Flew the MU2 KCXY KBJC last evening. I was relatively smooth at fl280 while everyone above me was complaining the entire time about the ride.

This happens virtually every flight too. Curious for folks who have gone from a turboprop to a jet, does the ride quality diminish as you go higher? Or are the airlines just more sensitive?

Previous company went from a KA200 to an S/II citation.

I really didn't notice any difference, but I'm also used to plowing through the soup at 8k in a Bonanza and riding with the bumps.

I will say that non GA experienced PAX are vastly more sensitive to any turbulence at any altitude in any airplane. They feel a bump and cringe every time until they've got some experience and realize that nothing is going to come apart. I'd wager that 90% of the flying public fits in this category.

Flying in the 30’s and low 40’s puts you in contact with the jet stream and it’s boundary effects. Often turbulence and mountain wave. And yes airline and corporate are more sensitive to any turbulence as there are paying folks on board many of whom are not comfortable flyers to begin with. Throw in a little (underlined “little”) turbulence and they can be terrified. Always working to find a smooth ride if possible.

The ride is normally so good that any disruption gets them talking. I do make an effort to flight plan for smooth air. There are plenty of tools now that make it incredibly easy including Garmin’s turb imagery by FL.

Really depends on the jet, all about wing loading.

Small wing equals a smooth ride but you pay in runway performance.

As compared to what?

The jet has provided, on average, a much better ride then my Baron. I would guesstimate 80% of my flights are very smooth. Basic physics says the Phenom will feel the bumps worse than a 787; though, whenever I am feeling the bumps I always hear the airliners complaining and looking for smooth air as well.

But there are days..... like yesterday. Probably the worse day of flying ever. Took off from Chicago and had a 90k headwind (backwards from normal), chop, turbulence...just not fun. At FL370 my autopilot decided it wasn't dealing with it anymore and left me hand flying. Had to descend out of RVSM so not enough fuel to get home with margins, diverted to Knoxville for gas and because it was about the only place that wasn't LIFR. The entire flight home from Knoxville was turbulence and continous icing even at 27K feet. Heard an airliner report ice at -30C, serious uplift.

Cool pictures of the Willis Tower creating a cloud wake yesterday over Chicago.

There are some days that are bumpy at most upper altitudes, but usually you can find a smooth spot. I hear the airliners making more requests than private flights. I find it almost always smooth at FL400 or FL410. Airliners are often too heavy to get that high.

If not convective, the jetstream is huge. Not many people flying at those altitudes look at the jetstream (its snaky path through the sky) or upper level winds and temperature forecasts or significant weather prog charts. Because they are going anyway, or just not taught to anymore (me, in the 1980's). To be fair and keep things in perspective an upper level prog chart is often filled with light and moderate turbulence symbols. So that probably is a factor as to why it gets little play? After all, your going anyway?

Your photos remind me of the stories I’ve heard about the navigation and approaches made in England during WWII with the low cloud/fog that would be present at the bases.
What would exist for Nav aids were smoke plums and taller structures visible in the distance above the cloud such as in your photos. These would be used to align for heading and position. Someone would stand at the end of the runway and fire flares straight up which you could see above the fog.
Then you descend in a 2 minute turn based on you landmark alignment, altitude and the flare position.
This came from the pilots of the 357th FG, we had a P-51 painted in Tommy Hayes markings known as Frenesi and participated in the Reunions they had.
Seems Aviation has come a long way since then.

After several years of roaring around in the mid to high twenty’s i can say i am amazed at the difference of being able to get in the mid to high thirty’s. I have gone from a KA200 to a Citation II. One thing i have noticed over the years Delta is always complaining about the rides.

This is just a generalization. When the winds are blowing strong out of the west the rides are usually better down in the 20's or up in the 40's.

Yup, yesterday had it's moments. In the 777 aluminum tube we had a pretty rough go of it crossing the jetstream. Lots of nervous pax. The headwind and groundspeed had me bummed so ran the high headwind passenger checklist 1) order another cocktail 2) start new movie.

The problem in large jets is that people are walking in the aisles. Flight attendants with the carts out are susceptible to injury in even light chop. If grandma breaks an ankle on the way to the lav, it becomes an accident investigation.

With that in mind, anything but smooth or nearly smooth air usually instigates a search for smooth air.

In the past 4 years, I've gone from a Cirrus to a Mirage to a Meridian to a Mustang. I can say without any hesitation that the Mustang consistently has the least amount of turbulence, simply because you have more options. Anything above "light chop" and the family looks at me like I forgot how to fly. You just don't run into it that often.

On the other hand, they fondly remember bumping their heads on the ceiling in the A36 coming into Orlando on a hot summer day..

What I hear almost always are airliners. Very rarely do I hear light jets of any kind complaining or asking for ride reports. Nor do I hear turbo props checking for the same. I normally fly at 30-31, sometimes a bit lower, and even with moderate is forecast the ride is almost always smooth or just a few bumps. It seems like the mid 30's are where most of the problems are.