Names for planes?

[Walker]

type 37 = early La-5F
type 39 = late La-5F
type 41 = La-5FN

Thanks for the corection and additional information Musa! 
Is this "Spravochnik" available for download anywhere?
Cheers,
KL

http://rusfolder.com/35494621

[KL]

Thanks! Interesting and useful.. 
Page 4 says:

type 37 = La-5F
type 39 = La-5FN
type 41 = La-5FN with metal wing longeron
type 43 = La-5 UTI


PS - No pictures... 

[Walker]

Yes. Sure. I misspelled wrote. This is a guide to the interchangeability of parts and components.

[Graham Boak]

Very interesting, and please continue down this line.  However, returning to the original question of names (as opposed to designations), was the Pe2 not known as the Peshka or Pawn?  Excuse any transliteration mistake!  Was there not an Ishak (donkey)?  And perhaps the Li2 was the Douglas, which must at least approximate to a personal name?

[KL]

You are talking about colloquial, affectionate names. Something like diminutives in colloquial, spoken, English.  Those colloquial names for planes did exist, but they were not official.

Both ?Peshka? and ?Ishak? are derived from official designations:
Pe-2 is pronounced as ?Peh-dva?.  Peshka is directly derived from ?Peh?.  
I-16 is pronounced as ?I-shesnadset?.  Ishak is a directly derived from ?I-She?.  Donkey was also a convinient pun.

Peshka and Ishak are colloquial names, nothing like official names such as Thunderbolt or Hurricane.  You cannot use colloquial names as substitutes for official names which didn?t exist.  Something like this is funny (and historically wrong):



Think of books with following titles:
Republic P-47D Juggy
Hawker Hurry
and compare with usual titles:


HTH,
KL

[Graham Boak]

The original poster did ask for unofficial names as well as official ones. 

[KL]

Let's see:

La-5/7 - "La" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Lavka"
Il-2 - "Eel" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Eelyusha"
Pe-2 - "Pe" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Peshka"
Su-2 - "Soo" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Sooshka"
Tu-2 - "Too" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Tooshka"
An-2 - "An" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Anushka"

Can you see a pattern?? Seriously, those are hard to call unoficial nicknames; more like rimes!
Do you think "Petlyakov Pe-2 Peshka" is OK as a book title?  Can you explain why? 

[Graham Boak]

Yes, there's a pattern, much as there is in boys' and girls' nicknames in English, where often an abbreviated form is used with "y" or "ie" on the end.  William can become Willy or Billy.  Julia can become Julie - although Julian becomes Jules.

Is it a suitable title?  Yes, if the aircraft was commonly known as that.  My understanding is that it has the additional meaning of a Pawn in a game of chess.

The problem with these names is that they are manufacturer-specific rather than type-specific.  What was the equivalent name for the Pe-8?

[KL]

Is it a suitable title?  Yes, if the aircraft was commonly known as that.

I think that it is not an appropriate title.
First, it's mixing apples and oranges: mixing official name with an unofficial nickname.
Second, it is a forceful attempt to fit Soviet designation into western standards:

Junkers Ju-88 was an official name.  LW did use producer's name in official designation (for what I know)
Petlyakov Pe-2 is "Germanized" designation.  VVS did not use designer's/producer's name in official designations

B-25 Mitchell was an official name.  USAAF did have official names for their aircraft.
Pe-2 Peshka is "Americanized" name.  Lacking official name is substituted with unofficial, colloquial nickname.

[jonbius]

Let's see:

La-5/7 - "La" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Lavka"
Il-2 - "Eel" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Eelyusha"
Pe-2 - "Pe" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Peshka"
Su-2 - "Soo" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Sooshka"
Tu-2 - "Too" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Tooshka"
An-2 - "An" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Anushka"

Can you see a pattern?? Seriously, those are hard to call unoficial nicknames; more like rimes!
Do you think "Petlyakov Pe-2 Peshka" is OK as a book title?  Can you explain why? 

That's interesting, KL. Makes sense, actually. When I was in the US Army, the HMMWV was generally called the "Hummer", even though it was not an official title. (Although they did later sell civilian versions of that vehicle as "Hummer"!) I noticed in Red Star Airacobra the author often referred to the P-39 as a "Kobrushka".

[KL]

let's compare titles of  Pe-2 books published on the West with titles of Pe-2 books that were published in Russia.  West first:









Russian books:
Official manual:  "Airplane Pe-2, airframe description"


Dive bomber Pe-2


Dive bomber Pe-2


Dive bomber Pe-2


I fought on Pe-2


Dive bomber Pe-2
"Pawn" that became a queen


In Russian titles name Petlyakov never appears!  In western titles it is always Petlyakov Pe-2.  Maybe it is time to change from Westrnized Petlyakov Pe-2 to the original Pe-2?

 

[Graham Boak]

It is normal in the West to include the name of an aircraft's manufacturer (or more rarely designer).  North American B-25, to use your own example.  Hawker Hurricane.  In some examples this is not necessary, if the aircraft is well-enough known.  You don't have to say Supermarine Spitfire, though many titles do so.  Nowadays it does help to distinguish between the Hawker Typhoon and the Eurofighter Typhoon.  The system in the USSR separated the design from the manufacture in a way that was not common in the West, so parallels can be difficult.  However, the abbreviated system used (Pe) cannot be as meaningful to readers in the West as it may be to those in the East - although new generations are coming along everywhere.  In the West, no Soviet WW2 type has anywhere near the recognition of the Spitfire.  It is not surprising that Western publishers feel the need to provide additional information.  They are only following what is their cultural norm.

Similar arguments could be made when dealing with US or Japanese Navy aircraft.  Mitsubishi A6M where M tells you that it is Mitsubishi.  Vought F4U where the U tells us that it is Vought.  However, given one recent posting elsewhere asking why the US had an F4 Phantom when it already had an F4 Corsair, the value of adding redundant information should be clear.  Indeed, taking a wider view, I think any linguist will tell you that languages make considerable use of redundancy to ensure ready understanding.

[John Thompson]

In Russian titles name Petlyakov never appears!  In western titles it is always Petlyakov Pe-2.  Maybe it is time to change from Westrnized Petlyakov Pe-2 to the original Pe-2?

Sure, why not? The trouble is, 90% of westerners (or more) wouldn't recognize "Pe-2" (or most other correct designations) without the "Petlyakov" as a bit of a hint. I kind of enjoy throwing in the name of the design bureau just as a tribute to the designer. As far as correct nomenclature goes, it's somewhat like discussions about "Il-2m", "Il-2m3", or "LaGG-3 series whatever", but in reverse. We know it's not correct, but those outdated "western" designations are easy-to-recognize shorthand for those who aren't full-time VVS enthusiasts. Same thing with NATO reporting names - I'm guessing that the "MiG-29 'Fulcrum'" isn't referred to as anything but "MiG-29" by Russian enthusiasts.

John

[learstang]

There may be another reason at the present to include more in the name - the Internet.  I've been recently commissioned by a British publisher to do an historical book on the Il-2 (as separate from my hopefully soon-to-be published modelling guide).  One of the guidelines they set down for me was to make a title that would show up in searches.  Although in deference to Soviet/Russian conventions I do not include the name "Ilyushin" before "Il-2", I do use the name "Shturmovik", as this will make it easier for someone to find this book, rather than just having "Il-2" in the title (that is if they can remember how to spell "Shturmovik", as opposed to "Sturmovik", "Stormovik", etc.).  I might even add "Soviet Attack Aircraft", or something like that to the title or subtitle, again, to make it easier for my book to come up in Internet searches.  I do realise that "shturmovik" can be a generic term, applicable equally to the Hs-129, the A-10, and the Su-25, but it is also a term commonly used to refer to the Il-2 in the West, and my book is aimed at a Western, English-speaking (or at least reading) audience.

Regards,

Jason

[KL]

I am not against the use of designer's name, Petlyakov's Pe-2 is OK.  Nicknames did exist and were widely used, they could be used interchangeably with official designations.

I have a problem with artificially made designations - designations that are treated as official by authors (and model producers) but which have never existed in reality.

IMHO, this book's front cover represents light at the end of the tunnel  :



FYI there is evidence of the light before we entered the tunnel - Airfix Pe-2 model from 1960es  :