Re: Pe-2
 

:piliot:

I am glad you found a better venue for your questions. Good luck on your further quest for answers!

Re: Pe-2
 

Cheriz, please prove that the corresponding Packard variant was lighter than an RR produced one.

Cheriz, if you really believe that the B-29 (some, not all) had direct injected engines to increase range, then you have missed some essential reading. I know the primary reason, but you do your own homework.

Cheriz, how on earth does your anti-direct injection propaganda sound precisely like the wartime propaganda from RR people like Stan Hooker?

Cheriz, use your real name like most of us or shut up.

Re: Pe-2
 

To Jukka Juutinen.
Do I have the numbers to prove my points ?
Yes. But I’m not interested to provide the information or maintain conversation with a person using foul language . I think that people who throw imprecations sitting on the other side of Atlantic Ocean must be very miserable in their lives to use this kind of expressions. If you admit that throwing things like ‘BS’ and ‘shut up’ is inappropriate and stop using stinking Stalin’s expression I will give you numbers.
Cheriz.

Re: Pe-2
 

I agree with the forumers who wrote it is nonsense. I would like to know how many "authors" of these "reference" materials have ever seen Pe-2 documentation, manuals, flight instructions etc. For instance -- how many of them would be able to give correct Pe-2 performance for WISH-61B propeller powered variants and for AW-5LB-139 propeller powered ones. Or, who of these "authors" differentiates M-105 and M-105RA engines in the Pe-2s. Etc., etc...

:)

Re: Pe-2
 

just a few slight corrections...
that should be VISH -it is the Russian abbreviation for 'variable-pitch propeller'

also that should be AV-5...
(another popular type of prop used on MiG's and 'Ilyushas' in one sub-model or another)

these mistakes are typical when Russian is translated into an intermediary language and then translated into English from there.
it is always best to translate the Russian directly into English for best results.

that is why it is always best to read it/see it in the original Russian, rather than some other languages transliteration from it.

Re: Pe-2
 

Hello

Of course you are right. The original terminology is ВИШ-61Ъ and АВ-5ЛВ-139. I did one more error -- it ought to be AV-5LV-139.

Thanks for corrections.

Regards

E.

Re: Pe-2
 

No problem !
you are quite welcome.

is your keyboard Cyrillic-enabled?
I noticed an unusual character there.
maybe it's just the way the forum displays it.