Split-S vs Immelman
Mark Rodill
guns blazing. If you perform an Immelman, your enemy has a real nice
shot at you for a second or two while you go vertical, and he's firing
right into the top of your canopy. And he can still keep firing at you
while you loop. If you perform a split-S, you're still in his sights
while you roll, but now he's firing into your tail and maybe the bottom
of your plane, so there's much less damage. Once you loop away from him,
he won't be able to follow you and keep firing unless he also rolls with
you. And he'd have to be real good to pull this off.
I've played out this senario many times on various PC flight simulators,
flying from both perspectives (P-51 and BF-109, taking turns as the
hunter and the hunted), and the Immelman just doesn't work and bleeds
off airspeed bigtime.
Is this senario true-to-life, or am I just playing a game that bears no
resemblence to reality? How did the real pilots in WWII turn the tables
on their enemy when they were caught in this situation?
Mark Rodill
"Virtual" pilot
Vincent Norris
>guns blazing. If you perform an Immelman, your enemy has a real nice
>shot at you for a second or two while you go vertical, and he's firing
>right into the top of your canopy. And he can still keep firing at you
>while you loop.
Well, that depends. On how far he is behind you, how much faster he's going,
how much more manueverable he is....
If he's close, and fast, he won't be able to keep his pipper on you very long,
if at all, if you pull up suddenly, unless he's *much* more maneuverable.
Remember, to fire "right into the top of your canopy," he must have his nose
well ahead of you.
>I've played out this senario many times on various PC flight simulators,
>flying from both perspectives (P-51 and BF-109, taking turns as the
>hunter and the hunted), and the Immelman just doesn't work and bleeds
>off airspeed bigtime.
As an aside, I believe the Immelman was invented as an offensive, not a
defensive, maneuver.
I've never used those simulations, but I doubt they're realistic in this
regard.
vince norris
Charles K. Scott
vp...@psu.edu (Vincent Norris) writes:
> Well, that depends. On how far he is behind you, how much faster he's going,
> how much more manueverable he is....
>
> If he's close, and fast, he won't be able to keep his pipper on you very long,
> if at all, if you pull up suddenly, unless he's *much* more maneuverable.
During the Battle of Midway, several Japanese pilots managed to turn
the tables on attacking Wildcats by simply looping and ending up on the
tails of the Wildcats. The Navy pilots in each case could not fire a
single shot before the Zero abruptly and violently yanked around. Also
in each case, the Wildcats had to dive away to loose the Zero. So
pulling up doesn't always present the target you might think.
Corky Scott
Stephen St.Clair
snipia
>As an aside, I believe the Immelman was invented as an offensive, not a
>defensive, maneuver.
The original Immelman (WWI vintage) was what is now called a
Hammerhead, I believe, and was an offensive tactic.
steve
> vince norris
CDB100620
Fighter Group--cost the group commander, Col. Harry Melton, his life
(ultimately). The P-51s were escorting B-25s from the 490th Bomb Group
when they were attacked by 12 Oscars and five Nicks. The Mustangs bounced
the Nicks and the Oscars, still climbing to intercept, attacked the
Mustangs, which they mistook for twin engine fighters because of the two
big drop tanks they had slung under their wings. In a head-on pass,
Melton slightly damage the Oscar of Cpl. Takahashi Seito, who immediately
turned onto Melton's tail. Melton executed a split-S to lose Takahashi.
Takahashi poured rounds into the Mustang's radiator, fatally damaging the
plane. Takahashi felt that had Melton merely dove away, he wouldn't have
been able to hit him, or if hit him, do fatal damage, especially if he had
to follow Melton into a negative-g manoeuver.
Melton bailed out safely 100 miles NW of Rangoon and was captured. He was
eventually put aboard a prison ship for Japan, which joined a convoy of
tankers and cargo ships. The convoy was attacked by three U.S.
submarines, including the Pampanito, which is now on public display at
Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco.
Melton's ship was sunk, but he survived aboard a life boat. After a night
at sea, the lifeboat was discovered by a Japanese destroyer which opened
fire on it, killing all aboard.
Details of these events can be found in "Pacific Air Combat" by Henry
Sakaida.
Keith Pennington
Erik Shilling
"S" makes a very difficult target. In other words a barrel roll in the
vertical plane in the dive until out of range.
Erik Shilling
Earl K Dille
Pensacola it was hammered into the cadets that if you did
one in acrobatic stage, with an SNJ, you should roll inverted,
and slow up the bird before you pull through. You can pick
up a lot of speed and lose a lot of altitude otherwise. I
imagine a few cadets augered in before the warnings were so
stressed in the syllabus.
--
| Earl K. Dille |
| fax 314-995-6872 |
| e.d...@ieee.org |
Mark Rodill
>During the Battle of Midway, several Japanese pilots managed to turn
>the tables on attacking Wildcats by simply looping and ending up on the
>tails of the Wildcats. The Navy pilots in each case could not fire a
>single shot before the Zero abruptly and violently yanked around.
I prefer a Mustang or Corsair, but you have to take what was available...
I've done a split-S flying a P-51 and an F-14 at 5,000 ft (in games).
I didn't survive in the F-14.
Albert Sykes
mission, so I was given the hour to fool with it by myself.
Near the end of the hour I tried to do a split-s from 15oooft. That's
plenty of altitude, right Ed ? Well the problem was I started at Mach 1.5.
As I was going through the vertical the altitude was about 4oooft and un-
winding fast ! Ooops, I'm not going to make it ! :-) I hit the ground at
about 60 deg nose low and thought I broke the machine. But not to worry,
they got it reset in 20 minutes.
(I did better buzzing my hometown from the backseat)
Tallyho !
Alpha Kilo (Nav)
(I also did better in loose formation)
Ed Rasimus
> At Bergstrom in '71 I had a pilot no-show for a RF-4C similator training
> mission, so I was given the hour to fool with it by myself.
>
> Near the end of the hour I tried to do a split-s from 15oooft. That's
> plenty of altitude, right Ed ? Well the problem was I started at Mach 1.5.
Which points out an often overlooked aspect of supersonic
operation--drastically reduced control authority. Aircraft of the
period of the F-4 which could pull max allowable G (corner velocity)
at 420 KIAS and could easily be overstressed at 650 KIAS, could barely
attain 3 G above the mach.
> As I was going through the vertical the altitude was about 4oooft and un-
> winding fast ! Ooops, I'm not going to make it ! :-) I hit the ground at
> about 60 deg nose low and thought I broke the machine. But not to worry,
> they got it reset in 20 minutes.
Probably made you real popular with the techs. Lets see, IMO, proper
punishment would be one month as squadron snacko and three sims a week
for the period.
bho...@tab.com
> A split-s can be dangerous. I agree. In basic training at
> Pensacola it was hammered into the cadets that if you did
> one in acrobatic stage, with an SNJ, you should roll inverted,
> and slow up the bird before you pull through. You can pick
> up a lot of speed and lose a lot of altitude otherwise. I
> imagine a few cadets augered in before the warnings were so
> stressed in the syllabus.
When I flew SNJ's as a student (1956), we were taught Immelmann's but not
split-S manuevers. My recollection of doing Immelmann's always includes the
gasoline trickling down the inside of the canopy. Based on later experience as
an instructor in T-34's, I would modify your split-S procedure by saying, slow
down first (by raising the nose), then roll inverted and pull through. I doubt the
SNJ has sufficient inverted elevator authority to slow down significantly while
inverted. It's probably a good idea to close the throttle, but if you pull enough
negative G, it will quit anyway with the old float carburetor.
By the way, we did not teach the split-S in the T-34 either. It was too easy for
a student to screw it up by either a fast entry and/or a slow pull through.
Toward the end of my three years, I was sometimes charged with demonstrating
inverted spins to new instructors. Hardest part was getting the T-34 to stall when
inverted.
Bill Horne
LCDR USN(Ret)
Frank James
>Let's say it's WWII and there's a bogey on your six, coming in with
>guns blazing. If you perform an Immelman, your enemy has a real nice
>shot at you for a second or two while you go vertical, and he's firing
>right into the top of your canopy. And he can still keep firing at you
>while you loop. If you perform a split-S, you're still in his sights
>while you roll, but now he's firing into your tail and maybe the bottom
>of your plane, so there's much less damage. Once you loop away from him,
>he won't be able to follow you and keep firing unless he also rolls with
>you. And he'd have to be real good to pull this off.
Depends on the energy state of both planes. If the bandit on your six
has little energy while you do, an Immel is a great move. If he's
fast & you're slow, a split S is better because the ennemy will blow
past you (you can Immel much tighter - at low alts he will die if he
follows). The split S will also give you lots of energy to play with.
>I've played out this senario many times on various PC flight simulators,
Which ones ? Most are not realistic at all (Airwarrior and Warbirds
are the only decent ones available for PCs).
>flying from both perspectives (P-51 and BF-109, taking turns as the
>hunter and the hunted), and the Immelman just doesn't work and bleeds
>off airspeed bigtime.
Sometimes bleeding speed can save you.
Frank
Frank James
>vp...@psu.edu (Vincent Norris) wrote:
>snipia
No, a Hammerhead is a "sideways" looping maneuver. An immelman is
half loop with a roll.
Frank