Talk:Ambrosini SS.4

Assessment
"The canard wing concept proved in this case to be more of a burden than a benefit to the reliability and performance of the aircraft". This statement seems to be hardly defensible. The SS4 wasn't the Italian single-engined fighter equipped with the more powerful engine in 1939 (that was the Reggiane Re.2000, one of the "0" fighters), but was altough the fastest, the more heavily armed, the only one that didn't require the sincronization of the guns (and the wing mount of the guns isn't a comparable advantage, since that mount only replace the problems of the sincronization with those of the convergence), and that with the lowest wing-load. A a tricycle undercarriage is hardly a "design complication" (even the P.39 had one) and so the twin tail (common among many aircrafts at the time). Moreover, since the engine is placed exactly at the centre of the wings, it's hard to see how "with the adoption of more powerful engines, like the DB series, the baricenter would shift and cause more serious vibrations". A lot of fighters, like Spitfires, Macchi C.200, Mustangs and many others, were reengineered without problems during the war, although having the engine placed ahead of the wings, a location much more problematic for the baricenter shift. Needless to say, all those new engines required "improved cooling systems" too.

The canard concept proved to be too unconventional to be accepted by the Regia Aeronautica, but it don't seems that its' unique features made the SS4 harder to assemble, or affected the performances of the aircraft at all.


 * I have to concur. One of the cited sources, Italian Civil and Military Aircraft 1930-45, says regarding the plane that "The canard layout offered many advantages for fighter aircraft, among them improved visibility, concentrated forward-firing armament, and the elimination of slipstream drag effects through the use of a pusher airscrew. Accordingly, Ing. Stefanutti developed the Ambrosini S.S.4 fighter, which flew for the first time in May, 1939. Handling qualities proved more than satisfactory in extensive tests at Guidonia during 1940-41, stability being particularly good. The steerable tricycle landing gear, fully retractable on the S.S.4, was a factor contributing to the excellent take-off and landing qualities."  Unless the other cited source is quite damning, I can't see that this article is accurate.  Further, my copy of that source does not contain quite a bit of the information that is cited here.  I don't want to go rewriting the article, but someone needs to do a solid reference check here.  Xt828 (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)