Talk:Petlyakov Pe-2

Untitled
I don't know if the Pe-2 could really be considered a medium bomber, as the main article suggests. It's really a WWII Soviet version of the modern-day A10 Warthog. It was fast, handled well, tooks large amounts of damage, and if it had ever gotten a large caliber cannon installed in the nose, the A10 manufacturers would probably say they based the Warthog off it.

"...some of the women pilots were not sufficiently strong enough to get the airplane airborne by themselves. When such a situation occurred, the procedure was to have one of the crew get behind the pilot's seat and wrap her arms around the control wheel and help the pilot force the wheel back...." An urban myth, surely? The Russians had heard of trim-tabs!--Ndaisley 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not an urban myth at all. It's on the Wings of the Red Star series (Discovery Wings-narrated by Peter Ustinov), but I can't remember which one.


 * As far as the second crew member helping the pilot, it's true. I've read memoirs of female Pe-2 pilots who talked about this. Also, the UBT machine gun often had to be cocked on the ground because many gunners were not strong enough to do it in the air. - Emt147 Burninate!  04:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Powerplant: 2× Klimov M-105PF liquid-cooled V-12, 1,880 kW (2,520 hp) each -> This is wrong, it's half that I guess. 84.77.148.244 11:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct, M-105PF was rated for 903 kW (1,210 hp) for takeoff. I'll fix the article.

Korolev and Glushko's involvement with Pe-2
Vetrov's book on Korolev shows photos of the Pe-2I with the reactive installation RU-1. As opposed to claim that it was a Pe-2K that was modified. WHo knows which is correct. Glushko built the RD-1 engine, and Sergei Korolev built the airplane installation called RU-1. The project was ultimate not successful because of frequent hard starts (engine explosions) of the RD-1. DonPMitchell (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Operational History?
The article deals extensively with Finland's use of 6 Pe-2s, but contains no information on the Soviet's use of their own aircraft. Can someone with sources please elaborate on this rather important information? Dpenn89 (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethell?
In the references section there is the following:

"Ethell 1996, pp. 152-153."

That's it. No reference of Ethell anywhere else in the article or in the bibliography. No title given for the work being cited.

Checking the edit history, I see that this is not the case of a bibliography entry being accidentally deleted. Rather, no further information has ever been provided.

So: who is Ethell and where precisely was the statement being referenced made?

-- g026r (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A really odd reference. Pe-2 was never considered a superior aircraft in comparision with nearly any of WWII dive bombers. Even Arkhangelsky Ar-2 was at least as good as Pe-2, and Tupolev Tu-2 was definitely better 88.147.243.239 (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Heavy bomber
Can someone confirm the source used in the lede, about this aircraft being described as a heavy bomber. Lack of range, engines, and payload make this a somewhat puzzling description of the aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.217.75 (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Exclusively a "dive bomber"?

 * Although fitted with dive brakes etc, the machine appears to have been used more as a multi purpose light bomber. Dive bombing at night is rather risky. I have changed pipe to light bomber in the lede, as it does not appear to have been its primary tactical role. H.T.D. Irondome (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It was developed especially as a dive bomber (and always mentioned as a dive bomber in Russian sources), but used mainly as a front-line medium bomber because of insufficient experience of many crews for dive bombing. Nebertheless, several units (specially, 31st bomber division under the command of general Ivan Polbin) used Pe-2 as a dive bomber, and very successfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.51.164 (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Petlyakov Pe-2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111019102241/http://luftfart.museum.no/Utstillinger/petlyakov_pe2_snute.htm to http://www.luftfart.museum.no/Utstillinger/petlyakov_pe2_snute.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Petlyakov Pe-2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927211300/http://www.plastikowe.pl/galerie/lotnictwo/petlakow-pe-2ft to http://www.plastikowe.pl/galerie/lotnictwo/petlakow-pe-2ft

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Variants
Which is the correct engine for the Pe-4? The VK-105PF in the text, or the ASh-82 (M-82FN) shown on the diagram

101.98.22.129 (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Pe-4 is the unofficial designation for the Pe-2 with M-82F engines, so it should not be VK-105PF. 169.234.234.159 (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Article cites references in bibliography but doesn't use them
This article is a mess and full of outdated information. Smith's book on the Pe-2, one of the definitive sources in English, is mentioned in the bibliography, but never cited in the article. I have rewritten the development history and design sections to use the information from Smith and other more up-to-date books. 169.234.234.159 (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Nato reporting name
Is it Buck or Buick? The former seems more likely, but both are mentioned. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The 1955-56 Jane's aircraft cited for the reporting name has Buick, as in the car manufacturer, but it probably is buck, seeing as prop planes are supposed to have monosyllabic names while two syllable names are for jets. 129.123.214.138 (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)