Talk:I.Ae. 41 Urubú

Latest comment: 14 years ago by The Bushranger in topic Comments

Comments

edit

Hi DPdH. I've added metric conversions. BTW, this newer template Template:Aircraft specs does it for you! I've also changed the glide angle to 1:24,as I am sure the figure from Cordoba is a misprint: they say 1.24 m which makes no sense. 1:24 is the right sort of ratio and if you go to [[1]] you'll see that is what they say. Their other data are close to the Cordoba numbers.

I'll add this article to the new aircraft pages in September list Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) unless you'd like to do it.

Hard question: is this chap really a flying wing? The category definition focusses on the lack of a body, putting the Urubú, which has a body, in Category:Tailless. That's where I've put the I.Ae. 34 just now, anyway. Some categorizations are easier than others! Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes it is a flying wing. The aircraft isn't big enough to house a cockpit without some sort of pod, witness the B-2 and the B-49. Flying wing does not mean no pods or lumps and bumps, it is just a different expression for 'Tailless'.Petebutt (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Note: An info box does not a yes in supporting materials make.Petebutt (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. I'd certainly call the Horten H.IV, with its prone pilot, as a flying wing, but this one, with its flat sided, possibly aerodynamically stabilizing fuselage is a bit different though having almost the same span. There are always blurry overlaps between cats, I guess, and I'd not get too excited, but you might like to look at Tailless aircraft#Flying wings, even though WikiP is nor citeable and this section has no cites! TSRL (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

To me 'Tailless' is something like the Me 163, DH.108 or XP-56. Although yes, there is a soft boundary between tailess and flying wings sometimes... - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 22:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply