Fokker E.III wing warping.

[Dan_San_Abbott]

In a previous thread a discussion ensued over the effectiveness of wing warping. I sent off an E-mail to Jim Appleby who has built two Fok. E.III, one in the 60' and the second in the 1918s. His reply to my questions is as follows:
1. How responsive was the Fok. E.III to lateral control?
Answer: A simple answer it is not as effective as a good set of ailerons.
2. How much force was required to effect a turn?
Answer: I would estimate 5-15 lbs of pressure to effect a turn.
3. Did you ever do an "Immelmenn Turn" with it?
Answer: Yes,one! I started to perform a loop, was too slow coming over the top & the plane half rolled & and recovered all by itself. I never tried another one deliberately!
4. Did you ever roll it?
Answer: No! The oblivious lack of lateral control displayed that a true roll
( requiring good aileron control) left me with no desire to deliberatyely perform aerobatics.
Jim adds this comment, "What I have given you is solely based on my experiences! Someone else is bound to have a different opinion. James Appleby.
Hope this helps to provide some answer to the question of wing warping lateral control, at least in regard to the Fok.E.III.
A question comes to my mind, "Did Immelmann start to loop as was going too slow coming over the top and his Fok. E.I half rolled all by itself as what happened to Jim? Interesting, Hmmm.......
Blue skies,
Dan-San Abbott

Dan-San;
Did he mention the a/c engines on his EIIIs? The possibility of the a/c being underpowered might well have contributed.

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Norm:
He did not mention the engine, I believe he had a 100 hp. Gnome engine in his
first Fok. E.III, same as the original machine.
Blue skies,
Dan-San Abbott

[Terry_Crisp]

Based on what Jim Appleby has to say it certainly does seem plausable that Max discovered his famous manuver by accident.Reading between the lines of Jims comments one might also guess that it was,shall we say,exciting.
Best regards

It is interesting that in that it shows a true Immelman turn is possible in the Eindekker. Consider that we look at the maneuver from almost 90 years down the road--our reference point from judging the safety of such a move is from what we know today. In other words, even Jim Appelby would have a comfort level based on the aircraft that he learned to fly in and would inevitably have a "pucker factor" for the move consistent with those expecations. This statement is NOT to denigrate his abilities as a pilot or skill with the Fokker; just human nature. Immelman, from his perspective, was flying an advanced aircraft as safe as any known at the time. Ignorance is bliss, in effect. If we assume that he stumbled upon the maneuver by accident, once he survived it without damage to himself or the aircraft, could he have learned to repeat it comfortably?

[Vigilant]

I agree with Ed. I don't think Immelmann would have been too worried. Stunt pilots like Pegoud, Hucks and Hammel had been looping and inverting Bleriots and Morane-Saulniers before the war without much difficulty (both very similar aircraft to the E.III).

Vig.

Please refer to the Upavon Report Number 48, in which is stated: "This machine can be dived very steeply and showing an airspeed of 115 mph comes out of the dive with complete ease".
So, in an otherwise difficult airplane to fly (Upavon continues, in General Remarks, "4. Tiring to fly in all but still air."), it could still gain speed without loss of control. Rather than half-loop and follow with a half-roll, the Eindekker could "hammerhead" (more or less); maybe this is the true "Immelmann"?

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Gentlemen:
In the late spring of 1915 the Fokker E.I was a modern fighter, the very latest technolgy with no flying restrictions. It is only a lack of technology in retrospect of advances in aircraft design fifty plus years hence.
Blue skies,
Dan-San Abbott

[Barrett]

Capt. Lewis asked about the relationship of the "Immelmann" (as we know it today) and the hammerhead stall. Since it's most likely that ol' Max actually performed something more akin to a chandelle, the hammerhead is a logical option. The main difference (as I was taught, not necessarily the way I flew!) is that the hammerhead is steeper and more abrupt. The aeroplane is pulled close to the vertical, airspeed bleeds off to near zero, and rudder is applied in the desired direction. I'd not choose it in a dogfight because you're a ripe grape at the top of the evolution, nearly out of "smash" and vulnerable for seconds that could become eternity.
the chandelle, OTOH, is a more useful maneuver in that it retains more energy and therefore bleeds less speed at the apex. But both accomplish essentially the same thing--a vertical reverse.

I guess this is one of those things I'd like to know for sure about but am destined to never get my wish. I have followed dicussions/arguments about what a 'true' Immelmann turn is for a long time. The most recent in the mid-nineties in 'Over the Front' (as I recall). I sure wish there was consensus on a definition. The turn has (at the most extreme difference)been discribed as a half-loop at the top of which the pilot does a half roll, thus doing an altitude-gaining 180* reversal. At the other extreme, near the top of the loop the pilot (doing differing things according to different viewpoints) brings his craft down in a fashion that continues in his original path, or if the chase changes course, banking to continue pursuit. I have six differing texts and three differing illustrations of the famous 'Turn'.
But one thought has always bugged me- if it was called a 'turn' that implies a result that is at an angle away from the original course.