The Wing Over

[flash]

Having seen a few threads about the accuracy of the Immelmann recently & getting inspiration from Bryans Hammerhead move I decided to provide an alternative that uses the same cards but different placement of the aircraft.

Basically you play a straight - followed by an Immelmann but you place your rotated aircraft to the left or right alongside the Immelmann card - follow this with a final straight.

Aircraft can turn either way but generally went left if they had clockwise rotating prop & right if they were anticlockwise utilizing the torque of their engine.. if that makes a difference to you !

Pics in the album http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/album.php?albumid=367

And a diagram from RC flyers to show the move http://www.nasascale.org/maneuvers/wingover.gif

Show your love in the usual way - keep your hatred to yourself - hope you have fun with it

[Boney10]

Hmmmmm, veerrryyy interesting, I gather this "alternate Rule" should be agreed before playing in case of altercations later.
Must try it out next week, of course Ill blame you if anything goes wrong

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Applause, applause. That enough?
It replicates the diagram very well Chris, and avoids the head on that so often happens after this move
Rob.

[flash]

Hmmmmm, veerrryyy interesting, I gather this "alternate Rule" should be agreed before playing in case of altercations later.
Must try it out next week, of course Ill blame you if anything goes wrong

Thanks Chris - as it's a "house rule" the other players need to at least be aware it can happen but don't blame me if it goes wrong,
that can only be pilot error

[Bedlam]

Great minds think alike, Dave. I suggested a wingover as an alternative to an Immelman on this thread a couple of months ago. Although we were on the same track, my solution was nowhere near as neat as yours, and I didn't take any pictures. We did both find the same diagram though!

<Edit> I've just remembered why I suggested using a stall instead of the Immelman card. Compared with the split-S, half loop or true Immelman / hammerhead, the wingover is a relatively sedate, positive-G manoever which could be performed by most aircraft, including many which don't have an Immelman card in the deck.

[Spark]

I suggest another method, plan Immelman as always, but when you put the Immelman card, slide card to right or left aligned with stand/card edge and then move plane as normal.

[Bruce]

Sounds like a great manoeuvre sequence Dave. We will try it this weekend as an additional manoeuvre rather than a replacement for the Immelmann.

I have refined your "Wing-over Rule" for our use by adding the following:
1) In-line engined AC may wing-over to either side; but rotary-engined AC only to the right.
2) Player must announce at the Start of the Turn after all manoeuvres have been tabled that the AC will be winging-over (right or left) otherwise the AC peforms a normal Immelmann.

AND, a special Kudo to you for defining a manoeuvre sequence that can be used without altitude rules.

[flash]

John - Like where you're coming from vis a vis the stall card - maybe for the non Immelmann planes you could play a reversed stall card off the front instead ?

Just - That's a neat suggestion especially for those that wish to align the aircraft to the card as normal.

Bruce - Glad you like it and hope it works for you & the guys at the weekend; I will use both Immelmann & Wing Over myself too - I try to make stuff up for the non-altitude flyers amongst us to use but it ain't easy ! The little scales symbol bottom left of my card is where the kudos can be transmitted !!

[rcboater]

Great minds think alike, Dave. I suggested a wingover as an alternative to an Immelman on this thread a couple of months ago. Although we were on the same track, my solution was nowhere near as neat as yours, and I didn't take any pictures. We did both find the same diagram though!

<Edit> I've just remembered why I suggested using a stall instead of the Immelman card. Compared with the split-S, half loop or true Immelman / hammerhead, the wingover is a relatively sedate, positive-G manoever which could be performed by most aircraft, including many which don't have an Immelman card in the deck.

I'm confused-- maybe I'm missing something- isn't using the stall instead of the Immelman card just effectively giving an immelman to a non-immelman capable plane? Isn't the only difference that the plane ends up a card width to the left or right of where it would have ended up if it an Immelman?

[Bedlam]

I'm confused-- maybe I'm missing something- isn't using the stall instead of the Immelman card just effectively giving an immelman to a non-immelman capable plane? Isn't the only difference that the plane ends up a card width to the left or right of where it would have ended up if it an Immelman?

That's the whole point. The wingover shouldn't be restricted only to aircraft with an Immelman card. The Immelman as described by WoW is an aerobatic manoevre restricted to small, agile aircraft. If an aircraft can't perform an "Immelman" (actually a half loop) because it's too big or full of bombs, the quickest way to reverse direction is to perform a wingover. Unlike an "Immelman" the aircraft's new heading is, indeed, off to one side of its original track. Granted, the bigger the aircraft the wider the radius of turn and thus displacement, but I was offering a simple solution, and the bigger base of the bombers seems to represent this. I haven't actually tried it in a game, though.

[Charlie3]

Don't forget though that an Immelmann will place the aircraft right back at the same altitude it was at when it began the maneuver. The wing over will cause the aircraft to lose altitude and end up facing the other way, so you aren't giving an Immelmann to a plane that isn't supposed to have one. However the wing over will only be useful in games using altitude because of this.

Sounds like a good maneuver set though. I was wondering if you could use the sideslips to represent the wingover followed by the reversed stall and the straight card. This might avoid arguments about which aircraft should go left or right, and keep the card alignments in keeping with the game mechanics...just a thought

[flash]

Don't forget though that an Immelmann will place the aircraft right back at the same altitude it was at when it began the maneuver. The wing over will cause the aircraft to lose altitude and end up facing the other way, so you aren't giving an Immelmann to a plane that isn't supposed to have one. However the wing over will only be useful in games using altitude because of this.

Complete Poppycock ! To use a phrase of the time - check out the diagram. A wingover finishes at the start altitude travelling in the opposite direction but parallel to where it entered the move. Basically it's a U turn in the sky... and it can be used in non-altitude games.

I may make further adjustments to the manoeuvre so the aircraft finishes up further to one side than it currently does as this turn comes out very tight but may leave this one as an "alternate" Immelmann for those who don't like the current one.

[usmc1855]

See this thread:

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...-Turn-Maneuver

It has good graphics in the discussion, as well as the card sequence I worked out for this maneuver.

It's very similar to what Flash has developed here.

Good options all the way around.

[Charlie3]

Complete Poppycock ! To use a phrase of the time - check out the diagram. A wingover finishes at the start altitude travelling in the opposite direction but parallel to where it entered the move...

Sorry, I have been mis-informed for many years as to what a Wing Over is.

I was unable to view the video or R/C Plane diagram here at work due to server security measures(got the dreaded "info not accessed due to unapproved site" message.) I took a look at it just before leaving for work today. I had always thought a Wing Over was a 1/8 to 1/4 roll with a rudder kick that put the plane into a side slipping dive causing the plane to lose altitude and change direction. Sort of a lazy Split S because you end up going the opposite direction at a lower altitude slightly off set from your original course.

Therefore I'll second your "Poppycock" and add a Nonsense in reguard to my earlier post! In addition, since we are so close to the end of the year I will admit that I was WRONG since I am allowed to be so once a year and have not been so to my knowlege this year
p.s. please don't bother to poll my wife about thebeing wrong thing. She keeps a different score book, but I'm not sure it is accurate!

[flash]

No worries Charlie, we all get things wrong and I used to share your misunderstanding about the wing over - so we must have picked it up from somewhere - probably Hollywood - they always screw it up !

[Volant Gun]

That's the whole point. The wingover shouldn't be restricted only to aircraft with an Immelman card. The Immelman as described by WoW is an aerobatic manoevre restricted to small, agile aircraft. If an aircraft can't perform an "Immelman" (actually a half loop) because it's too big or full of bombs, the quickest way to reverse direction is to perform a wingover. Unlike an "Immelman" the aircraft's new heading is, indeed, off to one side of its original track. Granted, the bigger the aircraft the wider the radius of turn and thus displacement, but I was offering a simple solution, and the bigger base of the bombers seems to represent this. I haven't actually tried it in a game, though.

I can't see a Hadley Page or a Gotha bomber doing a wingover. I don't think they had the power or the rudder authority to pull it off.

Does anyone agree?

[usmc1855]

I can't see a Hadley Page or a Gotha bomber doing a wingover. I don't think they had the power or the rudder authority to pull it off.

Does anyone agree?

I agree. It's an issue of whether or not the air frame can survive the stress of a quick zoom-climb to near the vertical stall point, and then do the wing over to dive back down, and suddenly pull out of the dive to go back to horizontal (or near horizontal) flight. The aircraft whose frames can sustain the stress of an immelman, can also sustain the stress of this maneuver.

[flash]

A Wingover is more a 20-40 degree climb & turn with steep banking to make the U turn; there is no turn at the point of stalling at the top of a climb. I think that's more like the hammerhead. (I have to say there is alot of cross naming of these similar moves in the references I've seen on the internet)
John (Bedlam) was, I believe, talking of WWII bombers initially on another thread & maybe the WWI 2 seaters which don't have the Immelmann card to make this sort of move by using different cards.
I suggested it as an alternate for those who don't like the Immelmann as is (I like it personally so will play both)

[Volant Gun]

I agree about the two seaters. I also agree that this game is highly adaptable as long as all the players agree to the rules.

Have Fun,
Volant Gun.

[Charlie3]

From a structural stand point I see no reason that the two seaters would not be able to perform the wing over maneuver as a reverse, since it off sets the plane to one side or the other it is really just a tighter turn.

Most of the reading I have done on the big bombers of WWI have said that they lost just as many to the planes falling apart when landing as they did having them shot down. This makes me think that most of them were at the edge of structural integrity, which means they would have been fine while flying sedately, but not able to be stressed much more. So I have to agree that there is no way one of the giant bombers would survive one of these maneuvers, and they should be stuck using the huge U turns provived by the turn cards in their decks.

[Hunter]

Sounds like a great manoeuvre sequence Dave. We will try it this weekend as an additional manoeuvre rather than a replacement for the Immelmann.

I have refined your "Wing-over Rule" for our use by adding the following:
1) In-line engined AC may wing-over to either side; but rotary-engined AC only to the right.
2) Player must announce at the Start of the Turn after all manoeuvres have been tabled that the AC will be winging-over (right or left) otherwise the AC peforms a normal Immelmann.

AND, a special Kudo to you for defining a manoeuvre sequence that can be used without altitude rules.

Thanks much Dave for your explanation of this maneuver. Very helpful indeed!

Bruce, can I call you Bruce? :-) Thanks for your refining as I think this will be accepted by our flight because it's totally logical.

[Gallo Rojo]

I like this maneuver, but I don't like very much the 'freedom' that player has to decide to which side he will place its plane during the second maneuver-card (the imelmann). I like much better the idea of strongly pre-established two or three cards maneuvers where the player don't have the chance to change anything.

So what about this:

instead of (1) Straight (2) Imelmann placing the rotated aircraft to the left/right (3) Straight

I suggest:

If you want to wing over to the left:
1st Maneuver Card: Left-Drift - 2nd Maneuver Card: Imelmann - 3rd Maneuver Card: Left-Drift

If you want to Wing Over to the right: same thing using Right-Drift.


Aditionaly: I liked Bruce's comment about rotary-engined planes being able to Wing-Over only to the right. But, is that historically accurate (I mean, couldn't a Camel do this maneuver to the left in real life?)
If it happens that they could, I suggest that rotary-engined planes are placed to the right of the imelmann card when wing-overing to the right, but do the normal imelmann when doing it to the left.

Does this makes sense?

regards,
Gallo

[Sijpe]

The wing Over seems to be a great maneuver to add flavour to the game. Regarding a feasible way of executing this maneuver within the limits of the game-mechanics, whilst still maintaining playability and taking into account most of the earlier remarks as well, I thought of the following tri-card combo.

1st card: climb-card.
-The plane gets a climb-chit as usual and executes his move normally. At this point, the player does not have to reveal his intentions of performing a Wing Over.
Why this card?
-This card reflects the gaining of altitude which is neccesary to perform a Wing Over. In combination with the second maneuver it will serve as an unquestionable indicator for performing a Wing Over.

2nd card: descent-card.
-This card must be placed offset by half the width of a card. With its blue maneuver-line lining up with either side of the airplane-card. Depending on wether you want your plane to make a right- or lefthand Wing Over. The airplane is then placed with the back of its card/flightstand touching the base of the black arrow but facing the opposite direction of what the arrow indicates, again with the side of the plane parallel to the blue line. The airplane has now effectively moved a card-width to the left or right, has reversed and has covered the same forward distance as he would have done when using an Immelman card.
Finally, he must lose a climb-chit in order to indicate that it returns to its initial height.
Why this card?
-Being an illegal move otherwise, this card irrevocably indicates that we're dealing with a special maneuver, just like the first two maneuvers of an Immelman, Split-S or overdive are a dead give-away. Depending on the third maneuver, this combination of cards can now only be, either a Wing Over or a plane-crashing illegal move.
Furthermore, using this card automatically allows two-seaters without an Immelman card to perform this maneuver, without the need of adding cards to their deck or special abilities to the airplane.
Finally, this card indicates that the airplane has only temporarily deviated from its initial altitude-level

3rd card: a right- or lefthand side-slip. (mandatory, otherwise: crash)
-The airplane executes this move normally. The side-slip should take the plane further away from its original position. Thus, when performing a righthand Wing Over, a player should end this card combo with a lefthand side-slip, and vice versa. When you chose the wrong side-slip during planning, your plane will make his turn too tight and crash as a result.
Why this card?
-With the side-slip, this maneuver incorporates the various speeds of aircraft. A fast airplane will make a slightly wider turn than the slower ones.
Secondly this card adresses the issue of which turn was intended during planning. A player cannot cheat by suddenly turning his plane in another direction during his second maneuver or he will pay the penalty when his intentions become clear during the third.
And finally this card will exclude bombers from performing this maneuver since they don't have side-slips in their decks.

To conclude my contribution to this topic, I really want to cheer on bruce's idea of allowing aircraft with liniar engines to perform Wing Overs in either way, but to restrict aircraft with rotary engines to the righthand kind only. This rule would really add a bigger diversity in flight characteristics of the available planes.
The only question I have with this idea is: doesn't this rule mean that the airco D.H.2 with its pusher rotary engine is capable only of lefthand Wing Overs?

I hope that this idea will be of any use to anyone.

[steel_ratt]

I like the concept, but I am unsure about its application to 2-seaters.

If this is supposed to a "a more sedate maneuver" than the Immelmann (so that it can be performed by aircraft that not capable of that maneuver), shouldn't it be slower to perform - taking two phases to complete the reversal, rather than just one?

It seems to me that allowing 2-seaters to perform an offset Immelmann (ie. a wing-over) simply removes the one weakness that they have. I think that it would be wise to at least limit them to a slow offset Immelmann, rather than eliminating the disability altogether.

[Sijpe]

@jon

I acknowledge the reservations you have towards the tri-card combo as was suggested by me. A quad-card combo does seem to be a better fit for the profile of a Wing Over. The real trick is to create the first two maneuvers as an illegal move in order to serve as an unique indicator for this special maneuver. I would suppose to add a stall-card as the second maneuver. This would alter the card combo as follows:

1st card: climb-card.
-The plane gets a climb-chit as usual and executes his move normally. At this point, the player does not have to reveal his intentions of performing a Wing Over.
Why this card?
-This card reflects the gaining of altitude which is neccesary to perform a Wing Over. In combination with the second maneuver it will serve as an unquestionable indicator for performing a Wing Over.

2nd card: stall-card.
-This card must be placed offset by half the width of a card. With its blue maneuver-line lining up with either side of the airplane-card. Depending on whether you want your plane to make a right- or lefthand Wing Over. The airplane is then placed at half a card-width with the corner of its card/flightstand touching the base of the arrow. The airplane has now effectively moved forward, as well as one card-width to the left or right.
Why this card?
-This card simulates how it takes the airplane both time and lateral movement before it reaches the apex of its impending turn. Being an illegal move otherwise, this card irrevocably indicates that we're dealing with a special maneuver, just like the first two maneuvers of an Immelman, Split-S or overdive are a dead give-away. Depending on the upcoming maneuvers, this combination of cards can now only be, either a Wing Over or a plane-crashing illegal move.

3rd card: descent-card. (mandatory, otherwise: crash)
-This card must also be placed offset by half the width of a card, only this time in reversed direction. Its red maneuver-line should run parallel with the appropriate side of the airplane-card. The airplane is then placed at half a card-width with the corner of its card/flightstand touching the base of the arrow. The plane has now reversed its flightpath and has moved yet another full card-width sideways.
It must also lose a climb-chit in order to indicate that it returns to its initial height.
Why this card?
Using this card automatically allows two-seaters without an Immelman card to perform this maneuver, without the need of adding cards to their deck or special abilities to the airplane.
Secondly, this card indicates that the airplane has only temporarily deviated from its initial altitude-level

4th card: a right- or lefthand side-slip. (mandatory, otherwise: crash)
-The airplane executes this move normally. The side-slip should take the plane further away from its original position. Thus, when performing a righthand Wing Over, a player should end this card combo with a lefthand side-slip, and vice versa. When you chose the wrong side-slip during planning, your plane will make his turn too tight and crash as a result.
Why this card?
-With the side-slip, this maneuver incorporates the various speeds of aircraft. A fast airplane will make a slightly wider turn than the slower ones.
Secondly this card adresses the issue of which turn was intended during planning. A player cannot cheat by suddenly turning his plane in another direction during his second maneuver or he will pay the penalty when his intentions become clear during the fourth.
And finally this card will exclude bombers from performing this maneuver since they don't have side-slips in their decks.

The extra time it takes to turn around with this quad-card combo will sustain the advantage that fighters, with their standard Immelmans, have over two-seaters. Also note that upon revealing the second maneuver, this combo will give away an airplane's position for two maneuvers in advance, which would even out any disproportionate advantages for two-seaters quite a bit.

[steel_ratt]

I don't think that you need a "unique indicator" to broadcast the move. None of the other special moves have this. (Prior to the Immelmann, all you have is a straight.) What IS needed is a unique card sequence that can only be interpretted as a wing-over.

The introduction of the 'allowed illegal move' - the double stall - introduces its own problems. Have you ever wanted to conduct a stall-stall maneuver to prolong your chances of firing, or to prevent yourself from flying across someone's arc of fire? Well, now you can. You would, of course, have to follow it up with the remainder of the wing-over maneuver but that may be a small price to pay (or may be even be advantageous).

One needs to be really careful with the introduction of new moves, especially ones that add capabilities that allow poeple to side-step specific game restrictions... unless this is what you are aiming to achieve.

For the 4-card wing-over, I had thought of specifying "straight, 2x 90 degree turn, straight', but again this allows planes to do things (the 90 degree turn) that they would not normally be able to do. It allows a Rumpler or DH.2 some of the same movement allowances as a S-Schuckert D.IV... and I'm not sure that that is desirable. Are the restrictions (straight before and after) enough to compensate for the ability to do 2x90 degree turns in either direction? Perhaps.

[You would need to borrow some 90 degree turns from a deck with the same speed rating. Too much messing about?!]

I don't know what the answer is... but I'm willing to throw ideas around!

[Bruce]

We tried Sijpe's 3-card wing-over sequence and liked it.
It gave the 2-seaters (that do not have Immelman cards) a performance increase; it makes the sideslip cards more useful; and it provides a reason to include the Climb and Dive cards in the manoeuvre decks when playing non-altitude games.
ALSO, in our non-altitude test games using Sijpe's 3-card wing-over sequence all 2-seaters including the Bristol Fighter (which has an Immelmann card) were not permitted to shoot their rear guns at the end of the Climb or the Dive maneuvres because the gunner would be hanging-on rather than shooting.
For aircraft that have Immelmann cards in their manoeuvre decks Sijpe's 3-card wing-over sequence also gives them more manoeuvrability/manoeuvre options.
We liked the Clime-Dive cards (with a direction reversal and a displacement left or right on the dive) because they are a "unique indicator" of the manoeuvre.

I will add this manoeuvre sequence to our first PBeM game this October 2012 and we'll see how the guys (10 or 12 players) like it. If it meets with approval, I will add it to our gaming group's house rules book.

Thanks Sijpe.

[Sijpe]

Hello Jon and Bruce,

Thank you for your comments. They're much appreciated and very helpfull.
Good catch on the double stall in the 4-card sequence. I guess I was a bit overzealous and got carried away when trying to lenghten the 3-card sequence. I completely failed to spot this flaw myself.
I still like the idea of a broader turn and a lenghtier sequence for the Wing Over, though. I'll have to take this particular "quad-card" idea back to the drawing-board and just perform some serious surgery on it. However, creating "Frankenstein's-decks" is where I draw the line. If that would turn out to be the only solution, I'll stick to my 3-card sequence. My next encounter with my own little band of plane-pushers is scheduled for October as well. May be one of them can come up with a bright idea? To be continued...

Personally, I agree with with a ban on rear gun fire during the climb and dive maneuvers of the 3-card sequence. But from an historical perspective, I really have no idea whether or not an able tailgunner would have had unsurmountable problems with keeping any trailing adversaries in its crosshairs. After all, we're treating this Wing Over as being a "sedate" maneuver. But I have not yet delved that deep into the thread-archives of historical discussions on this site. Will try and find out...

In the meanwhile; have fun with play-testing the Wing Over in October.

[Bruce]

I will report on the results from our first game (01 Oct -15 Nov).
More then.

[Horse4261]

Interesting, but what I am seeing is more of a representation of the historical WWI era Immelmann maneuver and not a the historical wing-over maneuver. My understanding of the WWI era wing-over maneuver was not a 180 degree flight direction change but rather between 30 to 120 degrees (left or right) from the starting position. Where both begin with a climbing maneuver, the Immelmann the uses primarily rudder control to kick the nose of the aircraft around to the opposite of its original heading and then dives back on to the target; the wing-over maneuver dropped one wing and allowed the aircraft to fall off the climbing aspect into a dive back to starting altitude but not coming back to the opposite of original heading.

[phililphall]

Chipping in my 2 cents, Flash is correct. A wingover is a vertical or near vertical turn. The a/c doesn't stall but flys around an arc maintaining more airspeed than in an Immelmann. At any point in the turn the a/c can level its wings. The Immelmann costs airspeed and, in the end, a certain amount of altitude while the a/c regains flying speed. My own thoughts on cardplay for the wingover would be: 1) climb card 2) turn card in the direction you are doing the wingover 3) any card except the stall or Immelmann card played against the stand side at 90*, the blue line aligned with the forward corner.