Can someone explain why RCDB calls these cutbacks Immelmans?

There's a really common element found on a lot of Eurofighters that is something like a cutback or horseshoe or what-have-you:

(Far left of image)

Untamed is a 320+ model Eurofighter, which I think is the most common model. RCDB calls almost all of these elements Immelmans, and I have to say I just don't see it. The one exception I can find is on Rock Bottom Plunge at MOA. I can't find a good image of the element but it's the same deal, and on RCDB it's listed as a horseshoe.

Another interesting discrepancy is that the 320+ models are listed as having 3 inversions, including the immelman/cutback/horseshoe, whereas Rock Bottom Plunge is only listed as having two, despite having the same inverting elements in the same order as the 320+ models (loop, imm/horse/cut, in-line twist).

Does anyone know why all this is? Simple typos? Does Gerstlauer call those Immelmans? Is there a reason I'm not seeing that the 320+ cutbacks should be called an inversion, but the one on Rock Bottom shouldn't? The latter is the smallest of the Eurofighters IIRC but I believe the banking angle at the peak of the horseshoe is still about the same.

TIA

[Coasterkidmwm]

The ride manufacturers dictate what they call their elements. This is why nobody but B&M calls a corkscrew a "flat spin". Sometimes the manufacturer's lingo makes it on to RCDB, other times it doesn't.

the only thing I can say for sure is that the only real cutback (Drachen Fire) was like rct. It was completely upside-down, not just a serious banked overturn like the eurofighters are.

To be fair Skyrocket, the only other coaster listed as having one doesn't fully invert either and I've been on both but never a Eurofighter so I wouldn't know if they feel any different but I don't think Skyrocket's cutback listing should count based off of riding Drachen Fire. It's a totally different feel than Arrow had.

Uh, it actually wasn't, as your own picture clearly shows. It's maybe 160 degrees of bank - absolutely not straight up-and-down.

uhm... yeah it was



kids these days. Not like I RODE IT OR ANYTHING

I rode it plenty of times. With the original corkscrew, even.



NOT vertical. Look at the ties.

[Paradox]

Rekt

Every fixed cam video must be wrong lol Angled distance shots prove everything XD






Anyway you're one of those arguers anyway lol. Even still it was considerably steeper of a degree than inclined loops and the horeshoe/immelman turns so uhm yeah it went upside-down

Dude, look at your own videos that you keep thumping for some reason. Look at the POV from about 1:17 to 1:19. The two main supports on the top of the cutback. The two main supports are vertical....and the track is obviously about 40-45 degrees off vertical.

The highest degree bank is in between the supports that aren't even at the apex of the inversion. Also the supports are aren't relative to the angle of the track anyway so what's your point about the supports?

edit: really why even argue with you? Non of what you say discredits anything I said anyway

Keep on living in your own universe where you ignore hard facts.

How about this...post some clear offride evidence, with clear reference points, that shows the inversion DOES go vertical.

Some blurry screenshot of a youtube video doesn't count.


Here, I'll refer you again to the photo YOU posted which clearly shows it isn't fully upside down:

Calm down guys. I thought I was reading a TPR thread for a second then

This is a silly argument, can we agree to meet in the middle here and say its some where between 170 and 180?
The difference in those 10 degrees is tiny so why even argue about it in the first place? What happens when you have 2 very stubborn posters

[mkingy]

Ckidd 10 degrees means alot when your talking about how erect your e-peen is.

The way I see it, just to add my two cents, If I'm upside down, it's an inversion, regardless of banking.

[mkingy]

Rickrollercoaster wrote:

The way I see it, just to add my two cents, If I'm upside down, it's an inversion, regardless of banking.

I can't wait to strap you into a rollercoaster upside down so we can break the world record for most time upside down on a ride. :]

This is all well and good but this question really wasn't about whether or not it's an inversion, nor did it have *anything* to do with a long-winded argument about Drachen Fire (although I appreciate you pointing out the one previous existence of a true cutback, Lucky).

The simple question is how anyone, manufacturer or RCDB, could consider an element shaped that way to be an Immelman, which has a very specific set of motions based on aerobatic maneuvers.

This was already asked in the first post but maybe someone who hasn't seen this knows, does Gerst call these Immelmans or horseshoes, I guess is the real question? It just baffles me that anyone could call that an Immelman. At least B&M's "flat spin" for a corkscrew makes a certain amount of sense... I guess. More than calling a horseshoe-shaped curve an Immelman at the very least.

I've heard of "immelman curve"s but I can't remember which coaster(s) have them, so I guess there's a possibility that's what Gerstlauer typically calls those horseshoes. But even if that's the case I remain confused as to how an Immelman turns into an overbank even if it's just a crappy/sloppy name.

[Dirk_Ermen]

This just all dates back to it's origin. An Immelmann was a flight maneuverer named after Max Immelmann who pretty much invented it around the WWI.
As how most of us know the element because of B&M's replica on how the maneuver goes, other manufacturers take it more on the saying what it does: "To return into the same direction you came from." Which is pretty much what a cutback element does as well.

Then again, if you check the wiki on this maneuverer you'll see 2 images:

This one looks a lot more like the cutback/immelmann from Gerstlauer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immelmann_ ... n_turn.svg
But this other one is a lot more like the descriptions and where B&M based their immelmann on.

Eventually, it's all just what manufacturers call their elements. Look at RMC's Goliath for example: They called their Dive loop an 180?????? Zero G Roll and Inverted drop...

Did someone say Immelmann? Yes? Okay.

Dirk, you're right that the image you included does appear much more similar to Gerst's "immelmans," but I still think that Gerstlauer is kind of pulling names out of their behinds if they're the ones responsible for calling it an Immelman. There are indeed (at least) two different variations of the Immelman in aerobatics, but even the one that more resembles this horseshoey element is meant to end up both in the opposite direction *and at a higher elevation from entry* (IIRC), something closer to a "junior immelman," which may very well be based on the more modern aerobatic version.

If we're really splitting hairs here, it's not as if what B&M calls an Immelman is exactly the same as an (older-style) air maneuver-- at least most of the time-- but IMO they're much closer and at least get the essence of the whole direction-changing-attack-from-above thing from aerobatics.

All that aside, I fully realize that Gerstlauer could call a vertical loop a "cobra immeltwist" if they wanted to. It would be silly, but they could. Still, it just bugs me that this element bears such a passing resemblance to anything aerobatics calls an Immelman, really just the 180-degree turn. I mean obviously it doesn't really matter. It just seems about as silly as a "cobra immeltwist" to me, considering there are a) other aerobatic maneuvers that are more similar to a horseshoe that the element could have been named after, b) elements don't have to be named after aerobatic maneuvers, and c) *someone* considers the same-but-smaller element on Rock Bottom a "horseshoe."

I pretty much get it, I just don't agree with it!

[Paradox]

According to RCDB the inversion after the launch is an immelman, not a dive loop which is what it really is.

^ whatever it is I want it, and the coaster its on in my life lol

Paradox wrote:

According to RCDB the inversion after the launch is an immelman, not a dive loop which is what it really is.

No it's not. It's a shaded dive loop.

Because dive loops can get sunburn.

[TTD03]

Kinda glad I missed this drama in my absence...
Fight nicely ladies

[mkingy]

Maurer S??????hne wrote:

To give a brief idea of what this extremely compact
and diversified track design with Launch effect has on
offer: right after the station passengers find themselves
launched in a rocket-like manner. The launch is achieved
by an LSM drive (Linear Synchronous Motor), whereby
an acceleration of some 70 km per hour is reached
within the shortest time, thanks to its high degree of
efficiency. This is immediately followed by an extremely
compact special loop which leads directly into an
Immelmann.

source: http://www.maurer-rides.com/files/amuse ... XL1000.pdf

The immelmann is actually, according to Maurer S??????hne, the high turn after the dive loop (special loop) - not that this makes RCDB right but it shows they generally go by what the manufacture says!