User talk:PaterosLuzon

Mikulin AM-34
I believe that the new source is still short of being enough to support the claim. It is still a way older than Gunston and Kotelnikov. Эйхер (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PS. It may also be noted that those soviet aero engines that were licence-built are widely admitted as such in modern russian (and even in some soviet) historical literature. Эйхер (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Эйхер, you are welcome to make any additional hint by providing a secondary source, I would be very happy about it. Unfortunately, you are not allowed to changing/questioning the meaning of a quoted source, which drive yourself into WP:NOR. The british SST report, which had disassembled and analyzed the engine, came to the conclusion, that the general design of the m-34 is not only identical, but following very closey italian in-line aero engine practice. Breteton himself also pointing to the fact, that the origin design of the engine is probably italian. If you have any source which stand in contradiction, or even can confirm an lincence-build, I would be very pleased. Until than, I think its the best way to declare it as a thought, because back in time, business proceedings and dealings were usually not communicated transparent like today. I have to revert your edit because ouf our policy. Thanks PaterosLuzon (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The British SST report and a later work by Brereton are used in the current version of the article in support of the two separate claims:
 * that AM-34 engine follows very closey italian in-line aero engine practice and
 * that therefore it is thought to have been originally designed in Italy Fiat for the Russians.
 * The first claim does not fall in contradiction with other sources (at least known to me) and evidently lies in the scope of competence of the authors and is based on the most compelling evidence, and therefore is perfectly legitimate. The second claim, however, contradicts to the other claims in the article that are also supported by reliable sources. For example, in the very first sentence of the article we read: "The Mikulin AM-34 (M-34) was the Soviet Union's first indigenous, mass-produced, liquid-cooled, aircraft engine". The claim is supported by a work of a reputable British author. In the section Design and development of the article the process of development of the engine in Soviet Union is described in some detail with support of a modern Russian source. Therefore, the sources that do stand in contradiction... are allready in the article. Even if they were merely equal to your sources in authority, their claims should be attributed (e. g. "the engine is thought by some authors to have been..."). But I maintain that it's not the case. Accordingly to WP:RS, "The reliability of a source depends on context". Brereton's work is almost half of century old while the British SST report is more than 70 yrs old. So the both of your sources are a way older than Gunston's (1989) and Kotelnikov's (2005) books. And these old sources effectively claim themselves to base their conclusion about the origin of AM-34 on inference, not on historical evidence (i. e., unlike Kotelnikov, they don't tell or even claim to know what Italian engineer designed the engine, when and how he did it, etc.). Therefore, it is apparent for me, that, while the first claim is fully legitimate, the second is only of historical importance, i. e. it may be included in the article only in the past form (e. g. "the engine was thought to have been originally designed in Italy (Fiat) for the Russians"). Thank you for your attention to the topic. Эйхер (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Эйхер, I've reviewed the 5th Edition of Bill Guston's Encyclopediap. 141, which is available on the online library scribd.com. Unfortunately, I couldn't review Kotelnikov's book, to build up further opinion. However, it seems that nothing in it, stands in contradiction nor being dismissed erroneously as a baseless claim. On the contrary, he states: "Mikulin studied available hardware and in 1930 obtained permission to design the AM 30 in an attempt to create the best V-12 possible." Which does confirm Breteton's proposition that they were "busy copying" foreign engine designs. Since Breteton also points to the british report; The given evidence by the british examination of its general design and construction practice, should still give the unambiguous hint that despite the age of the source, (which evidence has not altered) the engine still originates to the italians. However, it leads me to belive, that the sentence e.g "The Mikulin AM-34 (M-34) was the Soviet Union's first indigenous, mass-produced, liquid-cooled, aircraft engine" just arise from an Editors creative sweeping veins. I do agree that the article needs some fine tuning. I will change the obvious accordingly to your very attentive and recent findings. Thanks PaterosLuzon (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If Miculin was busy copying Italian hardware (which, indeed, well might be the case) it excludes possibility that Italians were busy doing the work themselves. That's the point. Эйхер (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing reprehensible with that fact, many countries were copying to some extend, that what we call a technological transfer, by either using an licence build or having the opportunity to study foreign designs. For example, Head Designer Mr. Kontani and several Nakajima personnel also spend several month under instructions at Wright Aeronautical Corp. in the United States, to study and receive licenses for mass production. Their engine, the infamous Nakajima Sakae 11 on the Zero; was virtually identical to the Pratt&Whitney R-1535 series. And the list could go on... I dont meant to cast doubt or to criticize Mr. Mikulin work and creations, it just should be noted, that the design was influenced by foreign models. Thanks PaterosLuzon (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But you see, different sources describe the technology transfer in the case of AM-34 differently. Old British SST report says that they think the engine to have been "designed by Italians for Russians" (i. e. Soviet government paid Italians and not Com. Mikulin to do the work). More recent British author say with confidence that Mr. Mikulin studied himself available hardware (i. e. diassambled a dozen of foreign engines that, probably, happened to be Italian ones) and "obtained permission to design" something. These two options are quite different. Эйхер (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: The phrase: "The Mikulin AM-34 (M-34) was the Soviet Union's first mass-produced, liquid-cooled, aircraft engine" is at least imprecise, because a number of foreign liquid-cooled aircraft engines were mass-produced in USSR under licences before AM-34.
 * Yes, they were thinking of it, because the evidential weight of the general design and analytical disassambling points to that assumption, without having to knock on enemey's door to ask and to confirm their past business made in the 30s. That's also Breretons position, (he doesnt make any claims) while Guston takes a even more restrained and objective view for its overall Encyclopedia. You certainly looking to much into it by cuting the sentence and scrutinize it, where's nothing than WP:SYN. If you want, there's a Steven Zaloga citation, but it wont change anything as we having right now. I would be happy if you can proven me wrong and lecture me further. However, you need an additional source which thematised it to encounter, which also emphasize your argumentation, only than we can reach consensus. Thank you. PaterosLuzon (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)