Talk:I.Ae. 41 Urubú

Comments
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 [] 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 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)
 * 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)

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

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, even though WikiP is nor citeable and this section has no cites! TSRL (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 fire Flank speed 22:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)