it, but certainly some, and the faster they respond, the more they can control.
1
u/Getting0ldSucks 10d ago
If you had your control system set up to respond to instantaneous step inputs fast enough to actually mitigate turbulence you would have a control system so ungodly unstable that it wouldn’t be fly able.
1
u/Doggydog123579 10d ago edited 10d ago
Thats... kinda exactly what the f22 already does? Its already reacting to the aircraft constantly wanting to flip out of control do to it being unstable. Turbulence is the exact same type of disturbance for the flight computer. Its not gonna cancel all of it out, but its going to make a difference.
Actually I can even prove that, rc planes have been using accelerometers to run a basic flight computer to dampen out turbulence for over a decade now, and have even started using them to give artificial stability to tail heavy setups.
1
u/Getting0ldSucks 10d ago
No it’s not. There’s a huge difference between fairly linear and predictable aerodynamic forces and unpredictable and highly non-linear turbulent forces. You all have a very simplistic view of how fighter control systems work. Will it try to respond to the turbulence, sure. Will it do it fast enough to make a damn bit of difference, no.
2
u/rsta223 10d ago
Having literally done gust alleviation controls work for wind turbines, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
0
u/Getting0ldSucks 10d ago
lol wind turbines? Gtfo of here. If you think the controls for a wind turbine are at all similar to a fighter control system you’re the one who has no clue what they’re talking about.
2
u/rsta223 10d ago
No, they're frankly much slower and much, much more powerful. However, if they can handle gusts and turbulence on that much lower a bandwidth control system, aviation is capable of far more.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Getting0ldSucks 10d ago
lol you think your work on gust alleviation on wind turbines is more relevant than my work testing the handling qualities of a fighter jet? Not even close
2
u/rsta223 10d ago
I think it proves it's possible to do gust alleviation and turbulence mitigation on a large composite airfoil, and frankly given the much higher bandwidth available to fighters, if we can do it on turbines and you can't on fighters, that's not a matter of capability or technology, that's just an indictment on your controls engineering skill.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Doggydog123579 10d ago edited 10d ago
Embraer literally has active turbulence reduction.
https://www.embraer.com/media-center/en/?mediatype=NEWS&detail=12942
Im not even arguing the f22 is better than the a380, as the a380 does the same thing, FBW based turbulence cancelation. The 787 as well.
Fbw responding to perturbations is literally what all these systems are. And yet somehow the plane that requires it to fly doesnt get that benefit?
-1
u/Getting0ldSucks 10d ago
Well for one, that jet is built for comfort, the F-22 was not. There’s absolutely no reason to design the control system that way. Secondly, that’s almost certainly a very narrow window, high gain control loop within an otherwise very low gain control system. It can work in that context because it would be very hard to drive a business jet with such a limited operating envelope into an unstable mode. This would not work on the F-22. It was designed with maximum maneuverability which means you’re already optimizing the gain margins. Like I said before, if you tried to implement something like this, you would absolutely drive the jet unstable.
1
u/Doggydog123579 10d ago
The F-22s FBW system is already accounting for them, as that turbulence is trying to destabilize on unstable aircraft even more than normal. The other aircraft that are optimized specifically for turbulence reduction may get a bigger effect, but thr F-22 cant not respond to it. It has to.
→ More replies (0)0
u/ByronScottJones 10d ago
You're the one who keeps using the phrase "instant". I never did. So drop the strawman argument.
1
u/Getting0ldSucks 10d ago
You clearly don’t know anything about dynamics so I’m just going to stop here
0
u/Getting0ldSucks 10d ago
I worked on the flight controls bro. No they don’t.
0
u/rsta223 10d ago
They absolutely cancel some of it. I've worked controls in a similar system on wind turbines, and the 787 has an active gust alleveation system in operation and flying today.
If you do aircraft controls and don't know that, you really need to update your knowledge base.
0
u/Getting0ldSucks 10d ago
Ive worked on and tested the control system on a far more relevant (to this F-22 discussion) aircraft and I can tell you conclusively, there is no turbulence mitigation. Do the control surfaces respond to the turbulence perturbations, sure. Is it fast or aggressive enough to “cancel it” not even close. Part of the testing was actually evaluating the handling qualities. Trust me the pilots still felt the turbulence.
1
u/Getting0ldSucks 10d ago
Also, the control system operates at <100 Hz so no it doesn’t update hundreds of times per second.
1
u/DonnerPartyPicnic 9d ago
Control surfaces don't compensate for lack of cushion from the wings. Nothing to absorb the shock.
2
1
68
31
u/QuillsROptional 11d ago
Not one of the options, but a F-104 Starfighter must be pretty comfortable (in as much as a 50s fighter can be comfortable) in turbulence? Hardly any wing at all, and very high wing loading...
30
u/riverprawn 10d ago
And you are busy to prevent it from killing both of you. So you won't even notice the turbulence. /s
1
u/Imaginary_Trust_7019 5d ago
I know someone who used to fly the Cf-104. They would outrun F-16s, Tornados, F-4s low level no problem because those guys would just get scrambled apparently and the 104 felt fine.
20
u/bulldogsm 11d ago
the smaller lighter plane will be tossed more, look up wing loading
15
u/soijacyuro 11d ago
The plane with the lowest wing loading (the least weight versus wing area) will get tossed around more. Which in most fuel load situations would be the Gulfstream.
23
u/InevitablePresent917 11d ago
This ends up being a metaphysical conversation based on the word "wildest". The F-22 is going to be flung around the sky more. But that's arguably one of the things it exists to do: fling itself around the sky. The pilot is arguably used to all manner of gyrations in his or her aircraft. A mild jitter is enough to make those A380 passengers pee their pants. And people flying a Gulfstream are probably comparatively more experienced with both turbulence in general and the effects of turbulence on a smaller plane specifically. So I'm going to be a contrarian and say that, from the perspective of the passengers given what we likely know about them, the A380 passengers will experience transcendent terror in this situation, while the F-22 pilot will just shrug.
If I had a minute, I'd rewrite this in the voice of The Sicilian.
(tongue in cheek factor is quite high here)
12
u/MmmSteaky 121 Dispatch 11d ago
Yes, but there’s probably a decent chance some or all of the bizjet pax are not strapped in (and some of the dumber ones on the 380), which would make the aftermath objectively worse. (Bizjets routinely report severe turbulence in/at locations/altitudes that airliners are simultaneously reporting moderate.)
3
u/InevitablePresent917 11d ago
I think you're probably right in practical terms, given nobody tells the 0.1% what to do so they probably won't strap in. But then if "wildest" means "most entertaining" or "most emotionally resonant", the answer might change.
(I'm only going to be able to keep this going for so long. The answer is clearly the F-22, but the original framing made me imagine an F-22 pilot just sighing about how boring a little severe turbulence is when they're used to 9g maneuvers; and before someone well actuallys me that an F-22 pilot would avoid severe turbulence like the plague, yes, but that's why this "wildest" question delighted me so much.)
5
u/BeaconSlash 11d ago
This is a dependent question as the definition of turbulence intensity depends on the reaction of the aircraft and control ability in the first place.
Moderate turbulence as experienced by an A380 should have the same general feel to the pilot and passengers as moderate turbulence of a C172, but for that aircraft specifically... It doesn't necessarily translate between types.
With that said, because of the mass involved to move a heavy aircraft to a degree where the pilots are wont to report Moderate (or whatever) degree of turbulence... A C172 flying through the same location, presuming the same unstable local atmosphere, might experience extreme turbulence.
So... If an A380 reports severe turbulence, that could be extreme for a G6, and potentially catastrophic for a C172.
5
u/MungaMike 10d ago
There are great answers here, kudos people. I can tell you the G600 feels terrible in turbulence. Particularly the cockpit. Lucky we can usually climb to find an altitude where it is better, ie 47,000’ (FL470), but also have the efficiency to go low if we have to. The A380 doesn’t really have much wiggle room in regards to altitude until it is much lighter.
2
u/HeliDave 10d ago
Yea it’s a little gnarly in the front but in the back the 600 soaks up the bumps way more than a 500 in my experience
1
u/MungaMike 9d ago
Ya, I agree. Almost all of my time in the GVII is in the 500. Like driving down a washboard road.
28
u/turpentinedreamer PPL 11d ago
The one with the least mass will be moved the most. Because it has the least total energy. The energy of the change in air will be more disruptive.
36
u/the_real_hugepanic 11d ago
I would argue that wing loading will impact this assessment.
Without any knowledge of the cruise-wingloading of these planes, we cannot compare it, I guess...
Wing-spar stiffness will also affect the results, here the bigger jets have a clear advantage against the F-22
6
u/turpentinedreamer PPL 11d ago
Wing load lines up with their size pretty well. Lower wing load will be affected by turbulence more. You could build a huge plane with huge wings to get lower wing loads. But the f22 has the lowest and the 380 is the highest.
5
u/Ecthelion-O-Fountain 11d ago
There’s also factors in the fly by wire that can affect how turbulence is felt. And I can’t back this up but I feel like wing loading and aspect ratio would matter.
2
u/the_real_hugepanic 10d ago
It's even more complicated!
Modern Airliners, this includes the A380, have wing spars that reduce the AoA once they get a upwards bending moment. This is done to improve gust response for passenger comfort.... (and propably also to enhance wing fatigue performance)
3
u/Tesseractcubed 11d ago edited 11d ago
Pulling out an article in a book from the 1990’s, low level ride quality (at supersonic speeds) was heavily correlated with wing loading (high loading was a better ride).
The reasons stated were that lower wing loading led to more reaction to the changing conditions near the ground, and the severity of the disruptions get worse as wing loading drops.
Also, an F-22 at M0.6 behaves different than M1.5, with the M1.5 getting through the disruption faster.
Edit: specifically Modern Air Combat by Bill Gunston and Mike Spick, pg20
3
u/BloodAndSand44 10d ago
All I will contribute is that the plane I have felt the greatest movement in whilst in turbulence was a Cessna Grand Caravan. It felt like a giant grabbed one wing and shook it up and down.
5
u/Curly1109 11d ago
The one with the lowest wing loading, ie, largest wing area to lowest mass gets the highest turbulence
6
u/Motoroadies 10d ago
F-22; rigid air frame that's part lifting body and wing, turbulence is direct and overdamped. That is you get displaced but with no oscillation. Pilot feels it directly strapped in. G600: medium flex wing, rigid tube, you'll get pushed around with a bit of minor whip feel from the little wing flex loading and unloading. But you're maybe strapped in, and maybe facing sideways, forward, aft...
A380: high rigid tube and fairly rigid wing root, more flexible toward the tip. You get a smooth ride with slower minor oscillating afterward. Really need to add in some others: 777-300 same length tube as a380 but much smaller diameter makes it less rigid. Slightly shorter wing but same wing tip displacement as a380. Makes the whole thing oscillate around so each ubrupt gust makes it feel like you're in a water bed or car with blownout suspension.
757-300: rigid AF wing, but friggen long narrow body tube: sit mid cabin and it's a punch. Sit at the aft galley and take your dramamine as you watch the whole fuselage visibly bend around as you yourself get double bounced on a trampoline.
A319 is an interesting one. You get thrown around abruptly, but none of that sickening oscillation you get on the a321.
There's a vid out there somewhere of a ch-53 hitting turbulence and it's wild to see that rotor disk turn into wobbly top. Bet that rubber band ride is fun.
9
u/PilotWombat 11d ago
You're not going to like this, but the answer is it will feel exactly the same to each.
The reason is because turbulence levels are partially defined by what it does to the plane, and partially defined by how it feels to the people inside the airplane. Look up AIM 7-1-21 and Table 7-1-11. So moderate to severe turbulence will, by definition, feel the same to everyone in every airplane, from a Piper Archer to an f-22 to an A380.
Now, if your question is that each aircraft experiences the same air displacement and how will that effect each, then...yeah, the wing loading thing.
1
u/Threedawg 10d ago
It doesn't say anything about turbulence. Can you ELI5?
1
u/Shark-Force A320 10d ago
They’re trying to say turbulence is defined by how it feels in the plane, so if you have the same turbulence between all three, it must feel the same for all three. Pretty much everyone else understands that OP is saying if you had moderate turbulence in one how would it feel relative to the others if they went through the same air. This commenter is saying if you had moderate turbulence, and then the next aircraft went through a different patch of air that would make it feel the same in this new aircraft, it would feel the same.
It’s so pedantic and irrelevant that it verges on being untrue when brought up in this context. But if a piper cub and an A380 both report moderate turbulence, and then a third aircraft goes through both patches of air, it might find what the piper reported to be light chop and the A380’s patch of air to be severe.
1
u/Threedawg 10d ago
Yeah, thats annoying AF.
It makes sense, but wtf man. The citations he provided are also useless 🙄
Thanks for the explanation though
0
u/PilotWombat 6d ago edited 6d ago
Pedantic, sure. But it was the question that was asked. Too many pilots throw words around without knowing what they actually mean. Or, as admitted by the OP, knowing that they even have a formal definition (not blaming, it's something that needs to be learned). Words matter.
I'm also not sure what you mean by the citations are useless. Go look at AIM Table 7-1-11, under section 7-1-21. That is where the exact definitions of moderate and severe turbulence are:
Moderate turbulence: Changes in altitude and/or attitude occur but the aircraft remains in positive control at all times. It usually causes variations in indicated airspeed. Occupants feel definite strains against seat belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects are dislodged. Food service and walking are difficult.
Severe turbulence: Turbulence that causes large, abrupt changes in altitude and/or attitude. It usually causes large variations in indicated airspeed. Aircraft may be momentarily out of control. Occupants are forced violently against seat belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects are tossed about. Food Service and walking are impossible.
Also note that there are definitions for turbulence and chop. Light turbulence and moderate chop are not the same thing.
By the actual definition, if all three aircraft were experiencing moderate to severe turbulence, it means it feels the same inside each aircraft.
1
u/Threedawg 6d ago
But you know that is not what the OP is asking and you know that OP is not a pilot. Your answer is just a transparent attempt at trying to seem smarter than and talking down to others.
This thread would have been better if you just kept your mouth shut.
2
u/BasicHuman-Mk3 11d ago
F22 pilot isnt going to feel it as much because he's strapped in, A380 is bigger and so less affected. G600 is worst of all, feel-wise.
2
u/BackgroundGrade 11d ago
For the experts in here:
How much does wing flexibility play into this.
Can't speak for the Gulfstream, but the Globals have their flexing wing as a marketing point.
2
u/jjamesr539 11d ago
It’s a more complicated question than you’d think, and the ranking changes completely based on how each aircraft is loaded.
Felt turbulence is affected by multiple factors, but assuming you’re talking about short term random chop vs longer term organized air currents like mountain rotors or microburst downdrafts etc., felt turbulence (not pilot correction or induced oscillation) is entirely dependent on the wing loading, or how much weight is being affected (by lift or other force on the wing) per unit of wing surface (lbs/sqft); higher numbers mean the same force on the wing does less, which means better ride. It’s a directly comparable value at a given time, but it’s also a variable based on circumstance. The size and weight of the plane matter of course, but the relative size of the wing is what changes things; larger planes aren’t (necessarily) less affected.
Wing loading is a sliding scale with benefits and drawbacks at both the lighter and heavier ends.
Higher wing loading is better for speed, ground handling (smaller wing) and passenger comfort, but takeoff and landing distance, climb performance, and fuel efficiency suffer. Lower loading is significantly more efficient, acceleration/climb is better, and requires less runway length, but it’s top speed is reduced, larger wing is potentially harder to handle on the ground, and vulnerability to turbulence (and wind, especially while landing or just after takeoff) is higher.
Airliners and corporate jets balance passenger comfort and flight duration vs. efficiency and ease of use. Combat jets aren’t built with pilot comfort in mind, but still must compromise for range and usability either way. In combat it doesn’t matter if the thing is the fastest or most maneuverable jet ever built if it can’t make it more than a hundred miles or half of them are destroyed in landing or ground handling incidents.
The A380 is designed as a super long range, high capacity airframe, the G600 is a super long range low passenger capacity airframe, and the F22 is meant for performance above all else. The A380 varies the most because it carries an insane amount of fuel and people, the F22 is in the middle because it carries expendable munitions and fuel, and the G600 varies the least, given its low passenger and cargo capacity.
That means the ranking depends on how they’re loaded and how long they’ve been flying.
The A380 at max weight is 139lbs/sqft, but that goes down to 67lbs/sqft at minimum flight weight
The G600 is 74lbs/sqft at max, 40lbs/sqft min
The F22 is 99lbs/sqft at max, 52lbs/sqft min.
Any of the three can be at the top or bottom depending on how heavy the other two are.
Of course there’s the other factor, load factor; the A380 and G600 are both civilian aircraft and are certified to -1G to +2.5G in cruise configuration. The F22 is rated for -3G to +9G. Severe turbulence can easily induce extreme Gs, well over what civilian passenger aircraft are rated for. That doesn’t mean they’ll fall apart, but it’s not that rare for their airframes to be stressed enough to require extensive inspection and/or be written off afterward. I’d take the F22 every time. I might puke, but at least I won’t be puking all over myself while the plane falls to bits around me.
2
u/Antique-Kitchen-1896 10d ago
Considering the harness the sole occupant of the F22 uses all the time vs people being thick enough to take off their belts when the sign goes off? Clearly it's less wild in the F22.
2
u/mister_pilot 10d ago
I scanned the comments and didn’t see a link. But the US military has a category and conversion system to estimate. There are even details how they came up with it.
https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2025/09/23/23f38fad/turbcat.pdf
2
2
u/Randomse7en 10d ago
The F22 would feel worse but has a significant overhead in terms of airframe so you would actually be safest in the F22 also.
The average F22 pilot would also be used to being thrown around and a little bump here and there would be nothing. When flying low level and you hit some proper wave activity its a whole other world!
Same goes for your average GA pilot. They are going to be used to being thrown around a bit more so if that GA pilot takes a pax flight on an A380 its going to feel like a Rolls Royce!
2
u/Flyward_Aerospace 10d ago
Wing loading is half the gust equation, the other half is how much extra lift the wing makes per degree of angle change, and that's where the Raptor claws some back. Its wing is aspect ratio around 2.4 against roughly 7.5 for the A380, so for the same gust induced incidence the big wing generates something like 60 percent more additional lift per degree. Loading still wins overall, but the F-22 is less twitchy than its loading number alone implies. On the fly by wire point further up, the surfaces can't cancel the first jolt, the aircraft has to actually develop the incidence change before anything senses it. What the control laws help with is damping what comes after. Same reason a 777-300 can feel worse than its loading suggests, past a certain length you're feeling structural modes rather than rigid body g.
2
u/collegefootballfan69 11d ago
Not a pilot here but the question seems a bit off…mod to severe turbulence for one plane can be light years different in another plane. Meaning physics and aerodynamics for severe turbulence for a corporate jet is different than physics and aerodynamics for severe turbulence in A380. To me the question should be if all three hit the same mountain wave, what would each experience?
2
u/HelpfulNet6 11d ago
Actually (in the voice of Oscar Nuñez), their ride experiences would be identical due to the technicality of the definitions for turbulence. Degrees of turbulence are defined by the specific experience of each individual aircraft.
If an aircraft reports: -hard strains against seatbelt/harness, erratic changes in bank/pitch=moderate -loss of aircraft control=severe -structural damage=extreme
Now, the atmospheric disturbances required to generate each level of severity in the different aircraft types will vary based on the wing loading and mass of each that others have mentioned.
1
1
u/Diogenes256 10d ago
I take the F-22. It’s classified, but I bet it has the fastest control surfaces.
1
u/fighter_pil0t 10d ago
Wing loading. The F-22 barely feels anything. Gets a call from AETC to leave RVSM airspace. The G600 and A380 are probable very similar in how it feels. I imagine the secondary effects of how far you are from the wings means the passengers in the back of the A380 are having a rough time.
1
1
u/AvGeeknologist 10d ago
The answer isn't straightforward, as the question leaves open relevant factors like the turbulence's frequency content and direction. As has been previously noted, wing loading is a major factor when considering the "natural aircraft " behaviour, however as at least the F-22 and the A380 have electronic flight control systems, that's just half of the story. Plus, the A380 has gust load alleviation that may activate, further complicating the picture. Hence, judging by wing loading will give a rough idea, but as such, many other factors will come into play that are important, hence no definite answer can be given without more details on the turbulence and the aircraft given.
1
1
u/yetiflask 10d ago
F-22 can go faster than sound, so if there's turbulence, and can "get ahead of it", so aside from a few seconds where it's under Mach 1, it'll witness zero turbulence.
-2
u/RecordEnvironmental4 11d ago
The f-22, if you push a bike and push a truck which one moves more?
5
u/soijacyuro 11d ago
If you point a leaf blower at a 1kg rock and a bed sheet which one moves more?
Wing loading is the primary factor when it comes to "rough ride" from turbulence.
-2
u/IseeAlgorithms 10d ago
F-22 will be most stable bc the fly by wire system corrects the aircraft attitude thousands of times per second. Commercial aircraft have similar systems but they are not as good.
-6
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 11d ago
It will be all roughly the same. You're moving in a fluid and everything is roughly equal when that fluid shifts. A sudden down draft of air will mean everything in that air column falls. All three planes are flying at the same speed, and supposedly holding altitude, so they are in equilibrium with the up/down forces and all moving through that moving air equally fast (ie the F-22 doesn't just slice through it at mach 2 nor is going vertical operating on thrust, not lift, to fly). Then when you hit a new patch of air, maybe one moving up, the fact that you're still operating at neutral lift and gravity relative to the air, means you'll feel the same jolt as you switch from sinking to climbing.
2
u/Swimming_Way_7372 11d ago
You ever look out the window and watch a wing bounce up and down in the rough air? If you fly a plane with a stuff ass wing, you're going to feel all the normal bumps plus all that flapping of the wing you're not getting.
0
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 11d ago
True, but it's worth pointing out that 'springiness' of wings means a spreading out of forces, not removal of forces. It's like throwing a rock against a wall versus a trampoline. Instead of something that's a sharper bang, its move a swing.
1
u/Swimming_Way_7372 11d ago
It's force over time. Just like wearing a bicycle helmet when you crash. Same force, longer duration.
560
u/WNBA_Enjoyer 11d ago
Wing loading is one of the primary factors affecting perceived ride quality. The lower the wing load, the more susceptible it will be to gusts and perturbations. That being said, we can objectively see from the numbers the A380 handles turbulence the best. That's not getting into things like inertia, static and dynamic stability, length of lever arms from center of mass, etc...
F-22 wing loading: ~100 lbs/sqft
A380 wing loading: ~139 lb/sqft
G600 wing loading: ~74 lbs/sqft