# Talk:Petlyakov Pe-8

didn't they also used extensively the old TB-3 which also had 4 engines?

Yes, they did. Pe-8 was the only 4-engine bomber built during the war. While TB-3 were extensively used in the early days of the war, their role reduced to cargo flights during it. --jno 11:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Data quoted from http://www.aviation.ru/Pe/#8 by the owner of aviation.ru

I feel that the TB-3 should be mentioned somewhere in the article.

Folks, I aint sure it's right to translate "BAP" as "bomber wing".
BAP is a transliteration of russian БАП which is stand for Bombardirovochny Avia Polk (бомбардировочный авиаполк).
Hence, P here is for polk which is usually translated to english as regiment.
On the other hand, the term wing as couple of squadrons will match the polk in this meaning...
--jno 11:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe, "it's not a bug, it's a feature". 4 tons was the normal load. 5 tons stated for the fact of 5-tons bombs using, I think. --jno 19:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Pe-8 was orignally developed as the ANT-42/TB-7 by the Tupolev Design Bureau in 1934. When production rights were granted to Petlyakov, it was redesignated the Pe-8. The Pe-8 made her first flight on December 27, 1936; the second protoype first flew a year later. Therefore, add this information to this article.

Hm... Petlyakov was the leader of TB-7 project being an emploee of Tupolev, then separated to the production plant. It should be rephrased in english... --jno 12:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The aircraft was known as the TB-7 until Petlyakov's death in 1942 when it was renamed in his honor. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

http://zhukov.mitsi.com/sovietbombers.htm
We should consider doing a whole Wikipedia topic on this battle.  It's a fantastic read and very little known about the Soviet strategic bomber force in World War II.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Petlyakov Pe-8/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
The book Air Power by Bill Gunston and others (compilation of various Purnell/Phoebus History of the World Wars titles) claims Tupelev designed the plane and Petlyakov "prepared it for series production" in 1939. Does this gel with any of your sources?
Both Gunston's Encyclopaedia and Gordon specifically state that the task of meeting the requirement was given to the Tupolev OKB which assigned it to a brigade led by Petlyakov. I've rewritten the statement to clarify things a bit.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
I'm not sure the Varients section works; it might be better merging the first para into Design & Development and the rest into Operational History, which could be subdivided into WWII and Post-War as I feel the post-war info should appear chronologically after the wartime history.
Since John Taylor isn't linked, best describe him, e.g. "military historian John Taylor". Also I assume he is synonymous with the Michael J.H. Taylor in the References - best make the name the same in both instances...
I have identified him. They appear to be two people, father and son. Jehochman Talk 14:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I've followed Ian's suggestion and merged the Variants section into the others. And deleted the whole PS-42 claim since I haven't actually seen the book in question. Gunston and Gordon make absolutely no mention of any airliner version so I think that Taylor was simply speculating or was confused by the ON versions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
We should have alt text in images.
I've taken care of this. Jehochman Talk 14:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 
All up very good, if you can respond the the above we should be able to pass soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw this pop up on my watchlist, so I've taken the liberty of butting in. Jehochman Talk 14:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Satisfied with responses/actions so consider this passed for GA - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

1) While Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation does claim that it is "believed" that there was a 70 passenger version of the TB-7, the claim appears to have not been made by John W. R. Taylor, who is not listed as the editor or a contributor to the book, which was edited by Michael Taylor (definately a different person).
2) There is a reference to what appears to be this project on p85 of Duffy, Paul (1996). Tupolev: The Man and His Aircraft. Shrewsbury, UK: Airlife. ISBN 1 85310 728 X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), although the designation PS-42 is not mentioned and it is suggested that the aircraft was not built.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've dropped all mention of it for reasons outlined in the GAR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

don't "they" usually want 3 paragraphs in a lead? I don't have a problem with what you've done, although if "they" want 3, I'd take the first sentence as is, and split it there.
Nobody's asked to stretch the lead.
very good!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
first sentence of first section leaves me breathless.  I realize these are the qualifications, but could you make this more readable?*
this still needs work.  What was wrong with the Tupelov?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you be a little more clear? I'm not sure exactly what the problem is.
Why did the tupelov need replacing?  Development of the Pe-8 began in response to a demanding Soviet Air Forces (VVS) requirement that was issued in July 1934 to replace the Tupolev TB-3 heavy bomber.
forex:  By 1934, the  Soviet Air Force's existing Tupelov TB-3 heavy bomber was insufficient for its needs. The Tupelov could not carry a sufficient payload, it was too slow, and its range too short.  In July of that year, the VVS issued specifications for a new heavy bomber. These specified a bomber that could carry....  Or something.  What was wrong with the Tupelov that they needed an entirely new one...  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The bombardier sat in the nose with a prominent chin gondola, nicknamed the 'beard', and a turret armed with a 20-millimeter (0.79 in) ShVAK cannon that covered a 120° cone ahead.  the nose had a prominent chin gondola?  and the nose had a turret armed with a 20-millimeter cannon?   The bombardier sat in the nose, which had a a turret armed with a 20-millimeter (0.79 in) ShVAK cannon that covered a 120° cone ahead; a prominent chin gondola nicknamed the 'beard' distinguished this bomber from other aircraft  ???  something needs to happen with that sentence--I read it 4 times before I figured out what it meant...and I'm still not entirely sure.*
How is it now?
very nice. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It was built... The bomber was built?
That pronoun's antecedent is pretty clear I think.
yes, it is, but to begin a paragraph with "it"......  Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Not a rule of writing I was ever taught, I'm afraid. Now if you want to discuss nominalizations, I'm your boy!
Mikulin AM-34FRN engines...looks like a space is missing. Perhaps add FRN to the bluelink?
Done
This engine problem was identified by wind tunnel testing to be a problem with the aerodynamics of the radiators and their nacelles.  awk.  Subsequent wind tunnel testing identified a problem with the aerodynamics of the radiators and nacelles.  rudder was redesigned with a smooth skin and enlarged  awk. enlarged rudder redesigned with a smooth skin.
Bless you! I've struggled a lot with these sentences and your version is better than anything I could come up with. How does it read now?
Factory No. 124 in Kazan  needs a comma
I set off in Kazan with commas before and after. Does that work? I go back and forth on such short subordinate clauses.
yes it's fine.  Another way to deal with it would be  ,located in Kazan. .
which gave a shorter range.... gave them a shorter range, or had a shorter range....
Done
strike targets... (jargon).  strike at targets or strike in the ...During the early part of the battle, the long-range aviation units continued to strike targets in the German rear areas at night, but this was focused in support of Soviet forces conducting their counterattack against the Orel Bulge...
Done
constant raids against German railroad  ....constant Soviet raids...
Done
Soviet losses skyrocketed immediately; as the Germans flew only fourteen sorties that night, but claimed eight kills
Good catch
you often use "as" where you could either make a new sentence, or use a semi-colon.
Good to know these little habits.
Three Pe-8s were lost on the night of 20–21 July, one to the guns of Captain (Hauptmann) Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein, commander of IV./NJG 5,[27] a very high percentage of the eighteen that had been available on 1 July.[16]
Done
Most of these are simple smoothing out of sentences.  I wouldn't fall on the sword for any of them, except maybe the two marked with an asterisk at the end.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for these comments; they were just the kind of stuff that I was looking for. If these have been resolved satsifactorily please comment on the actual FAC page as your comments here will go unnoticed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Always glad to help out.  Please fix that first sentence of the first section.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Check through it again as I made some tweaks to your text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you can make a better case of the use of the postage  stamp if the caption describes the plane better, and links the stamp to the development of the aircraft.  This is an exemplar of the bomber after the beard is removed, yes?  What design features should we look for in this picture?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not much other than it's got inline engines, which could be AM-35, ACh-30 or M-40s. The beard was removed before production so that's not help. The stamp is really just a bonus, AFAIC, as it's stylized enough only orient a reader to general shape, etc. I'm not much worried about it as it is under the proper license as shown here [1]--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
sounds good then. I'm not the image expert, and I noticed there was a burp about it on the review page. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Petlyakov Pe-8. 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/20091124094717/http://www.geroi.apifarm.ru/doc/first/34/1 to http://www.geroi.apifarm.ru/doc/first/34/1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)