Max Komendantov Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Pe-8 Polar Aviation - aircraft support polar stations "North Pole-3" and "North Pole-4". Used to deliver aviation fuel. 29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toryu Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Great model and a nice colour. Was this plane derived from the Boeing B-17 or B-15? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 No - it was an entirely original Soviet design - by Petliakov. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petlyakov_Pe-8 Nice model Max Ken 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Now that's very orange indeed! Very nicely done too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toryu Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 On 20/11/2018 at 15:26, Flankerman said: No - it was an entirely original Soviet design - by Petliakov. The influence seems unmistakable: nose, hump, wing and tailplane planform, wheel housing... Petlyakov and the Boeing designers must have looked at the same stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Wow, that is a beauty, Max!! Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldy Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Very nice. Interesting model and interesting piece of history. Cheers Malcolm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Toryu said: The influence seems unmistakable: nose, hump, wing and tailplane planform, wheel housing... Petlyakov and the Boing designers must have looked at the same stars. Yes but don't cars all have four wheels, a steering wheel, a front engine compartment and a rear boot? But they are not all copies of a Wartburg ;). Sometimes - just sometimes - it is coincidence. Martin 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malpaso Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 (edited) Given it only has a passing resemblance to the big-tail B-17 of five years later it’s either coincidence or Boeing copied the Pe! For the soviets to have copied they would have needed a time machine... Sometimes things are just “in the water” or “a la mode” like the so-called-unique elliptical Spitfire wing is seen on early to mid 30s planes from Heinkel, Seversky/Republic and many others. Some like Supermarine just make a better/more efficient/elegant job of similar ideas. You can bet all these designers/companies around the world were reading “Flight” or whichever magazines from each other’s countries. And design staff moved between companies and occasionally countries sharing influences and ideas. Cheers Will Edited November 20, 2018 by malpaso 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toryu Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 On 20/11/2018 at 17:41, malpaso said: Given it only has a passing resemblance to the big-tail B-17 of five years later it’s either coincidence or Boeing copied the Pe! For the soviets to have copied they would have needed a time machine... First of all, Max' model is great, and this is an interesting discussion. To do Vladimir Petlyakov justice I would concede that it is coincidence for the reasons you mentioned. But a time machine would not have been necessary! Pe-8 first flight: 27 December 1936 B-17 (Model 299) maiden flight: 28 July 1935 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 It was also much bigger than a B-17..... Wingspan....... B-17 103ft, Lancaster 102ft, Pe-8 128ft Here's a comparison with a Lancaster.... Ken 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeaton01 Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Well done, Max. Fun discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avereda Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Fantastic, that stands out from the crowd. Interesting tale as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckwizard Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Aaaah a touch of siberian iciness. Missed it. I love your range of aircraft types, Max. And a piece of art as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djos Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 What a beast!!!! Very impressive build Best regards Djordje Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Komendantov Posted November 22, 2018 Author Share Posted November 22, 2018 Work on the project ANT-42 (Pe-8) began on September 29, 1934. It is unlikely that the Pe-8 developers saw the technical documentation on the B-17. Thanks for the comments and a very interesting discussion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pin Posted November 22, 2018 Share Posted November 22, 2018 On 11/20/2018 at 2:56 PM, Toryu said: The influence seems unmistakable I aassume you heard about Giulio Douhet and his conception of aerial dominance. Disputable as it is this idea was widely popular in the beginning of 30-ies and the predecessors of Pe-8 (that became "Pe" only after Petlyakov's death in 1942, before that time it was known as TB-7 or ANT-42, ANT because it was coneived in Tupolev's design bureau) - Tupolev's TB-1 and TB-3 were built in accordance to Douhet's vision of heavy bomber. There was nothing like TB-3 in the West that was built in numbers, There were two different directions of development of TB-3, either bigger and heavier plane, like TB-6 monster or faster and higher flying bobmer that eventually became TB-7 / ANT-42 / Pe-8. Unlike TB-3 B-17 was not designed according to Douhet doctrine, US was an isolationist state and long range of B-17 was required to operate from distant air bases such as Hawaii or Alaska. Despite the name early B-17 were relatively poorly protected against enemy fighters. My point here is that even if Soviet designers would have access to full early B-17 documentation they probably would not be much interested because 1. in 30-es USSR was the world leader in heavy / long range plane building even despite being seriously behind in engine making 2. the concepts of aerial warfare was very different What would Soviet (German, French, Japanese even British) engineers be definitely interested in is Norden bomb sight but is it not visible from outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toryu Posted November 22, 2018 Share Posted November 22, 2018 2 hours ago, Pin said: Unlike TB-3 B-17 was not designed according to Douhet doctrine, US was an isolationist state and long range of B-17 was required to operate from distant air bases such as Hawaii or Alaska. Despite the name early B-17 were relatively poorly protected against enemy fighters. The TB-6 monster is very impressive! In the US, Gen. Mitchell pursued a similar doctrine like Douhet (i.e. strategic bombers will decide future wars), albeit with the Air Corps strategy being focused on long-range maritime defence. The only conceivable threat to the US continent would have come from an invasion by sea. It is true that an offensive strategy like industrial or residential destruction was not in scope. The name 'Flying Fortess' was created much later. I know that Russia had multi-engined bombers already before WWI, when in the US they were still experimenting with the Wright Flyer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now