Has anyone in actual reading or study, found evidence that fighter pilots actually used the “Split S” method n WWI?
Split S
Has anyone in actual reading or study, found evidence that fighter pilots actually used the “Split S” method n WWI?
This from Eddie Rickenbackers book published in 1919. Sorry it is so small.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
The French call the split-S a renversement & I've seen that mentioned in pilot accounts I've read over the years along with other French terms, so doubtless they used it.
"He is wise who watches"
Here is the diagram from Rickenbacker's book in a larger format.
Southwestern Ohio Wings of Glory Group - Join us on the second Saturday of the month at Dragon's Guildhall in greater Dayton
Random times we can be found at Victory Pints northeast of Cincinnati, or Capstone Games near Evendale
None of those Rickenbacker manoeuvres result in loss of altitude - they all start and finish at identical level...
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
My thought here is the structural integrity of the planes to do a Split S, didn’t happen until late 1917 and beyond. Early Albatross and Nieuports and even the DR1 couldn’t handle the stress. Just my opinionOriginally Posted by flash
With the great distances of height covered by a peg, or even a climb counter, it just shows that in the vertical space the game is a bit off.
Southwestern Ohio Wings of Glory Group - Join us on the second Saturday of the month at Dragon's Guildhall in greater Dayton
Random times we can be found at Victory Pints northeast of Cincinnati, or Capstone Games near Evendale
The Renversement illustrated above is what I understand to be the Immelmann turn.
Also, my understanding of a Split-S turn is something like this:
So, some altitude loss with this maneuver, if only a little, depending on when the pilot pulls out.
Mike
"Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
"Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59
They were maybe stronger than you're thinking, Dan.
I've seen WW1 footage of Nieuports being thrown about & stunting but can't find the link now as those posted previously are broken. I think you'd be surprised at what they could do.
And if the Dr.1 can't handle the stress, nobody has told Mikael Carlson that.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYmL2YkVFro
"He is wise who watches"
Possibly the term was used for both, Mike, as renversement means a reversal, an inversion, the act of reversing, which the split-S certainly does.
"He is wise who watches"
Yes, that's what I think too.The Renversement illustrated above is what I understand to be the Immelmann turn.
Also, my understanding of a Split-S turn is something like this:
So, some altitude loss with this maneuver, if only a little, depending on when the pilot pulls out.
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
I'm certain the WW1 a/c in general were strong enough to perform aerobatic flying. The BE2c, for example, was capable of looping, and was looped on occasion by brave pilots, per Duncan Grinnell-Milne. It may have been Rickenbacker or Grinnell-Milne who wrote some aerobatic maneuvers, however, were of little value in a dogfight. Yet, some a/c were plagued by structural weakness, usually in regards to wings. Sesquiplane types are especially notable for this. Sometimes wing failure was due to poor construction, such as in some Fokker a/c.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks