The best Russian bomber?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by pampa14, Oct 4, 2015.

  1. pampa14

    pampa14 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The link below provides a collection of photos, including some rare showing planes captured by the Germans with Finnish markings. Do you agree with the statement that the Petlyakov Pe-2 was the best light bomber of World War II? Visit the link, see the photos and give your opinion.


    Aviação em Floripa: Petlyakov Pe-2


    Best Regards.
     
  2. fastmongrel

    fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,343
    Likes Received:
    409
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motor Mechanic
    Location:
    Lancashire
    I think the Pe-2 was the best Soviet twin engine light bomber but best in WWII thats a stretch I think. It has to fight for the title of best against the DH Mosquito, Me410, Yokosuka P1Y, Douglas A-26 Invader just to name a few.
     
  3. fastmongrel

    fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,343
    Likes Received:
    409
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motor Mechanic
    Location:
    Lancashire
    #3 fastmongrel, Oct 4, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2015
    ..
     
  4. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    #4 GregP, Oct 4, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2015
    It was a very good one, especially consiering the conditions in which it operated which would have grounded many of the competition ... but the best? We have some numbers for the other, more familiar allied bombers as far as sorties, tons of bombs on targets, possible kills, and losses. I have never seen MUCH in the way numbers for the Pe-2 with which to compare it to other twins of the time.

    I DO have some data for 1944. The Pe-2 looks better than the Douglas A-20, but I don't have any data for the other Aiiled twins in the same area or covering the same numbers.

    I doubt it would come out as the best but, in the absence of at least some actual numbers, I can't really say.

    Not enough data doesn't mean "the best" or "the worst," it means "not enough data."

    Edit: I didn't read the title of the thread!

    The Best Russian Bomber. Duhhh ...

    I think the Tu-2 could have been better, but they made 11,000+ Pe-2 and only some 2,000+ Tu-2s. So the Pe-2s had a much larger impact on the war and probably are the best Soviet multi-engine bomber of the war, even though it was light bomber.

    The Pe-8 might be a candidate, but they only made less than 100 of them and their loss rate more than doubled between 1942 - 1944. They were eventually withdrawn due the inability to protect them. They continued in service, but away from the front lines.

    So it's probably between the Pe-2 and the Il-2. They certainly made a LOT more Il-2s, but I have no feel for which one caused the greatest damage. I'm leaning toward the Il-2 as having the overall most impact to the overall war effort. They fielded more tahn 36,000 of them. making it the most-produced aircraft in history.
     
  5. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,221
    Likes Received:
    2,050
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    The 4th and 11th photo down, are Pe-3 two-seat heavy fighter/night fighters.

    3rd photo down appears to be a Tu-2 (note radial engines and four blade propellors).
     
  6. nuuumannn

    nuuumannn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,743
    Likes Received:
    439
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Engineer
    Location:
    Nelson
    The 16th and second from the bottom are both Tu-2s, although the lower one has three bladed props, you can see a ventral gun step just forward of the tail wheel. In fact, you could state that the Tu-2 was a superior bomber to the Pe-2 in almost every way; it had better turn of speed at low and high altitude, better climb performance, higher ceiling, could carry a heavier load across a greater distance than the Pe-2, despite being physically larger. It also saw extensive service with other Eastern Bloc countries post war.
     
  7. gumbyk

    gumbyk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,627
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Aviation QMS/SMS consultant
    Location:
    Blenheim
    I want to know more about the 10th photo. Is that a pulse-jet mounted on the fuselage?
     
  8. nuuumannn

    nuuumannn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,743
    Likes Received:
    439
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Engineer
    Location:
    Nelson
    Looks like it. Tu-2s were used for all sorts of trials post war, including the fitting of different jet engine installations as the Tu-2L (or Tu-2LL depending on what you read) and specifically the Rolls-Royce Nene turbojet in a pod under the fuse designated Tu-2N. The Russian designation for the Argus As 14 pulse jet with improvements was RD-13.
     
  9. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,221
    Likes Received:
    2,050
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    A side note on testing with the Tu-2: the Tu-2 and derivative of the Tu-2, the Tu-8, was converted to jet power in 1947 using two Rolls-Royce Nene engines - The Tu2 was designated the Tu-12 and the Tu-8 was designated the Tu-18
     
  10. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    I have never heard of or seen a pic of the Tu-18.

    Do you happen to have one you can post?
     
  11. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,221
    Likes Received:
    2,050
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    i don't think an actual photo exists of the Tu-18, Greg...when they modified the Tu-2 into a medium bomber (Tu-8), it had unsatisfactory handling, they tried to correct it's problems and made the jet version, but I suspect this was one of those projects that hit a dead end.

    This is a photo of the Tu-8 and you can see where they've increased the fuselage dimensions, but kept the mainwing, tailplane and engines original. As you can imagine, that was not going to be anything but trouble.

    Tupolev_Tu-8[640].jpg
     
  12. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    I think there are several Soviet aircraft of interest of which there are no pics. I was hoping you had one of the Tu-18.

    I'm not too sure why they did things as they did, but we have to remember that people who made mistakes in Stalin's empire sometimes went to Siberia and sometimes were simply executed. So if you were a Soviet designer and had a successful aircraft with some particular design feature(s), you might tend to stick with it (them) out of self preservation unless the performance required dictated a quantum leap in design change.
     
  13. nuuumannn

    nuuumannn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,743
    Likes Received:
    439
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Engineer
    Location:
    Nelson
    In my post I was specifically referring to gas turbine test bed aircraft powered by pistons as basic derivatives of the Tu-2S. Tu-12 info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-12 and here :Tupolev 77 / Tu-12 - bomber, engine testbed

    I don't believe the designation Tu-18 was ever used by the Russians, despite what Wiki might tell us; the aircraft was the Type 72, or Tu-72, the first Tu-72 was a piston engined design and was conceived in 1946 with turbocharged ASh-2TK radials, but was terminated a year later and redesigned as based on the airframe of the Type 69, i.e. the Tu-8. The sole prototype was never completed, that probably explains why there are no photos of it.
     
  14. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,221
    Likes Received:
    2,050
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    #14 GrauGeist, Oct 6, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2015
    The Tu-8 was a derivative of the Tu-2D and the internal designations was ANT-69.

    A good read on the history of Tupolev would be "Tupolev: The Man and His Aircraft" By Paul Duffy, A. I. Kandalov.

    In addition to the photo of the Tu-8 I posted above, here is another photo of the Туполев Ту-8 :)

    tu8-1.jpg
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    The best Soviet bomber used during WWII? I'd say Tu-2.
     
  16. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    #16 GregP, Oct 9, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2015
    I would, too, except for the disparity in numbers. They made 2,257 Tu2s and 11,427 Pe-2s, so it's pretty obvious which one they thought was best.

    Or esle Petylyakov was friend of Stalin's maybe ... now THAT would be a dangerous friendship to have.
     
  17. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    US produced some 19,000 B-24s and some 4,000 B-29s, did that mean that B-24 was a better bomber?
     
  18. nuuumannn

    nuuumannn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,743
    Likes Received:
    439
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Engineer
    Location:
    Nelson
    The Tu-2 came out later than the Pe-2, so wasn't available in numbers the same time as the Pe-2, also, the Tu-2 had a successful career post war, which the Pe-2 didn't to the same extent. Being bigger and more powerful, it was used for all sorts of trials and tests, like the aforementioned gas turbine and pulse jet trials, as well as ejection seat trials. As a result, more Tu-2s survive than Pe-2s, the latter is not as common these days. The Tu-2 in the Polish museum at Cracow was an ejection seat test bed.

    Yeah, but it really could depend on which side of the bed that Joe woke up on each morning as to whether you were in favour or not, unless you were a bad-ass like Beria, who literally got away with murder under Stalin...
     
  19. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    #19 GregP, Oct 9, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
    Friendly as ever I see, Juha.

    While the Pe-2 and Tu-2 were not quite in the same class, Juha, there was no equivalent to the B-29 anywhere else in the world. The B-29 could routinely haul 20,000 pounds of bombs on long range missions. The B-24 could haul 2,700 pounds on very long range missions up to 8,000 pounds on short missions. They were nothing alike.

    The Pe-2 was somewhat lighter and hauled 3520 pounds of bombs. The Tu-2, while a bit heavier, could haul 3300 pounds internally and they could hang more externally to make a very short range payload of up to some 8,000 pounds. They didn't do that much from what I understand, but it was certainly possible. Many times they were dispatched with roughly the same payloads.

    The Pe-2 and Tu-2 attacked the same targets as the Tu-2 and sometimes they were used alongside one another. In effect, they did the same job most of the time.

    The B-24 never once did the same job as the B-29, so your question is a bit meaningless. It's like asking someone, "Did you walk to work or bring your lunch?" The two are unrelated.

    You may think as you like and I agree with you that I'd rather have a Tu-2 if I only had one attack airplane, but I think the Pe-2 did more for the Soviet war effort than the Tu-2 did, and would take 11,000+ Pe-2's over 2,500 Tu-2's any day.

    I might be mistaken there and, in the end, it wouldn't matter much either way, would it?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    Hello Grep
    the fact is that the normal bombload of Pe-2 was 600 kg (1,323 lb) so it didn't have the load carrying capacity of the Tu-2, which usually carried 1,350kg load and could carry 500 kg and 1,000 kg bombs which Pe-2 was unable to carry. The production of Tu-2 was handicapped because of the difficulties to find out suitable powerplant for it and its production really got off the ground only late 1943.

    Juha
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. SamPZLP.7
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    9,009
  2. Snautzer01
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,283
  3. sunny91
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    810
  4. JCS
    Replies:
    119
    Views:
    24,522
  5. horseUSA
    Replies:
    420
    Views:
    72,851

Share This Page