Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "The Ambrosini SS.4 – Italy’s Deadly Duck" video.

  1.  @smellysam  The Asso XI / L.121 was a pretty conventional design, and very apt for large scale production. It ended up being used mainly in the CANT 501 Flying boat because the Regia Aeronautica, during the '30s, considered radial engines to be better suited for fighters. Only in november 1939 the recomendation switched to inline engines (with the effect that a powerful radial like the 1500hp Piaggio P.XV, homologated the same month, never ended up on fighters), but it recommended also to use inverted V engines (for better visibility of the pilot) so excluding the Asso XI again.
    4
  2. No, the pilot could always bail out (by jumping ahead of the main wing's edge), but the test pilot almost always prefers an emergency landing. Also there was a minimum height to bail out.
    2
  3. It doesn't work like that. Look at where the cockpit is. The pilot leaves the aircraft by jumping AHEAD of the main wing, and, when he jumps, he's going forward at the same speed of the aircraft and falling at gravity acceleration. For when he has slowed down enough his forward speed for the prop to pass over him, he's already several dozens meters below the aircraft. To say that the prop is going to kill him is like saying that who jumps out of a conventional aircraft is normally killed by the tailplanes.
    2
  4.  @alexvokes  Only in the case the aircraft is ascending vertically, and it would be prety weird to leave an aircraft that has the power to do that. In the most likely scenario, whit the aircraft descending nose down, the pilot is even safer. Mind also that often wounded pilots opened the cockpit , released the seatbelt and baield out by rolling the aircraft. Also in this case the pilot would be safe in the SS.4
    2
  5.  @alexvokes  Yeah, I admit it can be dangerous in case of fistfight on the runway or chasing pidgeons, but you have to admit those are not common occurrences...
    2
  6.  @TheAnxiousAardvark  The two radiators are of about the same dimensions of the two of the Bf109E.
    2
  7. The pilot simply bails out ahead of the leading edge of the wing (or by overturning the aircraft with the cockpit open) and, since he's moving at the same speed of the aircraft, he had fallen many meters before the propeller passes over him. Despite looking impressive, it's actually less dangerous than bailing out of a P38.
    2
  8.  @andrewstrongman305  You can see any parachute jump from the side of a plane. For when the tail of the plane passes over the diver, he's FAR below it. https://youtu.be/MaFP8x2JArU?t=19 In the SS4 the pilot doesn't "crawl from the cockpit to the wing". He doesn't touch the wing at all. The cockpit is already far ahead of the wing, and the pilot jumps ahead of the wing. Problem solved. Bailing form a conventional fighter IS more dangerous. There the pilot bails from the trailing edge of the wing, so he had to crawl over the wing, it's subject to the drag for longer time before leaving the plane, and it's closer to the tailplane. That's why they were sometimes killed from it.
    2
  9.  @brentdallyn8459  They "mostly" worked. They worked all the times when the aircraft didn't explode or caught fire. And the second contingency had been pretty common. Also, when your engine catches fire, it's better to have it behind you than ahead of you.
    2
  10. Only tht this came out four years before the Ascender.
    2
  11. Infact after this incident the Regia Aeronautica started requesting TWO prototypes for any proposed new aircraft, to avoid an incident to one to completely stop the program. One of the prototypes of Reggiane Re.2001 had a very similar incident, but it ended up being a good and appreciated fighter.
    2
  12. Look at where the cockpit is. The pilot leaves the aircraft by jumping AHEAD of the main wing, and, when he jumps, he's going forward at the same speed of the aircraft and falling at gravity acceleration. For when he has slowed down enough his forward speed for the prop to pass over him, he's already several dozens meters below the aircraft. To say that the prop is going to kill him is like saying that who jumps out of a conventional aircraft is normally killed by the tailplanes. As for rear visibility, the early Spits had the mirror.
    2
  13.  @Simon_Nonymous  For the pilot to be dragged above the wing from where the cockpit is, he should be made of feathers. You can see in any WWII parachute jump footage than the paratrooper is several meters below the exit door before being dragged one meter behind it.
    2
  14. No. Look at where the cockpit is. The pilot leaves the aircraft by jumping AHEAD of the main wing, and, when he jumps, he's going forward at the same speed of the aircraft and falling at gravity acceleration. For when he has slowed down enough his forward speed for the prop to pass over him, he's already several dozens meters below the aircraft. To say that the prop is going to kill him is like saying that who jumps out of a conventional aircraft is normally killed by the tailplanes.
    1
  15.  @baystgrp  You can see any video of a parachute jump. WWII or later. They fall several meters before being drag a single meter behind the jump door. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA8A3sv7hx8
    1
  16. Those are BMW and Mercedes.
    1
  17. The two side radiators are of about the same size than the underwing radiators of the Bf109e or the Reggiane Re.2001.
    1
  18. Both the BF109 and the Spitfire had the fuel tank behind the pilot. Better having the engine stopping the bullets and then glide to the ground than explode.
    1
  19. Look at where the cockpit is. The pilot leaves the aircraft by jumping AHEAD of the main wing, and, when he jumps, he's going forward at the same speed of the aircraft and falling at gravity acceleration. For when he has slowed down enough his forward speed for the prop to pass over him, he's already several dozens meters below the aircraft. To say that the prop is going to kill him is like saying that who jumps out of a conventional aircraft is normally killed by the tailplanes.
    1
  20.  @fredweller1086  Are you that seem to know much more than the historians and engineers. Infact, to school who designed the SS.4, you have to be ho, so much more prepared than them. Unfortunately, you seem to have overlooked the fact that, bot the XP-55 and the DO 335 had the cockpit placed much further back than on the SS.4. so the pilot bailing out was supposed to slip over the wing like in a conventional aircaft. IN THAT CASE, the propeller was too close. Maybe historians and engineers are less idiot than you believe. You can see in any parachute jump, in WWII and later, than the jumper is several meters below the exit door before being dragged a single meter behind it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA8A3sv7hx8
    1
  21.  @fredweller1086  You are very very confused. The cockpit placement is relevant in leaving the aricraft by jumping in front of the main wing, so leaving the aicraft at its same speed, or having to slip over the wing, so loosing speed and approaching the propeller at the same time. Your false equivalency is nonsensical. Unfortunately it seems that understanding physics is not for all.
    1
  22.  @fredweller1086  One that thinks humans bailing out of an aircraft are dragged behind like sheet of papers shouldn't talk of "math". "jumping forward" Is just an invention of you. Probably something your brain came up with, not being capable of understand the real terms of the question. "magic" is what you want to replace physics with.
    1
  23.  @fredweller1086  And, when you read "jumping in front of the main wing" your brain translates "jumping forward". To your brain those are the same words. Because obviously you didn't even notice the cockpit of the SS.4 being already well ahead of the main wing, so the pilot has not to "jump forward" to pass in front of it. Or, having seen it, you are unable to understand it, infact, in your magic world "the cockpit placement is not relevant". As already said, unfortunately understanding physics is not for all. Nor is understanding written texts.
    1
  24. Look at where the cockpit is. The pilot leaves the aircraft by jumping AHEAD of the main wing, and, when he jumps, he's going forward at the same speed of the aircraft and falling at gravity acceleration. For when he has slowed down enough his forward speed for the prop to pass over him, he's already several dozens meters below the aircraft. It was way more dangerous to bail out of a P-38, but the technique of slip along the wing and pass under the tailplane worked anyway.
    1
  25.  @scootergeorge9576  With a P-38 there space between the wing and the horizontal stabilizer is much tigher for the pilot to pass. Your argument fails.
    1
  26. Mind that the subsonic aircraft speed is bound to the cube root law. To double the speed you need eight times the power. The difference in speed between having a 960hp Isotta Fraschini Asso XI and a 1075 hp DB601 would have been 10 miles an hour at best.
    1
  27.  @HootOwl513  To be killed by the tailplanes was possible but not normal. Marseille did only because his aircraft was on his back and diving. In the same situation the prop of the SS.4 would be dangerous, so what's the difference? The blow-away prop was needed on the X-55 because in that case the cockpit was placed further back, and the pilot was supposed to slip on the wing, like in a conventional aircraft.
    1
  28. Look at where the cockpit is. The pilot leaves the aircraft by jumping AHEAD of the main wing, and, when he jumps, he's going forward at the same speed of the aircraft and falling at gravity acceleration. For when he has slowed down enough his forward speed for the prop to pass over him, he's already several dozens meters below the aircraft. To say that the prop is going to kill him is like saying that who jumps out of a conventional aircraft is normally killed by the tailplanes.
    1