Best Allied medium bomber 1942-1943 besides the Mosquito

[swampyankee]

We also have the Russians claiming it flew well on one engine, something the PE-2 was not supposed to do for very long, at least according to one account.
One also has to look at many of it's contemporaries. Blenheims and Beauforts (and Hampdens early Wellingtons) struggled to stay in the air on one engine and often didn't. Many other early war twin engine bombers could not maintain height on one engine.
Which twin is more of a death trap, a plane that has bad spin characteristics or one that won't stay in the air with one engine?

A twin that needs both engines to maintain level flight is worse than a single; as twin-engine aircraft are slightly more likely to have a single engine failure than an aircraft with one engine.

 

[Shortround6]

True, but many early twins (of a number of nations) were underpowered and the British managed to keep the march of time (and fully feathering propellers) at bay for a few more years. I have no idea if the PE-2 had fully feathering props or not. NOT all constant speed props were fully feathering.

I have sometimes wondered if the Lockheed Hudson was called "old boomerang" ,supposedly because it always came back, because it was really so tough or because it had a decent power to weight ratio AND fully feathering propellers (at least after the first 250?) and could fly one engine?

 

[Dimlee]

One possibility as to why they didn't order foreign engines is that neither the US nor UK would sell them. Lend-Lease seemed to be for finished goods —aircraft, ships, trucks, etc — and spares, but not components.

I'm not aware of any restrictions in that respect unless I'm missing something.
US and UK did supply engines for lend leased aircraft. I saw numbers from 3 to 7.5 thousands. And there were other engines purchased specially for evaluation purposes. R-2800 was considered for La-5, for example.

 

[Dimlee]

We also have the Russians claiming it flew well on one engine, something the PE-2 was not supposed to do for very long, at least according to one account.
One also has to look at many of it's contemporaries. Blenheims and Beauforts (and Hampdens early Wellingtons) struggled to stay in the air on one engine and often didn't. Many other early war twin engine bombers could not maintain height on one engine.
Which twin is more of a death trap, a plane that has bad spin characteristics or one that won't stay in the air with one engine?

Indeed. I like Pe-2 a lot but have to acknowledge that B-25 and A-20 were more robust and could bring crew back home on one engine, that was confirmed by VVS pilots. Pe-2 could do aerobatics as barrel rolls. OK, nice. Was it useful in combat? I'm not sure.

 

[Schweik]

Indeed. I like Pe-2 a lot but have to acknowledge that B-25 and A-20 were more robust and could bring crew back home on one engine, that was confirmed by VVS pilots. Pe-2 could do aerobatics as barrel rolls. OK, nice. Was it useful in combat? I'm not sure.

Is there actual data saying that the Pe-2 couldn't fly on one engine or is that just an anecdote?

S

 

[Dimlee]

Is there actual data saying that the Pe-2 couldn't fly on one engine or is that just an anecdote?

S

Valid question. As far as I remember it was not possible to keep altitude with one engine. But you are right, actual confirmation is required. I'll try to find something.

 

[Dimlee]

Is there actual data saying that the Pe-2 couldn't fly on one engine or is that just an anecdote?

S

Done in separate thread. Enjoy.
Petlyakov Pe-2/one engine flight