Pe-2
 

;) There are number of references in literature that Pe-2 Soviet level bomber was in fact a direct copy of German Bf 110 (Me 110).Any comments?
Thank you. Cheriz .

Re: Pe-2
 

Absolute nonsense. The usual sort of rubbish spouted by those of a political/racist bent to disparage one group or another. Similar comments were made about the Zero being a copy of a US type. There was an argument that the Bf.110 was in turn a copy of the French Potez 63 - does this make the Pe.2 a copy of the Potez? Hardly.

Which is not to deny that every aircraft-building nation relied to some extent on observing what was being done elsewhere, and adopting what might be thought useful.

Re: Pe-2
 

Also, technology tends to point the way (as in "great minds think alike"). The twin Mustang and 109Z were each top secret projects started at almost the exact same time and the Shinden and Curtiss Ascender (Northrop Bullit, etc) were developed for the same reasons and ran into the same problems (more or less).


:)

Re: Pe-2
 

Re: Pe-2
 

Hey guys, why not? Both Me 110 and Pe-2 had two wings, two engines and twin tail!

:D :D :D

Re: Pe-2
 

Well - there is a connection as HGabor wrote;)
Peshka was based on VI - 100, wich was a prototype of high atlitude two engines heavy fighter having its maiden flight on 22 december 1939.
But.. we may say that two engine heavy fighter idea was quite popular in 1930's.
There are more myths about soviet planes - ie Su-9 being a copy of Me-262.

Re: Pe-2
 

:p
the similarities are obvious enough to be ignored.
I thought the point was about stolen designs or technology?

"we may say that two engine heavy fighter idea was quite popular in 1930's"

that is called 'Independant Discovery'

Re: Pe-2
 

Re: Pe-2
 

Well Graham has a point that is well illustrated by this paragraph. Half truths which are combined into "factoids" and influence versus copy.

Influence and greatly influenced blurr into the same meaning as copy.

The Panther design was literally influenced in many ways by the Soviet T34, but again it was not a copy - far from it. Influence can involve a complete oposite in design. The T34 was simplicity itself, the Panther was possibly the most complex "medium" tank of WW2.

The T-34 was pretty unique as a weapons system when it first entered the scene, but by highlighting some technical parts it has become "an enlarged and modified copy" of an older American design (in line with the Zero being a copy of American design, or even the Fw 190 being a copy of an American design by Hughes).

The design was so good, it could only be western / american.

Where the Soviets copied technology it is fairly open and either preceded by licence building or captured (superior) enemy technology, but lets leave some room for their own influential design capability.

I have to agree that even to question the origin of the Pe-2 when you can easily see that its similarity to the Bf 110 is very superficial to being not there at all.

The original question carries a level of provocation.

The answer to the Pe 2 being a direct copy can only be: nonsense!

BTW

Here's some info on Ich hatt einen Kameraden:

Uhland-Gedichte
Selected German Verse by Ludwig Uhland In the original German with a
side-by-side translation in English
BACKGROUND: This Uhland poem—also known as "Der gute Kamerad"—was written in 1809 and later set to music by the German composer Friedrich Silcher in 1825 (using an old folk melody, "Ein schwarzbraunes Mädchen hat ein'n Feldjäger lieb"). Uhland's poem (or Lied) was inspired by the Tyrolian freedom fighters and their struggle against Napoleon. It was popular enough during World War I to be parodied as "Ich hatt' mal Marmelade," reflecting the soldiers' hunger and lack of rations. Although it was written much earlier, the poem/song is often quoted/performed in memory of the veterans of the two world wars and for the German veterans day observance known as Volkstrauertag (on the third Sunday in November).

http://german.about.com/library/blkameraden.htm

The French also sing this song as J'avais un Camerade, but this is IIRC due to the high number of ex-Waffen SS men fighting in the Foreign Legion in the period after WW2.

As you can see it is hardly a ww1 song.

This forum is about discussion and raising questions, but it also demans that you put up an effort to find some answers yourself. As such I am tempted to regard the original question in a dubious light.

Provocative, but with with little value.

Perhaps I'm being too cyical, but helas experience proofs otherwise.

Re: Pe-2
 

As Ruy Horta wrote - the main subject of this topic was if Pe-2 or its roots VI-100 was a copy of Bf-110. And as many people wrote - it wasn't. It was very similar in designing idea but it was not a copy - in technical meaning of this word (as Tu-4 was for example). Panther wasn't a copy of T-34, Su-9 wasn't a copy of Schwalbe...
I think there is no need to arguee about the influence of western technology on Soviet aviation industry. Becouse it's obvious and well known. Most of soviet aviational engines were copies or developed copies (built on license or not) of French, British or German ones...
There is a very interesting book about German technologies in VVS service:
http://www.armybook.com/summary.html?code=0101007i35

Re: Pe-2
 

Cheriz, I've been reading the literature from long before the internet was invented. For over 50 years now, and have been professionally employed in aircraft design, performance, operational analysis and comparative aircraft studies. Which doesn't make me omniscient even in those fields, of course, but should make it clear that I have already read a few books on the subject. Perhaps we could compare the sizes of our personal libraries?

No doubt it wouldn't hurt to read a few more, or even reread (again) ones already in the collection. I will say again that the idea that the Pe 2 was a copy of the Bf.110 is nonsense, for it is. Whether the configuration chosen owed anything at all to the Bf.110 is open to considerable doubt, for reasons others have described. However, there is a massive step between choosing a configuration and producing an aircraft.

That the Russians made use of other people's technology at times is indeed true - as did every nation who ever built aircraft (and the tanks you quote). And they in their turn possessed technologies that some other nations did not.

I'd pick you up on a couple of details: just what is the pressurised carburettor that you talk about on the Merlin? If you mean the supercharger, that was widely used on many aircraft and the example on the Merlin was specifically RR technology. Also, the Tu.2 was also indeed a copy of the B-29, but not in every detail. It was armed with 23mm cannon rather than 0.5in machine guns, a fairly significant minor detail, and the engines were being tested/flown in Russian aircraft before the first B-29 arrived on Russian soil. No doubt it helped that much Russian engine technology was developed from earlier US engines. The same, however, is also true about Japanese and German radial engine technologies. And before that, much 1920-30s radial engine technology was based on the British Bristol company's designs. That's just the way things go in engineering.

As to whether I should be less direct in my expression: you may well have a point. On the other hand I feel that noticeboards, like civilisations, are capable of coping with a few outspoken comments in the interests of applying rational thinking.

Ruy does have a specific problem on this board, in common with other boards dealing with Luftwaffe subjects. An interest in Germany of the period does not mean direct love/hate of Nazi-ism, or indeed Communism. His position is made more difficult by threads that do not stem from a genuine spirit of enquiry.

Passionate Responce
 

are you aware that Andrei Tupolev,Vladimir Petlyakov, Vladimir Myasischev and Dmitri Tomashevich (and others)were arrested and thrown in prison because someone accused them of spying for the Nazis? does this sound like they were on good terms to you? at the end of the war Nazi troops fled the Russians in massive numbers to surrender to British and/or American troops because they feared for thier lives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheriz By the same token P-51 Mustang would have never been acclaimed as the best fighter of the World War II without Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, and Rolls Royce Merlin engine would have never been crowned as the best engine of its time without American technology of pressurized carburetor.

I would like to read more on the prussurized carburetor.
weren't later versions of the Merlin fuel-injected?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheriz Tu-4 Soviets only strategic bomber of late 1940s and early 1950s , capable to reach Continental United States was a direct replica of B -29 absolutely to the last detail .

not EXACTLY. American aircraft of the period used the old english system of measurement. (Inches) the soviets were using the metric system and could not copy it exactly ,so they had to substitute the closest metric equivelant. this is what actually slowed down it's development.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheriz The usual sort of rubbish spouted by those of a political/racist bent to disparage one group or another, to read a little bit more literature , spent more time on the internet and to be less passionate in your expressions . We are all here to learn and to share the information .

actually I try to be non-political and non-racist and do not seek to disparage anyone. the problem is that the Cold War has turned our friends into enemies and the truth into lies.
furthermore, I strong encourage everyone to read, be it books, magazines, newspapers or the internet. reading is almost a lost art and most people do not know what they are missing.
the best use of the internet is the free and open exchange of information, ideas and images for the betterment of everyone's education.
as for being less passionate about our expressions , if they are not passionate then they are not expressions.
without some passion I don't think there would be many of us here doing this. it is the passion that drives us, be it passion for the truth or history or simply for the sake of curiosity.

this is not meant as a personal attack against you or anyone else, just a pleasant reminder that we all make mistakes. that is what makes us human.

"I strive to find a balance between head and heart"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Re: Pe-2
 

Graham, don´t get me wrong but for an aircraft engineer to miss the pressurized carburettor is unacceptable! However, cheriz´s claim is also pure BS. The device in question is of course the ubiquitous Bendix-Stromberg pressure density carburettor, a single point injector in fact. However, the SU (Skinner´s Union) anti-G carb worked very much OK in the 60 srs Merlins. There is basically very little to choose between the performance of SU and Bendix carburetted engines.

The SU also developed a single point "speed density" single point injection system with a 5-plunger swash plate pump (used e.g. in the Mk 130). The RR developed this further using gear type pump. This was used in later Griffons.

Of course, German direct injection systems were the best fuel systems there was (don´t fall into simplistic Stanley Hooker inspired claims).

As an aside about gaps in trained personnel knowledge. Last Fridai I had a chat with a retired FinnAF Lieutenant. His job was to teach future AF mechanics on the secrets on aircraft engines. Some weeks ago he had atttented some event at his former base and had had a chat with a young cadet officer who had already had several years of mechanic training behind and even worked as a mechanic with the border guard. The pal of mine had asked this guy a couple of basic questions. The answers had been pretty frightening. That trained mech did not know:
-what is the purpose of the boost cauge in the Vinka´s (piston engine trainer) cockpit
-what is equivalent horsepower in turborops (he had no idea about turboprops´ exhaust thrust)
-that a jet engine produces more thrust in cold weather than in hot weather
-and that the jet engine thrust diminishes with altitude

As I heard this over the phone, I was pretty shocked at what kind of morons they pass thru the exams.

Re: Pe-2
 

Most likely a typo Graham but the Tu-2 was a twin engined, twin tailed medium bomber. The Tu-4 was the from the B-29.

Re: Pe-2
 

Kutscha: typo indeed. Apologies.

Jukka: there are many different kinds of engineers, and university-trained ones tend to be much more paper-based and much less practically inclined, especially regarding the details of technologies long gone before their entry into education. To my regret, my career did not involve any extended periods actually getting my hands dirty on the hardware. Which is more background than excuse. Thank you for the details of the different carburettors - do you know which was production standard on Merlins after the 60-series?

Re: Pe-2
 

Graham, here are some examples of Merlin fuel systems:
Bendix: marks 66, 68, 76, 77, 85, 85A, 85B, 86,
SU injector: all 100 srs, 600 srs, 700 srs

I´d recommend you to get RRHT books "Merlin in Perspective" and "Merlin 100 series". These two have all the above info plus a lot more. BTW, it is interesting to note that RRHT series has no volume 13!

Re: Pe-2
 

Thanks everybody for interesting and enlightened replies.
I cannot answer to all the e-mails at once so I’ll try to fractionate.
To Mr Graham Boak .My rather sharp retort was brought about by the impression that you implicated me in personal anti Russian bias. After you second e-mail I could see that I was wrong , and accepted the whole conversation in good spirit. I would like to know more about your library and exchange books and information.
To Mr Kurlannaiskos I am quite aware of many scientists being imprisoned at that time in Soviet Union. I could provide you with a bunch of other names who spent a few years of their lives in ‘sharashkas‘ and many who never returned . I wondering whether you know that Petlyakov himself designed his V I-100 and its derivate Pe-2 in that ‘cozy’ place? All of the above people had nothing to do with the politics and never spied on their country. Are you aware that Tupolev was accused of selling Me 109 design to Messerschmitt? The whole country was flooded with that malicious rumor . It was Stalin who single-handedly ran the unfortunate nation accusing people of the most absurd and heinous crimes and it was he who made the agreement with his spiritual buddy A.Hitler. But that is the totally different discussion and it has nothing to do with aviation . Concerning pressurized carburetors I will bring about some details in the next e mail though to answer your question as far as I know neither American or British Merlin engines were equipped with fuel injection systems there was no need for that. You have raised interesting point. This is true : Americans used British measuring system and Russians used metric. However the first few of the Tu-4 airplanes were build using British measuring .All of the equipment was acquired abroad and airplanes were copied to the absolutely last details including internal painting . A few simple souls were arrested mentioning British system in casual conversation or as a joke . Later production was converted to metric system and that resulted in to a heavier aircrafts with somewhat shorter range.
Greetings Cheriz.

Re: Pe-2
 

Yes at least I know and I believe that many members of this forum also do.
About 1000 scientists of all banches of science was forced to work in so called "Special Designing Offices" later called 4th Special Faculty of NKVD" during Stalin era. Tupolev, Glushko, Korolev, Petliakov are the most famous who suffered during purges.

Re: Pe-2
 

if you are aware that he designed the VI-100/Pe-2 while imprisoned at TsKB-29 , then why did you indicate otherwise? I am very aware the V.M. Petlyakov did most of the design work there, that is why your original post is so inflammatory. I am not aware of any of these aircraft designers actually being guilty of any of the charges they were imprisoned for. it seriously makes me wonder if the 'OP' (original post) was designed as a fishing trip to see what would be caught.
TsKB-29 (at Zavod 156 in Moskva) was a very busy and important place, both the Pe-2 and Tu-2 were both designed there and production of the Tu-2 was also started there.

That's a good joke ! make me laugh again !!!

the fear and political pressure the designers were under did effect the designs, although you may not see that in casual observation.

so how would US or RAF planes be able to out-maneauver the 109 if they didn't have fuel-injection? of course there was a need for it !

can you provide some more details? that is a very interesting story.

that is also interesting, can you go into more detail?

Re: Pe-2
 

Animum pictura pascit inani. Vergil -Aneid I 464
My question was simple and straightforward. I was looking for the answer. As I indicated there is a discussion on this issue. Instead I was treated to a meaningless exchange. In result I had no choice but to activate my contacts and to get the answer myself concerning where these discussion is standing now. {http://avn.thelook.ru/propaganda/articles1-010.html} has the latest information. The article is the reply to a book by Mr Muhin who is the publisher of weekly Magazin ‘ Duel” (http://www.duel.ru/)
In Russia Mr Muhin is considered to be an authority in military history, although some would consider him an extreme nationalist. Nevertheless in his book “ Get read of dollars” he states his conviction that Pe-2 is a direct copy of Me 110 .Even for those who cannot read Russian it is clear what the article is all about. In the title Pe-2 is in Cyrillic but Me 110 is for everybody to see. There are also three drawings one upon the other. The top one is VI 100, Me 110 in the middle, Pe-2 at the bottom. Compare drawings for yourself.
The reply article is well-balanced and presents good arguments. I also contacted {http://www.airforce.ru/articles/articles.htm }and received a detailed account of the situation. At no point did any of the responders used expressions like:
Absolute nonsense… The usual sort of rubbish… political/racist
here is NO connection with the 'Peshka' and the 110
The original question carries a level of provocation.
The answer to the Pe 2 being a direct copy can only be: nonsense!
Provocative, but with with little value
And mind you they are all Russians.
All the answers were very polite, professional, and up to the point.
This controversy indeed exists and currently under discussion in Russia.
To Mr Jukka Juutinen:
Utilizing the fact that most of the readers don’t know much about air engines you are trying to present yourself as the supreme expert.
When I said ‘the best air engine’ I meant American made by Packard. With Hamilton-Standart propeller governor, American made fuel pump, starter, generator, hydraulic pump, air pump, ignition system and Bendix pressurized carburetor it was lighter then the British made Merlin with the same power.
With American mass production philosophy (British engines were hand fitted) It was much more reliable, functional, and much easier to install replace and maintain.
The British SU carburetor resolved the problem of the negative G for British Merlin but otherwise remains the same old design based on vacuum principles with all the inherent drawbacks of that system. It was also much less reliable than the American pressurized carburetor.
You are wrong stating that the direct injection system used by Germans was the best one at that time. Though many arguments could be presented in favor of either direct injection or pressurized carburetor it cannot be denied that under the reality of combat condition the American pressurized carburetor had a number of advantages for the fighter plane.
Direct injection had the advantage of the precise delivery of the fuel that resulted to greater economy. However P -51 design was so advanced that the economy was not an issue . P-51 had a far superior range then any of the German fighters. B -17 engines had pressurized carburetors and they possessed more than sufficient range on European theater, when United States faced tremendous distances over the Pacific they equipped B-29 with direct fuel injection .
On the other hand direct injection system was exceptionally sensitive to any impurities in fuel. As a result transportation fueling and refueling presented a challenge under the field conditions especially in the summer or in North Africa with a plenty of dirt and dust around . Field maintenance, replacement, repair were much easier and more expeditious with a pressurized carburetor. Direct injection was also more prone to battle damage. One bullet to the fuel injection pump would incapacitate an engine instantaneously.
Any of 12 separate fuel lines to individual cylinders once ruptured would cripple the whole aircraft due to vibration and spilled fuel was ideal media for fire. A pressurized carburetor provided the same power and was equally immune to negative G’s. It was much less sensitive to the impurities in fuel and less damage prone in case being hit. Even punctured it would still deliver though with less efficiency. Your snide remark toward Mr.Stanley Hooker is a true disservice to the memory of a brilliant British mathematician who enabled Merlin’s engine to be what it became.
Talking about BS. I noticed that you like to finish with quotations by Stalin. If you don’t know the true meaning then it’s a shame and it puts your ability to make the right decision in question. If on the other hand you understand the cannibalistic meaning of it… then nothing else to be added. In that case it would be more appropriate if you use quotations by Pol Pot at least it is more up-to-date. It is most surprising especially from the person originating from Finland.
To Mr kurlannaiskos:
if you are aware that he designed the VI-100/Pe-2 while imprisoned at TsKB-29 , then why did you indicate otherwise?
I did not indicate anything I just posed simple and legitimate question.
it seriously makes me wonder if the 'OP' (original post) was designed as a fishing trip to see what would be caught .
This is amazing I think you have a touch of paranoia . I am quite sure you will perform well on Rorschach test.
When I tried to explain to you that the political situation inside the Soviet Union was totally controlled and manipulated by Stalin, and as the example provided you with well-known fact of the ridiculous accusation concerning Tupolev your answer was :That's a good joke ! make me laugh again !!! This reply is worthy of a coy teenage girl but not of a serious person .
so how would US or RAF planes be able to out-maneauver the 109 if they didn't have fuel-injection? of course there was a need for it.
This reveals your ignorance when it goes to the air battles of WW II . There are some participants of the forum who will explain to you the difference between a regular carburetor, a pressurized carburetor, and a direct fuel injection.
When I posed the question I wanted to save some time in my research expecting that you are a serious group of people, helpful, and interested to find the truth and to learn something new. To my surprise I found a congregation of amateurs with a puerile kindergarten machismo.

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.