Best ride in turbulence: Single engine

[Alexb2000]

I am a veteran of many bone jarring trips across the dessert southwest in summer thermals, mountain wave, mountain turbulence, etc. Not as much as someone based in Denver or Owens valley, but I've certainly my share. It wears me out and screaming passengers are never fun.

So I was wondering, what single piston engine aircraft rides the best in turbulence (No twins or turbines, because the range of operating weights is just too great for a meaningful comparison)?

 

[Ted]

Darn, you took away all the planes I knew anything about.

I can tell you the answer is definitely not Mooney.

 

[wabower]

I've been beat like a borrowed mule in almost all of them at one time or another. When one of those ball-peen hammer turbulence days comes along, ain't no little airplanes that can compete.

[/I]

Darn, you took away all the planes I knew anything about.

I can tell you the answer is definitely not Mooney.

 

[Clark1961]

I don't have any experience with the higher gross weight singles which I expect to ride better. That said, the 'kota does a better job than a 172. Of course "better" is a relative term since the 'kota tends to wallow around rather than give the sharp jolts of the 172.

 

[Everskyward]

Darn, you took away all the planes I knew anything about.

I can tell you the answer is definitely not Mooney.

The answer is not Cessna 320 either. The 206 was much better in turbulence. The 320 had a strange rolling, yawing motion.

 

[bbchien]

Turbocharged ANY single.
The rough air ends at 15-16,000.
Buy a good, LARGE, oxygen system. This adjustment was necessary to the success of GA as a family mobility tool.

 

[Ted]

I've been beat like a borrowed mule in almost all of them at one time or another. When one of those ball-peen hammer turbulence days comes along, ain't no little airplanes that can compete.

No doubt. But some deal with it better than others.

The answer is not Cessna 320 either. The 206 was much better in turbulence. The 320 had a strange rolling, yawing motion.

It's interesting that I've heard that as a complaint and I've noticed it, but it never has bothered me in the 310. I would believe the 206 to handle turbulence better, though.

 

[Old Geek]

Darn, you took away all the planes I knew anything about.

I can tell you the answer is definitely not Mooney.

Nor anything "Light Sport"

 

[Everskyward]

It's interesting that I've heard that as a complaint and I've noticed it, but it never has bothered me in the 310.

I think part of it is that I was doing mapping with it where the object is to hold the airplane straight and level, which is a challenge in turbulence even without that strange motion.

 

[kgruber]

Probably something like a short wing Piper.

Tri Pacer
PA28 with short Hershey bar wings.

Does helicopter count? R22

 

[Ted]

I think part of it is that I was doing mapping with it where the object is to hold the airplane straight and level, which is a challenge in turbulence even without that strange motion.

That's a good point. For me the object is not to hit anything, maintain passenger comfort, and stay more or less in the desired direction at desired altitude. The 310 does a good job at all of that, and tends to get through turbulence just fine. If I had to deal with the precision of mapping, the Aztec would be a significantly better airplane.

 

[Alexb2000]

Darn, you took away all the planes I knew anything about.

I can tell you the answer is definitely not Mooney.

I just did that because the big cabin class twins would certainly be in another class, then someone would say Albatross and it would go from there.

Mooney because of the laminar flow wing?

 

[jpflys]

BTW,
Which gives a smoother ride: Auto pilot or Hand fly it ?

 

[Ted]

I just did that because the big cabin class twins would certainly be in another class, then someone would say Albatross and it would go from there.

I agree. The limits make sense.

Mooney because of the laminar flow wing?

Light weight, laminar flow wing, speed. I always found the M20F seemed to hit the bumps like they were bricks, much worse than the 172. It seems that there's a combination of weight, wing loading, and speed that contribute the most to turbulence. For example, the Cheyenne always seemed to hit bumps harder than the Navajo, despite being effectively the same airframe. The Cheyenne was also going a good bit faster.

 

[Alexb2000]

Turbocharged ANY single.
The rough air ends at 15-16,000.
Buy a good, LARGE, oxygen system. This adjustment was necessary to the success of GA as a family mobility tool.

You're preaching to the choir on that, couldn't agree more, higher is better.

 

[Ted]

BTW,
Which gives a smoother ride: Auto pilot or Hand fly it ?

Hand fly. The AP will typically try harder to keep you on course and by hand flying you can let it float around a bit more. I always kick off the AP when I hit hard bumps and have passengers. They appreciate it.

 

[bbchien]

No. Not Mooney because of relatively light wing loading. But that's characteristic of what you get when you engineer a piston single to stall at 60 knots and stil be able to make some airspeed.

You only choice is to pay for the turbocharger, spend only 15 minutes in the climb, get on top of the bottom 10,000 feet where it's smooth, and again maybe 10 minutes in the descent.

For this I used a TurboM20F and then a Turbo Bullet J for maybe 1,000 hours or so. Then the family got too big.

 

[Everskyward]

It seems that there's a combination of weight, wing loading, and speed that contribute the most to turbulence. For example, the Cheyenne always seemed to hit bumps harder than the Navajo, despite being effectively the same airframe. The Cheyenne was also going a good bit faster.

FWIW, the "Twin Cessna" 680 is worse than the Lear 35 in turbulence. I put it down to the long wings in the 680 compared to the 35, even though the 680 is a heavier airplane.

 

[Alexb2000]

BTW,
Which gives a smoother ride: Auto pilot or Hand fly it ?

I'll say hand fly, especially in wave.

 

[Ted]

FWIW, the "Twin Cessna" 680 is worse than the Lear 35 in turbulence. I put it down to the long wings in the 680 compared to the 35, even though the 680 is a heavier airplane.

That'd make sense. The Lear 35 does have pretty short wings compared to the Twin Cessna you fly now.

 

[wabower]

Worst ride of my life was the G-V eastbound over the front range until well past Denver at FL490.

You're preaching to the choir on that, couldn't agree more, higher is better.

 

[DavidWhite]

I can tell you the answer is definitely not Mooney.

I can second that motion.

 

[Ted]

Worst ride of my life was the G-V eastbound over the front range until well past Denver at FL490.

Yeah, why didn't you upgrade to that SR-71?

 

[DavidWhite]

FWIW in my 172 when I would go over the rocks I'd get up to 15-16k and cruise with my oxygen tank. I haven't had the opportunity to do it in the Mooney yet, but the plan is the same.

 

[Alexb2000]

Worst ride of my life was the G-V eastbound over the front range until well past Denver at FL490.

Wow, the worst commercial ride of my life was leaving Denver as well.

Is the G-V a tippy canoe at 490 or is it pretty stable?

 

[EdFred]

Comanche or Bonanza with tip tanks. Leave the tip tanks full. Moment of inertia and all that sciencey stuff.

 

[Alexb2000]

Comanche or Bonanza with tip tanks. Leave the tip tanks full. Moment of inertia and all that sciencey stuff.

I never noticed much difference in a Bonanza with tips vs. without, either handling or turbulence.

 

[EdFred]

I never noticed much difference in a Bonanza with tips vs. without, either handling or turbulence.

Were the tip tanks full? I'm guessing not since you are supposed to burn the fuel out of them first. I've notice with the Comanche that full tip tanks makes for a smoother ride.

 

[EppyGA]

737 with one engine out.

 

[jpower]

Nor anything "Light Sport"

Yes most definitely

Worst ride of my life was the G-V eastbound over the front range until well past Denver at FL490.

Worst I've ever had was over the Rockies coming out of Salt Lake for DC. There weren't any really huge jolts, but it was consistently pretty bad for a good 30, 45 minutes.

 

[DavidWhite]

The worst commercial flight I was ever on was SAT-ATL. I slept through most of it, but the parts I was awake for were pretty bumpy.

 

[Everskyward]

Worst ride of my life was the G-V eastbound over the front range until well past Denver at FL490.

Worst ride recently was climbing out of Dallas a couple weeks ago in the evening. No storms, they had already gone through, just turbulence. It ended about 15,000' though.

 

[Dead Stick]

No doubt. But some deal with it better than others.



It's interesting that I've heard that as a complaint and I've noticed it, but it never has bothered me in the 310. I would believe the 206 to handle turbulence better, though.

The higher the wing loading and the more flex the wing has the better the ride in turbulence. There were noticeable improvements to the ride in the Cessna 421C vs 421B. The same thing occurred in the 414 and 402 when they lost the tip tanks and changed over to the longer, more flexible wing.

 

[Dead Stick]

Hand fly. The AP will typically try harder to keep you on course and by hand flying you can let it float around a bit more. I always kick off the AP when I hit hard bumps and have passengers. They appreciate it.

It depends upon the autopilot. In many of the jets and some of the turboprops there is a "TURB"ulence mode that really improves the ride.

 

[Alexb2000]

Were the tip tanks full? I'm guessing not since you are supposed to burn the fuel out of them first. I've notice with the Comanche that full tip tanks makes for a smoother ride.

In most Bo's you burn off the left main first (~1 hour) since that is the fuel return path, then if you want you can burn the tips or right main, generally returning to left main for landing.

This is a fairly common topic on BT and the feedback is mostly consistent with my experience. When full the roll might be slowed a little and that would help some, it just wasn't enough to call the fuel truck over to top off the tips when the skies looked rough. I agree that on paper it would seem like a big advantage it just didn't work out that way in practice for me.

 

[Henning]

The Midget Mustang did well. The higher the wing loading, the better the ride in turbulence will be.

 

[Alexb2000]

The higher the wing loading, the better the ride in turbulence will be.

Is that universally true, does say a Lancair IV (35lb.) ride twice as good as a V35 (17 lb)? Doesn't wing design, yaw tendency, wing flexibility, also play into it?

 

[Henning]

Is that universally true, does say a Lancair IV (35lb.) ride twice as good as a V35 (17 lb)? Doesn't wing design, yaw tendency, wing flexibility, also play into it?

There will be variables and I'm not sure if the effect is linear, however it is universally true that the higher the wing loading the less the 'jolting hit' will be.

 

[Ted]

The higher the wing loading and the more flex the wing has the better the ride in turbulence. There were noticeable improvements to the ride in the Cessna 421C vs 421B. The same thing occurred in the 414 and 402 when they lost the tip tanks and changed over to the longer, more flexible wing.

I've heard that the 421C/402C/414A all ride better than their tip tank predecessors as well. Most people I've talked to said it had more to do with vortices off the tip tanks, which never made a ton of sense to me but I also never looked into the technical aspects of it. Although the tips do block view somewhat, I do like the way they look. The biggest hassle is correcting every line guy who thinks that the mains are the inboards. "No, on a Twin Cessna the tips ARE the mains."

 

[Ted]

It depends upon the autopilot. In many of the jets and some of the turboprops there is a "TURB"ulence mode that really improves the ride.

That's a neat feature I never knew any autopilots had. Learned something!

The most advanced AP I've ever used was the KFC300 in the Cheyenne. It was a truly wonderful unit that did everything you asked of it perfevtly. Of course, the majority of what I fly are Century IIIs which are decent, but do leave a lot to be desired.