Warbird Information Exchange

English Russia, my favorite Russian blog, recently published a lot of pictures taken INSIDE the Tu-4 which is on display at Monino. I't's the first time I see such pictures and I thought they were interesting enough to share them here. Also interesting for the B-29 specialists to compare both aircraft, however the story goes that the aircraft was copied so precisely that even the Boeing logos were present at the rudder pedals and the yokes.
What disturbes me is that the photographer has a thing for fish-eye lenses, so many pictures look distorted. He uses them in all aircraft he photographed at the museum.

Anyway, enjoy: http://englishrussia.com/2013/05/23/the ... has-today/

Tillerman.

_________________
Jets are nice. Props are nicer.

and it looks like they swung past the 'rejected by customer' pile at the paint counter @ Home Depot. I'll bet the YAHOO turquoise in the cockpit from it's application areas was to enhance whats seen through the glass as floors and not easily seen portions are still in a flatish medium green.
An amazing technical achievement to have to reengineer and convert EVERY part from SAE to metric in 18 months with your very life in the final balance, especiallly the engines which were still very problematic for WRIGHT and the Army at the time the aircraft diverted to Russia.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Fascinating -- but I think I'm suddenly more interested in the giant helicopter thing ..... WOWZERS.

_________________
Cheers,
Kurt Maurer
League City, Texas

PIC, Ford 6600 pulling Rhino batwing up and down the runway

Puke green! Only in Russia with that color. How about the B-25, is it still there? Need some pictures of it.

_________________
When you meet a Veteran shake his or her hand and thank them, they earned your freedom.
I plan to fly in as many B-25 as possible be fore I die! B-25 for ever!!!

+1

Go Bruins !

_________________
A man's got to know his limitations.

The VVA-14 Bartini-Beriev Millenium Falcon look a like, developed to chase U.S. Navy Destroyers and Boomers in 1972 a truly oddball idea in an era of things like Ekranoplans.
Or the Mi-12 Copter (NATO code name Homer) which was essentially 2 MI-6 power systems joined to make one gynormous helo with a 114 ft rotor span. I think 'Wings of the Red Star' series did an hour on this behemoth, a technical semi nightmare that managed to set several world records for weight lifted but was too outlandish and complex to go into production.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

According to some of the other "experts" here on this forum, if it looks like a "Boeing" and squawks like a "Boeing" it must be, and in fact cannot be anything else other than - a "Boeing" - so according to them a Tupolev TU-4 "Bull" must actually be a "Boeing" TU-4 aircraft, just as an FM-2 is a "Grumman" Wildcat, or a TBM is a "Grumman" Avenger, and certainly all Corsairs regardless of who actually built them are "Vought" aircraft.

I guess maybe that if the Russians copied the yoke logos, maybe too they copied the data tags as well - and that would certainly make it so, right?

By the way, I don't know if this is common knowledge - and come to think of it I'm actually going by only one Russian's word for it, but according to a former business partner of mine who was born and raised in Russia, all Russian military aircraft designations are pronounced like the words they seem to be and not by the individual characters that comprise those designations as we do in the West.

Hence it is a "Mig-fifteen as opposed to a "em-eye-gee-15" and it is a "Too-four" or a "Soo-twenty-seven" or an "An-twelve" as opposed to how we typically pronounce them - as a "Tee-yoo-4" or an "Es-yoo-27" or an "A-en-12"

Just thought that was an interestingly different perspective....

_________________
“To invent the airplane is nothing. To build one is something. But to fly is everything!” - Otto Lilienthal

Natasha: "You got plan, darling?"
Boris: "I always got plan. They don't ever work, but I always got one!"

Remember, any dummy can be a dumb-ass...
In order to be a smart-ass, you first have to be "smart"
and to be a wise-ass, you actually have to be "wise"

Previous post on this subject at:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=49755

_________________
Bob

Actually, the engines were one of the two things not copied on the Tu-4. The other being the armament.(Although it used the B-29 sighting system. The engines were Shvetsov ASh-73 radials. They were slightly larger at 2,543 cubic inches belting out 2,400 horsepower. They were however based on earlier Wright single row designs that were produced under license. I did like the pictures from Monino. I have to get there some day! I could see the Tu-16 next to the Tu-4, and the nose of a Tu-22 behind it. It looks like an awesome museum! (They really should get that stuff under cover though.)

Who made the aircraft did matter to the Navy. As you point out, a F4F became a FM-2.
Perhaps the forum members you mention are Air Force fans, where a Lockheed-built B-17G was a B-17, albeit a B-17G-LE. Likewise, our UK friends a Spitfire was a Spitfire no matter where it was produced.
Canada did things a bit differently, in the case of their Lancasters, they were given the standard type name but differentiated with a different Mark number.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

Too bad so many of the american examples aren't that complete.