difference between 1/2 cuban 8 and immelmann

bugsiegel

bugsiegel

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
73
Display Name
Display name:
Bugsiegel
I just watched a video of some basic acrobatics and both a half cuban 8 and an immelmann were performed. To me they look basically the same. They look to be a half loop and then a half roll to come out level and in the opposite direction. Unless I'm not seeing it correctly, what is the difference?
Here's a link to the video.
 
Figured out the answer but couldn't figure out how to delete this thread.
 
An immelmann is a half loop with a half roll back to upright -level- flight. In a half cuban you continue the "loop" until 45 degrees down inverted, then 1/2 roll to upright, then pull back to level flight.

Both are fun to do and teach.

-RM
 
Yep. Done right the Immelmann doesn't go negative. The Cuban, half or whole, requires a push at the 45 and gets negative. The Immelmann requires a slightly higher entry airspeed in some airplanes.

Ernie
 
ebetancourt said:
Yep. Done right the Immelmann doesn't go negative.
Click to expand...

Ernie, like any other maneuver, there are multiple ways of doing an Immelmann. It can be a totally positive G figure for lazy fun acro, but done in competition, you may go slightly and very momentarily negative, since you're waiting to roll until you've hit the apex of a round half loop, at which point you're rolling from inverted to upright while drawing a level line. It's physically impossible to do a half roll on a level trajectory while maintaining positive G or even zero G. How you fly it depends on what you're trying to accomplish.
 
whifferdill said:
Ernie, like any other maneuver, there are multiple ways of doing an Immelmann. It can be a totally positive G figure for lazy fun acro, but done in competition, you may go slightly and very momentarily negative, since you're waiting to roll until you've hit the apex of a round half loop, at which point you're rolling from inverted to upright while drawing a level line. It's physically impossible to do a half roll on a level trajectory while maintaining positive G or even zero G. How you fly it depends on what you're trying to accomplish.
Click to expand...

Thanks for correcting my misinformation. I'll admit It's been a long time since I did an Immelmann, and then it was for a check ride in a T-28A. Since I am usually negative at the top of my loops in the Taperwing, I should have realized I was wrong when I said it.

ernie
 
Kind of amazing to the think that the Immelmann was first done in a WWI Fokker Eindecker with no ailerons but wing warping! Flying was just too new for those guys to realize how crazy that was.
1200px-Fokker_M5K-MG_E5-15.jpg
 
MarkJeroplane said:
Kind of amazing to the think that the Immelmann was first done in a WWI Fokker Eindecker with no ailerons but wing warping! Flying was just too new for those guys to realize how crazy that was.
Click to expand...

According to most of the literature I’ve read, the Immelman turn as performed by Max Immelman in WW1 was more like a hammerhead turn (without going to a full vertical) Sort of a zoom climb followed by a rudder turn. It wasn’t the manuver we know today as an immelman which is a half loop followed by a roll to upright at the top.

Although certainly not authoritative, take a look at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Immelmann. Scroll down to the section on the turn.

Peter Kilduf’s “The Red Baron — The Life and Death of an Ace” and Leon Bennett’s “Gunning For the Red Baron” both touch on this topic a bit. I don’t have my other references available right now to cite.

Makes sense really. Those early machines wouldn’t have had the energy to pull off the aerobatic turn we know of today. Even today, in a Super Decathlon, there’s not much energy left at the top. Not sure what practical value it would have had in combat. It seems to me that the hammerhead type of turn, on the other hand, would have allowed a slashing attack followed by a reversal to come back for another go while maintaining the energy.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Very cool info Jim. I love reading about that stuff. Yeah, that does make more sense as that Fokker was just barley an airplane and I always wondered how the heck he accomplished that. Still anything like a hammerhead or more than a stall in that thing is a pretty gutsy move. I live near the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome and I've seen one up close there's not much there.
 
MarkJeroplane said:
Very cool info Jim. I love reading about that stuff. Yeah, that does make more sense as that Fokker was just barley an airplane and I always wondered how the heck he accomplished that. Still anything like a hammerhead or more than a stall in that thing is a pretty gutsy move. I live near the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome and I've seen one up close there's not much there.
Click to expand...

Old Rhinebeck has been on my bucket list for years. Kinda envious of people who live close to it. It’s a bit far away for me in California. However, it looks like it’s only a little more than an hour away from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY, and my son will be starting there this Fall. I’m hoping that we can combine a visit with him with a visit to Old Rhinebeck. Love those old airplanes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
It really is a cool place. It's where I first developed a love a flying. Since Cole Palen passed there have been some changes but at it's core it's still the same. Troy is only about 1.5 hours drive north so well worth the trip. They still have an mostly original flying Jenny and some Radial powered WWI replicas that are extremely accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top