Immelmann's Eindecker

Wondering if anyone knows some details about Immmelmann's last flight. Specifically, was he in an E. II or E.III, and also what serial number the plane was. Esoteric, I know, but I cant seem to find a reference anywhere.....

[Richard_Schrader]

Immelmann was flying a E-3 the day he was killed. The aircraft had been down for repairs that day. The ground crew had hurried the job and put the prop on backwards.
This messed up the guns gear and he shot off his own prop
which caused the engine to shake and tear itself off it's mounts.

I don't think you meant to say the Schwarzes put the prop on "backwards", I think you mean they put it on out of alignment. The prop had to be aligned with the interrupter gear or it wouldn't do its job. Installing a nose mounted prop backwards (reversed) turns it from a tractor prop into a pusher. The E III wouldn't have gotten off the ground. (It's
sort of amusing to envision the Fokker backing down the turf with the mechanics in hot pursuit!)

[Richard_Schrader]

My error, sorry about that. But you have to agree, the sight of a Fokker E-3 going backwards down a airfield would be a sight to see.
Richard

[Reinout]

Hello there,

I have a question, especially for Richard. Where does the info on his "Schwarzen Manner" come from? Did they neglect to align it at all or did they fail to align it correctly? That's a big difference and I am just interested. I have sometimes wondered how Immelmann would let this kill him. After all, he had shot his own propellor off before and he had had a clear enough mind on that occasion to immediately switch off the ignition before the engine tore itself loose. One would think that he would use such experience to his benefit and immediately push the button!

Kind regards,

Reinout

[Richard_Schrader]

Reinout;
Off the top of my head, I think I got the information from an old book called "Fighter". I'am at my office now, but will check later and try to get back to you.
Richard

[Vigilant]

Actually, had Immelmann's AMs been so stupid as to put his prop on backwards, the plane would still have gone forwards. For the thing to turn into a pusher, the engine direction would also have needed to be reversed. So it is _possible_. However, you'd have thought Immelmann might have noticed the lack of power! View from above:


<-- ) <--
Direction ) (
of rotation (Prop in section

----------- -----------

[Vigilant]

Well, my diagram didn't work, but I think that's right.

Putting a prop on backwards will NOT result in reverse motion, but will lower it's efficency drastically. I suspect that given the poor power:weight ratio of that era, a reverse fitted prop would more likely have resulted in an aborted takeoff, or , if flight was achieved, such a lousy or nonexistant climb that a pilot of Immelmans' calibre may well have landed straight away, voluntarily or otherwise!
If any of you have access to a simple model plane (Cox powered?), set the engine rich (low power) and try one flight with the prop each way - you'll see what I mean.

Paul Havill

[Darryl]

Gentlemen, please!!!
If the prop was on backwards the elavators would have been reversed and the wing warping wouldn't work and the guns would have fired backwards through the prop and hit Immelmann. Also hewould have to have landed upside down.
Yes, thats it, that's what killed him!!!!

I'm a dot