This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Argentina Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentina. If you would like to participate, you can improve I.Ae. 41 Urubú, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Aviation: Aircraft / Gliding / Air sports This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by the aircraft project. This article is supported by the gliding project. This article is supported by the Air sports project.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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 fire} ^{Flank speed} 22:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply