Names for planes?

[John Thompson]

It must have been rather hurtful to Mr Tupolev to hear his designs, particularly (and ironically) the mighty "Bear", referred to as corpses of small animals! 

John

[KL]

An important difference between the official US/British aircraft names and unofficial Soviet names mentioned here:

Spitfire, Mustang, Flying Fortress etc were not used only by the respective Air Forces - those names were widely used by propaganda and they were familliar to the civilians.  Those planes were known under the same names to the allies and to the enemy.
Most Soviet nicknames were used only within the VVS and only colloquially.  If you are looking for aircraft names that were widely known as say Spitfire or Mustang, IMHO only three Soviet aircraft nicknames would fit:

- Shturmovik
- Yak
- Kukuruznik

Those 3 names were used outside of the VVS by ordinary people.  Those 3 names also had (limited...) international exposure since they had been used by East Europian allies at the end of WWII and in postwar years.

Again, none of the three popular names was type specific... i.e. useless to be a part of the western style aircraft designation

[Graham Boak]

Wow, Graham you are stubborn? 

It is not normal in UK or US practice (admittedly with some exceptions for the US Navy) to credit the factory where the aircraft is built.  Otherwise we would have the Gloster Typhoon, and four different brands of Halifax.  The full name of the aircraft includes the name of the registered company which usually is coincident with the design and build site but not always.   The closest equivalent of this is the name of the design bureau not its location, hence Petlyakov, Tupolev etc.  This does seem to have been widely accepted outside and inside Russia.

Didn?t I clearly demonstrate that ?Petlyakov Pe-2? doesn?t exist inside Russia? 

Yes, but that was not my point, and I'm sorry I wasn't clearer there.  You had suggested that use of "Zavod...." would be more appropriate.  I was pointing out that internationally the name of the design team was consistently used rather than the name of the manufacturing factory, for any type.  Or are you suggesting that the names Petlyakov/Tupolev/Ilyushin were totally unknown to the VVS?

[KL]

You had suggested that use of "Zavod...." would be more appropriate.

My intention wasn't to provide a more appropriate name for Pe-2!  My example was supposed to show that adding manufacturer's name would not make VVS aircraft names any more appealing.  It was also supposed to show that there were no parallels between Western manufacturers and Soviet manufacturers.  There were simply no companies in Soviet Union.  There was nothing similar to North American Aviation in Soviet Union...  everybody knows that for over 70 years the system in Soviet Union was quite different than one in the West.
 

I was pointing out that internationally the name of the design team was consistently used rather than the name of the manufacturing factory, for any type.

FYI, independent design bureaus (OKBs) named after their founders appeared only after WWII.
What was the name of the design team which designed Pe-2?
Petlyakov was imprisoned at the time when Pe-2 prototype was designed ? he and his team were within the infamous TsKB-29, an NKVD managed design bureau.  Petlyakov wasn?t allowed to use his name ? he approved drawings with a number stamp.  Petlyakov was freed in summer 1940 and became head of the design bureau at the Zavod 124 in Kazan (Tatarstan).  The bureau was tasked with Pe-2 development. After Petlyakov?s death in plane crush in January 1942, this bureau was headed by Izakson, Putilov and from 1943 by Myasishchev.   

Or are you suggesting that the names Petlyakov/Tupolev/Ilyushin were totally unknown to the VVS?

What kind of a question is this?  What are those supposed suggestions?
Petlyakov/Tupolev/Ilyushin + Yakovlev/Lavochkin were known to VVS in the same way as Reginald Mitchell and Sydney Camm were known to RAF.

[FPSOlkor]

I was pointing out that internationally the name of the design team was consistently used rather than the name of the manufacturing factory, for any type.  Or are you suggesting that the names Petlyakov/Tupolev/Ilyushin were totally unknown to the VVS?

Pe, Yak, Tu, Il are ALL names of the design teams. Saying Petlyakov Pe-2 is exactly the same as saying Petlyakov Petlyakov-2. I'm with KL on this matter. It is correct to name airplane by either full name or by shortened one, but not by both.

[bbrought]

I have a pretty big collection of both Russian and English-language aviation books, as well as various aircraft manuals in the original Russian. I must say, I am also with KL on this matter - I don't have a single example of a Russian language book where the name of the design bureau is added in front of the designation. They are all "Istrebitel' La-7", "Legendarnii Il-2", etc. The one book's title is "Sturmovik Su-25 <<Grach>>", which actually underlines what KL said: Sturmovik is used there to describe the role of the aircraft, it is not part of the designation, then the actual designation Su-25, and then the "Grach" which is specifically added in quotes as it is not an official name and simply a nickname among some of the operators.

Going through my copy of "Emblemi i Znaki Camoletob Rossiiskix VVS 1912-2012", which includes a short history of just about everything flown by the VVS, I see typically foreign types are described using the manufacturer as is common in English literature: "Spad VII", "Junkers JuG-1", "Avro 504K", "Douglas DC-3", etc. Soviet types only get the designation and never the name of the design bureau: "TB-1 (ANT-4)", "TB-3", "I-16", "UT-1", "Yak-3", etc. The design bureau is sometimes (but not even always) mentioned in the text, but as I said, never as part of the designation. The same goes for more modern types also: "MiG-23", "Mi-24", "Su-27" and never "Sukhoi Su-27".

As KL said, Western literature seems to always want to add the name of the design bureau, which is clearly incorrect for Soviet types. This is presumably done because authors and/or publishers somehow think it is a requirement. Gordon's books, for example, on Famous Soviet Aircraft, all are titled adding the name of the design bureau: "Mikoyan MiG-29", "Sukhoi Su-27", etc. This convention is just about never seen in Russian literature. I say "just about", because although I have never encountered it, someone will probably find the one exception that proves the rule.

In the case of flight manuals of Soviet types, there are usually no mentioned of the designer or design bureau. For example, the title of the LaGG-3 pilot's manual is simply: "ИНСТРУКЦИЯ ЛЁТЧИКУ ПО ЭКСПЛОАТАЦИИ И ТЕХНИКЕ ПИЛОТИРОВАНИЯ САМОЛЁТА ЛАГГ-3 С МОТОРОМ М-105П и М-105ПФ ", which translates more-or-less to Piloting instructions for the LaGG-3 aircraft with the M-105P and M-105PF engine. Similarly, for the Yak-9U: "Самолёт як-9у с двигателем вк-107А, Техническое описание", which means "Aircraft Yak-9U with VK-107A engine, technical description". Neither of these manuals mention the name of the design bureau, not even in the overall aircraft descriptions.

So, in my opinion KL is perfectly correct. I think if you were to write a book on a Soviet type, you can probably add a nickname (if it was in use by the operators) to the title, but then you have to put it in quotes to make it clear that it was in no way part of the official designation. Such nicknames are not in any way equivalent to "Mustang", "Hurricane" or "Spitfire". Never add the name of the design bureau in front of the designation - it just simply was never used like that. It also seems to be fine to add the role of the aircraft to the title, but then once again it should be clear it is not part of the formal designation: "La-7 fighter", "Il-2 ground attack aircraft" or "Istrebitel' La-7", "Sturmovik Il-2", etc...