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.