Immelman turn and manoevers

[Broadside uda Barn 0]

Been flying a few planes now, having trouble doing an immelman turn (climb and reverse direction and right the plane from the inverted position).

Plane's always seem to stall, and most dont like to spin from the inverted position to the normal position.

I was thinking it was speed, but speed doesnt seem to help.

I switched to the camel for the easy turning (great plane by the way...been only flying for the RAF28 lately, just for the camels) and I can spin, but cant get the speed.

 

I'm assuming it's pretty much dependant on the plane...and I've only used the allied planes so far.

Or am I missing something?

[Broadside uda Barn 0]

thanks uncleal, I actually already had that link open next to this thread! (great link, and surely very helpful. You should put it in your tips/help thread if it isnt already)

 

Yeah, I know what to do, and how to do it.

That's not the question of the thread though.

[Olham 164]

You should be able to perform an Immelmann turn even with the Fokker Eindecker - I tried it,

and it worked. Before that manoeuver you have to dive for speed, but I assume you know that

and did so. So I ask myself, whether your gear functions right - if you can get full speed with

full throttle, or if the problem lies there?

Edited July 19, 2009 by Olham

[Pips 5]

Broadside, at what point are you stalling? On the climb up? At the point of initiating the roll? As you are actually rolling? And what aircraft are you trying the manoeuvre in?

[Broadside uda Barn 0]

Trying it in the camel.

Diving for speed (this bird doesnt really get a LOT of speed, usually 150mph...maybe that's my throttle or something else?), then pulling up, and mid way thru the climb, I try to roll right side up, which is where I stall and slip.

If the camel werent so slip happy, this might be a great manoever, but sometimes I slip and start a horrific spin.

those are rough on the nerves.

[Condor44 0]

You should be able to perform an Immelmann turn even with the Fokker Eindecker - I tried it,

and it worked. Before that manoeuver you have to dive for speed, but I assume you know that

and did so. So I ask myself, whether your gear functions right - if you can get full speed with

full throttle, or if the problem lies there?

 

 

Interesting, I have tried it with several birds including the EIII. I dive for speed and observe speeds well above the normal maximum level speed. But when I attempt the manuver I also always stall out. My gear's fine. If I go to Aces High I have no trouble performing Immelmanns with WWII birds.

 

Now I'm reffering to dives that I would do in a combat situation. In stress testing OFF planes in vertical dives I have gotten them to come over the top in a loop without stalling but that's after pulling up at speeds of 180-190mph. And no, except for the Nups 11 and 16, they don't shed any parts.

 

So Broadside, your not alone in this. It'd like stress. I can't get an Albatross DV or Nup 17 to lose wings when pulling up from vertical dives at 180-190mph. Others say they lose wings under less stress than that. There are obviously some variables we don't understand.

[von Baur 54]

Not to be a wet blanket, but the maneuver you're describing was never performed by Max Immelmann, and probably not done by many if any in rotary engined aircraft. Gyroscopic precession made keeping an aircraft on heading through a loop almost impossible. Then there's the power factor...these beasts generally didn't have it, especially the early planes.

 

What Immelmann did was a form of hammerhead. He stated that at its apex the controls were reversed, with the rudder functioning as an elevator (changing the vertical orientation of the aircraft) and the elevators functioning as a rudder (changing the horizontal). While it's doubtful he got his E-III into a completely vertical attitude in the course of this he probably managed more than 45 degrees and maybe as much as 65-70.

 

What's now commonly referred to as an Immelmann turn did not become called that until well after the Great War.

[BigJim 0]

Trying it in the camel.

Diving for speed (this bird doesnt really get a LOT of speed, usually 150mph...maybe that's my throttle or something else?), then pulling up, and mid way thru the climb, I try to roll right side up, which is where I stall and slip.

If the camel werent so slip happy, this might be a great manoever, but sometimes I slip and start a horrific spin.

those are rough on the nerves.

 

Turn off the wind it costs you 10% on realisim but it allows your plane to fly. I found that with the wind turned on almost nothing flew right as the game put me in gail force head winds constantly (which keeps your speed slow).

 

The immelman is the tuffer of two choices for a quick reverse, the other choice being the split s, because it requires a half loop into an aileron roll. If you have the alt the split s is the better choice because it is an aileron roll inverted and the a dive and pull up.

 

I have already expressed my concerns about the FM and aileron rolls and also the effect of wind on these birds. While they were lightly powered they we also very light with tremendous lift (in most cases). Too long inverted will cause the engine to stall due to lack of fuel (no or very few pressurized fuel systems in WWI) but the onset in this FM is too quick IMHO. but all in all the work done here has been done very well and don't want to minimize the work done as I don't have the skill to do what they have done

[+Polovski 414]

Aileron designs were poor and often some craft would not complete a roll in one direction or needed help major from rudder to start or complete. Make sure you are flying the latest version as roll rates generally were improved a lot (had become worse due to other changes). There are many opinions on WW1 FMs.. and we have researched and looked hard. Short of a few tweaks for the Alb's engine, and SPAD stall speeds there aren't any more changes in next version.

[Duce Lewis 3]

The immelman is the tuffer of two choices for a quick reverse, the other choice being the split s, because it requires a half loop into an aileron roll. If you have the alt the split s is the better choice because it is an aileron roll inverted and the a dive and pull up.

Split S is my last ditch evasive manuever

It gives you speed and a quick reversal of direction when guns are on you

But I really don't like it as it sacrifices too much altitude

 

Immelmanns are great but my DVII needs a little dive speed to make a clean one ...and she's the vertical performer of the lot

 

Wingover is my fav reversal method

Sharp climbing turn

At the apex, kick rudder into a descending turn

[HomeBoy 1]

I used to fly RC aerobatic competition. I was not very good but I always seemed to score well on the Hammerhead.

 

The modern term "Hammerhead" replaced the original term "Immelman" and the term "Immelman" is now used to describe the half-loop with a roll at the top. Talk about confusing! So, when you read WW1 literature that speaks of an "Immelman", it is really referring to what we now call a "Hammerhead" or some people call a "Stall Turn."

 

I like UncleAl's description of how to do a Hammerhead. That's pretty dead on. I flew an Extra 300 in competition which does a very pretty Hammer and here's how it's done in competition:

 

1. Develop full speed in straight and level flight

2. Pull up into a perfectly vertical line.

3. When the plane gets to the desired altitude or begins to lose energy, chop the throttle while keeping the plane perfectly straight.

4. At the exact instant the plane stalls and begins to tail slide (falls backward just as UncleAl describes), you goose the throttle (full throttle then back to idle very quickly) and simultaneously go full rudder in the desired direction of turn (usually in the direction of engine torque; left in the case of the Extra 300) and providing just enough aileron control to keep the plane from rolling at all. If you've done this properly, the airplane will rotate around as if it has a pin through the canopy and is rotating around that pin (it's a beautiful thing to watch) and then heads straight back down on the exact line it went up on. Most planes (such as the Extra) will waggle their tail just a little bit as it heads back down. That is a true sign that a stall actually occurs. Judges watch for that waggle and usually won't give you full points if they don't see that.

 

Now, a "Wingover" is very similar to a Hammerhead except that with a Wingover you don't stall at the top. The plane skids around and actually flies sideways very briefly before heading back down. Guys running smoke do that a lot because it produces a very pretty U-shaped trail which looks great at airshows. An attempted Hammerhead in which there is not stall at the top is technically a Wingover. In fact, when I lost points on my Hammer, I would sometimes see on my score card "WO" which means the judge didn't see a clean stall and therefore called my attempted Hammerhead a Wingover.

 

The planes in OFF don't really have the power to do what I've just described but you can do it with some dive to build speed and take a lesser angle on the vertical line. I've tried it with a couple of the faster planes in OFF and the results are pretty good. In fact, I can do a better Hammer in OFF than I can in MSFS or Aces High.

[BigJim 0]

Aileron designs were poor and often some craft would not complete a roll in one direction or needed help major from rudder to start or complete. Make sure you are flying the latest version as roll rates generally were improved a lot (had become worse due to other changes). There are many opinions on WW1 FMs.. and we have researched and looked hard. Short of a few tweaks for the Alb's engine, and SPAD stall speeds there aren't any more changes in next version.

 

Interesting Pol, I had never heard that about the aileron design before. I know that rolling to the right was always harder due to engine torque effects and needed some rudder input to force it over. I will take your word for the research, it had seemed to me that the weight to horsepower ratio would have allowed for better manuvering but I have not done the work to research the info so I am sure I must be wrong.

[+Polovski 414]

No worries, rudder is heavily needed on many craft to compliment the roll.

 

Very generally speaking WW1 a/c had ailerons with high drag. The displacement of the ailerons on the upside or downside were equal.

However the up aileron had high drag and so caused yaw in the wrong direction so more rudder is needed to counter that and point the nose in the correct direction. Then as you say torque, gyro, and other effects (normally corrected in modern craft) and you have a bit of a mess ;)

[Pips 5]

Immelmann is generally considered to be the man who introduced tactical manoeuvers to combat. He wasn't the great organiser that Boelecke was, but he was more original in his thinking in tactics and techniques.

 

The original Immelmann turn was first demonstrated by the great French flyer Pergoud in 1913 at an air show. The French named it the "Renversement". Basically the manoeuvre involves zooming up and, before stalling, using full rudder to bring your aircraft around to fly back down the same path in a swoop. To Pegoud it was simply a graceful stunt, one of many in his repertoire. Another was the "Retournment", a similar manoeuvre to the Renversement. It involves zooming and, again just before stalling out, applying full rudder but rolling the aircraft to invert (and so twist at the apex) to again dive out, but this time travelling in the same direction.

 

Immelmann realised that just flying around your enemy didn't really get you anywhere. Height and surprise were seen as key elements to gaining success over opponents. But often it took more than just one pass to gain a victory. It was he who combined the diving attack with the the 'renversement' to create the 'Immelmann' turn. This allowed him to make a diving pass (preferably out of the sun), convert that speed to height again by zooming, then turning to once more dive down on his opponent. Or if he needed to (if for instance the enemy changed direction) he would perform the 'retournment' on the zoom. By using either he could literally dive, zoom and follow any turn made by the enemy.

 

The Immelmann turn was very useful in 1915 and until late 1916 as an offensive tactic as most Allied aircraft were slow two-seaters, which would (at most) level turn to avoid attacks. The drawback to Immelmann turn is that it bleeds energy fast and, at the top of the manoeuvre, your aircraft is almost stationary. Once the enemy had more powerful fighter aircraft eg Nieuport 11 and D.H.2, the Immelmann fell into disuse. Against usescorted two-seaters though it' still a reasonable manoeuvre to have up your sleeve.

 

These days the original Immelmann turn is known as the wingover or hammerhead.

 

The modern-day version of the Immelmann turn is actually a half loop with a roll off the top. This combination had also been demonstrated by Pegoud, Garros, White and several other famous pre-war pilots. It hasn't been recorded who first used it in combat in WWI. Throughout the war though it was never referred to as the Immelmann turn, but simply as the loop and roll off the top, or just roll off the top. With more powerful aircraft such as Pup's, Triplanes, Nieuports 17's and SPAD VII's it became a commonplace manoeuvre. Again it's drawback is that at the top of the loop, after rolling out, your aircraft is devoid of energy (speed) and that leaves you as a sitting duck for any enemy near you.

 

(A more practical evasive manoeuvre is the Split-S, or split-arse as the British referred to it. It gets you our of the way of an enemy fast, usually takes you out of his sight, and you gain extra speed. Many pilots considerd it the only useful manoeuvre to make).

 

No one knows who labelled the loop and roll off the top as an Immelmann turn, that's been lost in the mists of time. It made it's appearance during the late 20's, when many ex-WWI pilots used to make a living flying in air shows - Udet being a prime example. But the label stuck, and that manoeuvre is now commonly accepted as the modern Immelmann turn.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Pips

[NS13Jarhead 6]

I thought I had read once that the Immelmann originally had a horizontal component to it. I'd imagine (but havent' tried to prove it in BHaH) that if you put in a little aileron first to go to a 15 degree bank before pulling back on the stick, that would approximate what was done to compensate for to the roll characteristics of the E.III - that way when you get to the roll portion at the top, you can use rudder and aileron. Just a theory, though.