.



I must disagree completely Sir. We know precisely what the historical Immelmann turn is from contemporary combat flight instruction manuals published during WWI. The move you are describing is the modern Immelmann turn which is the half-loop with a half roll at the top, but that version came much later. The historical Immelmann turn is exactly as shown in the 1918 illustration I posted, (and yes, that is now also called a 'sliceback'). Also, I've read what little that was actually written by Max Immelmann and nowhere does he describe the turn as you've noted. If you have any such historical evidence to the contrary I would very much like to see it as I am always willing to be proven wrong and learn something new.


.

Grr. Deleted. I didn't see Louvert's last post and he covered what I was going to say.

Immelmann turn you have the eye witness account of the French two-seater pilots ? They described at the peak of the vertical Immelmann was able to Chandelle in any direction. Sliceback does not really contain a vertical in it. Oh and the half loop half roll is mentioned by Immelmann himself in a letter home. Problem is an account taken from 1918 could be the progression of the manoeuvre we cannot say for sure. When I was a little boy I used to think the Immelmann was a hammerhead stall or something close to the type but this too neglects the half roll.

Problem is now we have focused on one aspect of my last post and completely neglected valuable information to talk about a mute point that cannot be proven either way. I guess the other question is can you do the manoeuvre you described in the E.III 9/10 times without stalling it ?

I got head out for work gah

Good Day all

Quite right about the French two-seater pilots and their observation of Immelmann being able to Chandelle at the peak of the vertical, which only proves the point about the historic Immelmann turn as the Chandelle used in WWI was a slipping on either wing to drop the nose back down and into a dive, exactly as described in the WWI texts for the turn in discussion. And there are illustrations of the turn from earlier in the War as well, not just 1918.

To the letter you mention: I've heard of this one before but have yet to see a copy of it anywhere so I must place that one in the 'unsubstantiated' column.

And not really a mute point IMHO as it creates a misconception about what the Eindecker was likely capable of doing in real combat in 1916. I have taken the WOFF Eindecker and can perform the historical Immelmann repeatedly in it with a high degree of accuracy. Trying to do the modern version of the turn is incredibly tricky and places you nearly stopped in the sky, hanging upside down, and presenting a beautiful target for the rear gunner in the two-seater you are attempting to drop back onto. Loops are nearly useless anyway in combat flying as noted by many RL pilots over the years and a half-loop with a roll-out at the top is no better in an under-powered kite. The maneuver does look good though which is why it's been used at air shows for decades.

Sorry you have to head to work Freiherr_Wulff, this is fun!

.

See I have always look at a Eindecker like a low profile racer type plane. It was designed to be fast and have low drift. There seems to be enough information to suggest the airplane was balanced quiet well, even to the point that the fuel tank sat slightly to the port side of the fuselage. But, like you said we can get to this point with trim in WOFF. What we cannot do is address the characteristics of the engine.

If the facts of the rotary engine are out there, then the facts of the rotary engine should be here. I think they are very much part of the flight model and should be mapped. In which case I think the pull to the right should also be checked hey it could just be switched to make it a pull to the left at the very least it would tie in with the engine characteristics. But like a propeller I am going around in circles. I accept the way it is but would like to change it without causing hassle to the devs, unless of cause they would want to change it.

Back to the Half Loop Half Roll Immelmann turn. Translations of descriptions into a clear picture is hard. Like understanding my English . The thing is that French crew clearly mentioned a vertical. In the sliceback there is no vertical and in my idea there is no half loop. So I guess we going to have to wait until Corsaire invents a time traveling Macchi so we can go back and ask

Oh and the books if people are wandering. Air Combat Manoeuvers: The Technique and history of air fighting for flight simulation. (Yea I own a book on Flight Simulation) In Pursuit: A Pilot's guide to Online Air Combat (make that two lol) How to fly a Plane: The First World War Pilot's Manual. Rubber Powered Model Airplanes by Don Ross covers flight trimming and props and whole bunch of other stuff.

.

Freiherr_Wulff, if what you are saying is that you climb up to vertical, (or at least near vertical), then rudder left or right to slip over on a wingtip and drop back down nose-first into a dive in the opposite direction from whence you started then we are in agreement as to what the historic 'combat' Immelmann turn is. Also, please understand that I am not saying Immelmann did not also do the aerobatic version of the turn, (half loop with a half roll at the top), but it is not the one he used when fighting in the WWI skies. He was a smart, savvy flieger and I am quite certain he would not have used a move like the latter in combat as it wasted the vital elements of time and energy, the squandering of either in combat often proving fatal to the squanderer.

And books I've eluded to and/or referenced in the course of this discussion:

"Learning to Fly in the U.S. Army", E.N. Fales, 1917
"Pursuit Work in a Single-Seater", Lt. Albert Louis Deullin, 1917
"Practical Flying", W.G. McMinnies, 1918
"An Explorer in the Air Service", Hiram Bingham, 1920
"Stick and Rudder: An Explanation of the Art of Flying", Wolfgang Langewiesche, 1944

.

.

Oh, and forgot to say, I agree with you about the direction of 'pull' in the WOFF Eindecker. It appears to be contrary to the historical data.

.

I think you are right we are in agreement in part on Immelmann turn at the point of a secondary attack there is a lot of option depending on what position the plane is situated in. I think Immelmann was a natural flyer understood how a plane worked most likely due to his mechanical background. I think the understanding is proven in his flight exam.

I was thinking about buying that Stick and Rudder book the other day is it worthwhile ? I been buying books on model making more than flying lately, construction techniques etc just started converting my RC cars over to digital (2.4ghz) am looking to convert my planes now. Need get a DX6 on order

.

One of the best books ever written on the subject, IMHO. Well worth owning.

I have not built or flown an RC plane since I was a teenager and that was many moons ago now. Both of my brothers are still into RC and if time allows I may get back into it myself some day. Aaaah time, the most valuable commodity of them all.

.

I need one of these, for research purposes obviously

https://toni-clark.com/english/frames_e/fokker_e1_frm.htm

Wouldn't the Immelmann be used after a head on pass and the enemy starts a horizontal turn?

Nope certainly not.

I think the original Immelmann turn is a two phased attack developed on two-seater targets. I think elements of either phase can be used in general flying or fighting. But I think the Immelmann turn is a tactic rather than a manoeuvre.

Immelmann would position himself with altitude advantage. Know his and his foes relationship to the lines in anticipation of his targets reaction to the surprise attack.

This may sound cynical but I think the initial phase serve the purpose of removing the two-seaters ability to defend itself at the very least. So the first phase was a surprise attack on two-seater from above and behind targeting its observer/gunner before pulling up. Maybe not to the vertical, but to use the speed to gain some of the altitude back. I inserted a partial roll in the vertical/sharp climb to maintain eye contact on target so you can inspect and react to his next move.

I think the 2nd phase of the attack is based on the outcome of phase 1 and if it achieved its minimum objective. At phase 2 the key element of surprise is gone so if the observer/gunner is not out of action do you follow the attack up or fly away? my guess fly away. (Fine line between cleverness and cowardice)

If observer/gunner out of action at point of phase 2 then 2nd phase of the attack will begin. I think the next manoeuvre would be a chandelle turn in order to get back into a position to attack a fleeing two-seater (Do not think a two-seater would turn and fight) Maybe form of Split S or Sliceback. Really depends on the two seaters defense retreat strategy but the general idea of the attacker is to re-position on the two seater's tail.

Sorry no pictures I cannot draw But why would this tactic be named a Immelmann turn? because the Adler von Lille was always using it and when they discovered who he was

Gonna try some combat with immelmann moves and see what comes out of it.Drinking a few beers right now and I can't fly well when I do so tomorrow.

Wau! For that price you can buy a real one LOL

.

Freiherr_Wulff, your two-seater attack outline is accurate and I've employed it exactly as described in both OFF and WOFF and with good success. Not to say there aren't other ways to go about it of course. To Wolfstriked's supposition about the head-on pass, this can also be accurate when talking about a single-seater target. You could use the Immelmann to get back around on the target and regain some altitude in the process. But then you could also use the split-S or renversement or whatever the situation dictates really.

.

^yep and I also think its actually preferred to use it on a head on pass with a two seater.Not a perfect Immelmann but a bank one where you pitch up and also bank at a 45deg angle.This means the rear gunner now has to calculate lead for both directions.

Nietzsche lol going to have to settle for this one.... and run around living room making engine noises.

http://www.dumasproducts.com/product_info.php?products_id=663

Oah! How cute! I gotta buy this one!
This thing is rubber band driven, right?

I would assume with the FAI tan II rubber. That plane got a 17 and half inch wingspan. which is bigger than any of my models. might be worth checking if there is a RC conversion for it.

Ran into a unique looking cloud.