Talk:Immelmann turn

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the Air sports project.

The maneuver was likely not invented by Immelman, nor perhaps even practiced by him, though the story is pervasive. http://www.acepilots.com/wwi/ger_immelmann.html I have seen text references to an Allied pilot named Himmelman as the turn's inventor, but cannot confirm this online. Will attempt to locate the book and furnish references.12.36.123.254 00:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Automatic Slim[reply]

Technically, nobody invented it; however, Immelmann is credited as being the first pilot to demonstrate the maneuver. --em c ! ╬ ^{(t a l k)} 01:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong manuovre

This article doesn't describe a true "combat" Immelmann turn.

The imelmann turn is more like a zoom and boom -- pitch up, throttle down, quarter roll and rudder into a directed stall. The idea is to give a pilot more opportunities to shoot down a slower aircraft.203.129.50.115 05:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it, after all we all can add to Wikipedia. - Dammit 10:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added the Immelmann as it was performed in WW1 kept the original Immelmann article in place since the half loop is nowadays called an Immelmann LilRed86 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The illustration of the Immelmann turn is completely wrong. What is illustrated would produce no tactical advantage and is simply a half-loop to reverse direction. In an Immelmann turn a quarter roll is performed at point 2 in the illustration (with the plane essentially vertical, in the plane of the page). The rudder is then kicked over to complete the loop in a shorter radius than would be required in the half-loop, because the wings are essentially "slicing" sideways and the drag is reduced. The loop is then made as a yaw maneuver rather than a roll maneuver. After completing the loop another quarter turn is mad to bring the plane to horizontal. The half loop can then be preformed much more quickly than the maneuver as shown and you can turn on a following plane more quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.81.11 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's come back to question this in 10 years? Like was said and the preceding comment the illustration is completely wrong. Not only is it not an Immelmann it's badly drawn. The drawing of the plane at the top of the maneuver has the nose of the plane pointing toward the viewer which is 180 degrees wrong. The maneuver and the drawing is a wing over or a Hammerhead stall. I can't believe that editors have let the totally Incorrect and badly sourced section with the drawing stand. Ask any pilot what an Immelmann is. What they described will not be that Wing over like maneuver in that bad drawing. Every pilot knows what an Immelmann is. Why do you think Max Immelman's name is attached to it?

The whole first section has one citation that is a dead link that redirects to thoughtco.com . Thot.com is one of a conglomeration of for-profit information sites called. Dash.com. Anything found on it any one of those website would be a questionable source especially when it's the only source for an entire section of an article about a well-known subject. The author of that section doesn't appear to have written anything on Wikipedia since 2009. When I run the original link through the Wayback machine it brings up an article on about.com. Including the bad graphic. And about.com is not a reliable source especially in a single Source situation. Sometimes the experts on sites like about.com are self-proclaimed. I think Wikipedia strives to be well above about.com

The author was engaging in WP:OR

Two other people on this page have challenge that section and editors have not answered their criticism and let the page stay. I concur with the people on this page. It appears the only person who thinks the World War 1 maneuvered described in that photo in that section, is the person that wrote it. It's not defended. Again ask any pilot what an Immelmann is. It's a half Loop rolled out at the top. You can carry the loop past the top then roll out and dive back and that might possibly still called and Immelmann. But what that section is talking about what that illustration is showing has the plane doing a wing over type maneuver that's not an Immelmann. If you know an actual pilot ask him if they've ever seen the maneuver shown in that drawing to describe as an Iammelmannn.

Then the "Aerobatic maneuver" also has errors. As far as engines not designed to run inverted an Immelmann is not inverted flight. When you're flying a loop you're not suspended upside down you are experiencing the g-forces of a loop. You simply roll out at the top. Was started with enough air speed an airplane doesn't need to be anywhere near stall speed at the top. I know modern aerobatic planes and Modern Combat planes carry lots of airspeed through the top of loops and Immelmanns are common in air shows.And I don't know what type aircrafts he could be talking about that can't do an Immelmann unless he's talking about certain ultralights. A Cessna 152 can fly one. A Cessna 172 can also fly one. World War II planes could fly a loop, 1920s barnstorming By Flames could fly loops. Obviously the more modern light planes like the Cirrus can easily fly an Immelmann and more difficult aerobatics. I've seen gliders pull an Immelmann. Any crafts that can fly a loop can do an Immelmann.

Unless I hear counter-arguments here about the correctness of the text and the sourcing I'll be back to delete the whole section. It's a complete distraction from the actual topic which is an Immelmann turn credited to Max Immelmann.

Even if it was technically true, which I contend it's not, it would be a disservice and a distraction for readers that came here wondering what an aerobatic maneuver called an Immelmann is when the half Loop Immelmann has been described as that for nearly a hundred years. It would be esoteric and wouldn't belong here.

And part of the page on Max Immelman himself is wrong to include this and its source is a book about flight maneuvers in flight simulators for crying out loud. Jackhammer111 (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WWI manoevre illustration is contemporary (1918) (from an official RNAS/RAF manual of that date) - that was the "original" as done by WWI pilots (who knows? perhaps even by Immelmann himself). It may well be "esoteric" in the sense that you haven't heard of it but that's exactly what it is. This is an encyclopedia, not a summary of what you already know. Sorry. The "half-loop" stunt is there too (in fact I think the original comment here was referring to that one!), so how is it a "disservice and a distraction"? and to whom? The original reference, on the other hand, seems to have been lost. Will try to relocate it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

In the beginning of the article, it says the turn has no connection to Max Immelmann. Later in the article, it says the exact opposite. 81.233.196.49 (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article - it actually describes two different maneuvers called the Immelmann. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can it say "no connection" even though it's named after him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.128.44 (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft?

I propose that all the "In popular culture" references in this article that do not make clear which of the two meanings they are referring to (or otherwise aren't relevant to this article) be removed. (for info: this is a step towards splitting this article into two articles). DexDor (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting into two articles?? I think we would need some justification for that. This article certainly needs some work - it needs to be properly referenced, and the distinction between the two "turns" needs to be clearer, but I don't think the answer is cutting it into two articles, both of which, after the silly trivia about computer games gets sent to where it belongs (agree with you there!) will be VERY short).

The fact is that most WW1 pilots had very poor training, and many of them never really learned to fly properly. Anything as difficult to execute as the "original" Immelmann (you have to ALMOST stall but not quite, and then kick your rudder - this at a time when most ordinary service pilots dreaded stalling as an almost inevitable prelude to a spin - which they were not (at least in 1916/17) trained to get themselves out of - as I say, anything as difficult as THAT - was certainly not going to be in most pilot's repertoirs. In fact it became, especially among non-fighter pilots, a sort of catch-all term for anthing really tricky, that put an opponent on your tail without your being able to say what had happened. Like many technical terms in many diverse fields (think psychology!) it had a specific, technical meaning and a very vague "popular" one. Someone (probably well after WW1 was over) devised a tricky little roll of the top of a loop and decided that it would be cute to call it an immelmann - which of course it never really was - but it's a bit late to try to push THAT line when nobody very much remembers the original turn at all. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it would be clearer as two separate articles (each with a hatnote and etymology paragraph referring to the other article) plus a dab page. That way it's easier for incoming links to go to the relevant article and the articles can be categorised better. Basically, WP articles (in most cases) should be about subjects rather than words and there's two (sort of related) subjects here. After a split each article would be a bit smaller than articles about other manoeuvres, but I don't think that's a problem. I'll tidy up the article with a view to splitting it, but will sandbox and ask for comments before any split. DexDor (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How similar to Hammerhead Turn?

The Hammerhead Turn as described in its own article seems very similar to the first version of the Immelmann in this article. Can anyone knowledgeable about aerobatics help to differentiate them, or else confirm that they are the same maneuver? I have an eye toward either merging the two articles, or at least linking them in some way. JonsonMaclean (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Renversement"

This is basically French for "reversal". I know not who put in the remark implying that it was what the French called the WWI immelmann, but to be honest I'd love this to be true. On the other hand, it has been challenged - I can't confirm anything of the kind, much less find a "reliable source". The nearest I can get is that in (modern?) French aerobatic terminolgy "renversement" refers to something very like a "split-S", So, with a lot of regret, I have to delete this as "challenged and unconfirmable". -Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immelmann turn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060410133035/http://www.furball.warbirdsiii.com/krod/ACM-immelman.html to http://www.furball.warbirdsiii.com/krod/ACM-immelman.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]