737 overtakes DC-3

Very well.. I am going to accept your claim of interest at face value (my apologies for absurd thread drift).

But here is a typical quote from Flight, when reaching-out to try and make a commercial aircraft directory more accurate:

The Soviet Embassy has expressed itself unable to provide any immediate information, or a check, on the details given in our 1964 survey

And?… Have we not been discussing on this very forum the incapacity of the UK Embassy and Military Mission in Egypt to locate its own missing pilots, aircraft and surviving relations’ details? Why should anyone approach the Soviet Embassy for information regarding aviation, not to mention expecting an accurate reply from them? The problem here is exactly the case that too many ‘Westerners’ (as you say) immediately accept as truthful the “fact” that the former matter is the result of incompetence and the latter is part of a Global Conspiracy to suppress information.

We couldn’t exactly write to the Ilyushin OKB…

For what possible reason could you not do so? How on earth do you think that historians conduct research on these matters?

Perhaps as a case in point, allow me to to answer the claim you have repeated (I assume emanating from Wikipedia, or some other such luminaries) regarding the NK-33 rockets. As expected, this myth is not even suitable for a rumour in a pub; it is complete nonsense.

You may examine a proper historical resume of the project and Kuznetsov’s activities by bona fide historians Petrenko and Ivanov:
http://engine.aviaport.ru/issues/03/page40.html

…and S. Yushakov:
http://www.lpre.de/sntk/NK-33/index.htm

Included are quotations from the actual governmental documents issued, and full references. In fact, when the government decided to terminate the N-1 moon project it specifically ordered Kuznetsov and his bureau to moth-ball the exisiting NK-33 engines (there were more than 100 of them) so that they might be used in future projects (if needed). Indeed, as you will read there were several proposals to do exactly this (Chelomeya with the ‘Proton’ cluster, the ‘Zenit’ project, ‘early ‘Energira’ proposal, et al), albeit nothing came of these. The proof of the government’s involment of the moth-balling process is seen by the OTK devices (government Q/C stamps) still being present on the three engines tested in 1995 and their containers. This fact is both repeated and verified on Kuznetsov Motors own web site, and the OTK device can be seen on the photograph of motor p/n F115001 during testing.

The absurd story of the government’s order to destroy the engines comes from none other than N.D. Kuznetsov, himself. Naturally, Kuznetsov could offer no documentation for this claim, which– predictably– he had received via the inevitable Secret Telephone Call. It was yet another sorry attempt on his part to invalidate any potential government claim on this equipment. It is all too typical of post 1992 Russia that such items– manufactured at a state factory, by state employees, via state employed designers, on a state budget and at the public expense– suddenly have become the private property of Kuznetsov’s company, who have reaped profits from these ever since.

Why were these not disseminated in the West?

How could I answer such a question? The Cold War, hate propaganda, right-wing paranoia and idiocy, lack of interest…? Perhaps you can tell me why this was so? I happily received my monthly subscription to Krilya Rodinu and Modelist Konstriktur magazines for years in Vancouver; why did no one (apparently) else do so?….

modern type names such as “737” really now mean as little as “iPhone” or “BMW 3 Series”. The are brandings to identify market niche, not actual model designations.

Which is why the professionals who fly them refer to their particular type as a “738” (737-800) or a “744” (747-400), etc.

Hi! I do appreciate your input, this is quite fascinating. 737s can wait…

In any case, I see so relation whatever between this Space Race rocket engine and 1940-50s era aviation. With respect to that subject, I maintain my assertion and see no evidence to the contrary. If one chooses to look at politically sensitive subjects, one can find official government suppression of information in every country on the globe.

Your comment about sensitive projects is accepted. Mea culpa for pushing in that direction.

But here is a typical quote from Flight, when reaching-out to try and make a commercial aircraft directory more accurate:

The Soviet Embassy has expressed itself unable to provide any immediate information, or a check, on the details given in our 1964 survey

( 20 May 1965 )

So what exactly where we brainwashed Westerners to do? When we asked, they declined to share knowledge. That particular quote related to commercial helicopters. Had we asked about Li-2s or La-7s or Il-10s, or Soviet pilots in Korea, do you think they would have answered differently? We couldn’t exactly write to the Ilyushin OKB…

And this reticence even extended to obfuscating aircraft designations on FAI certificates documenting record-setting flights!

Obviously. And the fact that you are clearly unaware of such work would suggest to us your level of familiarity with this topic.

Genuinely I am interested; all I have read of the Soviet period are Yefim Gordon’s books. Please give me some pointers. Are there translations out of Russian? Why were these not disseminated in the West?

At the risk of extreme thread drift, but never-the-less…

In some cases the State ordered the destruction of data, such as the Kusnetsov NK-33 engines. All artifacts, jigs and engines were to be destroyed. Thankfully the OKB had foresight and courage to ignore tis. Now we have information about the programme.

If I am not mistaken, this was some kind of rocket engine associated with the Space Race and a Russian moon attempt? I regard it as exceedingly unlikely that this valuable work was ordered to be destroyed. However, I am no expert on this topic, so I will approach some of my colleagues who are for their comments on such a claim.

In any case, I see so relation whatever between this Space Race rocket engine and 1940-50s era aviation. With respect to that subject, I maintain my assertion and see no evidence to the contrary. If one chooses to look at politically sensitive subjects, one can find official government suppression of information in every country on the globe.

Otherwise, can you point to a thriving indigenous aviation press in the era of Soviet Union?

Obviously. And the fact that you are clearly unaware of such work would suggest to us your level of familiarity with this topic.

One point of interest here is that Boeing themselves considered the NG sufficiently different to warrant a restart of the build number sequence.

Interesting. Did they adopt a different internal model number?

Whenever I read any statement beginning with, “The information regarding [fill in Russian programme name here] has improved since the collapse of the USSR…”, it gives me a violent headache.

I don’t doubt that data existed in the factory and OKB archives, but it was inaccessible to researchers as a result of State policy.

In some cases the State ordered the destruction of data, such as the Kusnetsov NK-33 engines. All artifacts, jigs and engines were to be destroyed. Thankfully the OKB had foresight and courage to ignore tis. Now we have information about the programme.

There were no “conspiracies” in the USSR to “hide” information concerning historical aviation

Without access to raw data, information cannot exist.

So in that regard I would say that yes, there was a State policy to inhibit the flow of information by making data unavailable.

And the information available has improved massively since the fall of the USSR, because the policies that deliberately hid data have fallen-away. Otherwise, can you point to a thriving indigenous aviation press in the era of Soviet Union?

What set you off?

Exactly… Well, I must apologise. It was not my intention to moan at you personally, although in retrospect I do confess that my post can be understood in that way. Please forgive my outburst.

Alas, there appear to be a fair number of persons in the world– many on forums like this one– who have been permanently damaged by Cold War hate propaganda; these inevitable believers in every conceivable lie circulated about the Great Enemy. Whenever I read any statement beginning with, “The information regarding [fill in Russian programme name here] has improved since the collapse of the USSR…”, it gives me a violent headache.

So, to set the record straight:

There were no “conspiracies” in the USSR to “hide” information concerning historical aviation. No improvement in research has thusly been acheived since 1992 beyond the general progress which results in any research topic where interest in the matter expands.

For anyone who would like to maintain such a claim, then I would be most delighted to examine your evidence documenting this behaviour. Minus such, may I suggest to refrain from repeating this exhausted, hoary old dogma which is not even fit for banter down to the pub, let alone “discussion”?

Right, rant subsiding… back to the more enlightening aspect of ‘which 737 models are in fact related as a single programme’?…

Those questions have just moved to 1,234,567th in my ‘list of things to be concerned about’.

In which case you’re probably on the wrong forum.:diablo:

Alas, I am sure that there will still be some members on this forum who insist that such confusion is in fact clear and official obfuscation, no doubt part of some dire (and certainly Evil) Communist conspiracy against “world freedom” by suppressing the true number of transport aircraft from Lisunov’s programme… [honestly, you couldn’t make it up…]

What set you off?
I was just repeatingf with what the books author said…that the numbers were now available.
Neither Francillon or i said anything worthy of your sarcastic tirade.

BTW: Did I somehow miss all the Putnam-type books published on the Soviet industry? :rolleyes:

Those questions have just moved to 1,234,567th in my ‘list of things to be concerned about’.

There are lots of other threads about Burmese Spitfires if you prefer, or I’m sure someone over in Military Aviation is comparing the P-38 against the F-22.

I actually find this topic fascinating; humans define a taxonomy of things, but then become ensnared in that very taxonomy. When is knowledge actually true truth and when is it something we’ve invented to fill-in for the absence of knowledge? And then we start believing it, because the actual truth is opaque.

Epistemology – some people study it all their lives!

Vexed

In the course of its production history, did anything else than the type of power plant, the position and type of doors and the floor structure change on the DC-3?

How much does the latest version of the B737 have in common with the original 737-100?

Is it really the same aircraft and can you count all as being “Boeing 737’s”…?

Those questions have just moved to 1,234,567th in my ‘list of things to be concerned about’.

In with a bullet – edging out ‘when is a JU52 not a JU52’ and ‘what will happen to XH558?’

Oh, the children…WILL SOMEBODY FOR GOD’S SAKE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!??

In the course of its production history, did anything else than the type of power plant, the position and type of doors and the floor structure change on the DC-3?

How much does the latest version of the B737 have in common with the original 737-100?

That’s true, but the DC-3 and its Russian cousins had a 18 year production span (1935-53)…and the “original” DC-3/C-47 only was in production for 11.

The 737 has been produced since 1967…some 46 years and longer than most readers of this forum have been alive.
So, I certainly expect some changes in any type over that long a period.
Engines and avionics have come a long ways in almost 50 years.

I think the C-47 introduced more castings and forgings for ease of production and I think the undercarriage was strengthened. Your 737 query is answered elsewhere in this thread….I think Boeing was able to spend more time and money than usual on refining the production process (panel sizes and join positions etc) between the Classic and NG because they could count on such a long production run

In the course of its production history, did anything else than the type of power plant, the position and type of doors and the floor structure change on the DC-3?

How much does the latest version of the B737 have in common with the original 737-100?

Is it really the same aircraft and can you count all as being “Boeing 737’s”…?

One point of interest here is that Boeing themselves considered the NG sufficiently different to warrant a restart of the build number sequence. Almost as if they wanted to drive a division between the NG and the earlier versions saying, yep..it is a 737 and much better…all new, does the same job better but is totally different.

Maybe the max will restart too.

The whole comparison thing is a pointless exercise as the current state of the World dictates the usefulness of any item and that has changed many times since.

Most “DC 3” were really C-47, but the civil version sold well. Not as many as some modern types, but in the hundreds when production runs for airlines were sometimes in single figures and 50 would have been a good run,

To compare numbers of DC3 against 737’s is a bit like comparing the top scoring American football team with the top scoring Rugby team…just numbers that mean nothing.

All B737s are on the same type certificate. I think that alone makes them all “Boeing 737s”.

But one needs to hold separate engineering licenses for the “Classics” and 737NGs to work on them.

And pilots need separate type ratings.

737, A320 etc are just marketing terms these days.

Alas, I am sure that there will still be some members on this forum who insist that such confusion is in fact clear and official obfuscation, no doubt part of some dire (and certainly Evil) Communist conspiracy against “world freedom” by suppressing the true number of transport aircraft from Lisunov’s programme… [honestly, you couldn’t make it up…]

Well to be fair there were construction number obfuscation schemes in former Soviet factories ( randomisation, block skipping etc) which existed solely to… suppress the total numbers built.

I don’t know if any Li-2 production was subjected to that, but I can understand why people expect it.

Is it really the same aircraft and can you count all as being “Boeing 737’s”…?

All B737s are on the same type certificate. I think that alone makes them all “Boeing 737s”.

The Russian numbers seem to have become more clear since the fall of the Soviet Union….

Can we please knock this preposterous Cold War drivel on the head once and for all– this farcical notion that historical aviation information has been somehow “blocked” or “hidden” by Evil Communist Forces of Secrecy (make sure to pronounce with that specific Yank accent for full effect)? Or, perhaps someone would like to illuminate us ignorati by detailing the specific problems you have encountered emanating from Soviet governmental sources during your penetrating research into such matters?

The fact is that the specific number of PS-84s/Li-2s manufactured in the USSR is not known to exactitude. A mountain of complex and slightly at-odds paperwork from various parties (e.g. the factories’ papers vs the Air Ministry’s papers vs other economic bureaux papers) has resulted in the total being susceptible to interpretation to within about 200 examples. The longest published figure comes from the records of Lisunov’s bureau at Tashkent: 4863 (which has appeared in print since the 1950s). Later research by Kotel’nikov seems to indicate a figure of 4924, and that of Pavlov suggests 5027. To this total must be added the number of machines purchased through various Soviet companies (e.g. AMTORG, the North-east Company, etc) which is also variously debated to lie between 22-30 examples (again depending upon the interpretation of documentary sources). I would suggest, therefore, that “approximately 5000” examples is the best one can put forward.

Alas, I am sure that there will still be some members on this forum who insist that such confusion is in fact clear and official obfuscation, no doubt part of some dire (and certainly Evil) Communist conspiracy against “world freedom” by suppressing the true number of transport aircraft from Lisunov’s programme… [honestly, you couldn’t make it up…]

In the course of its production history, did anything else than the type of power plant, the position and type of doors and the floor structure change on the DC-3?

How much does the latest version of the B737 have in common with the original 737-100?

Is it really the same aircraft and can you count all as being “Boeing 737’s”…?

I’d keep it simple Ken, and define anything as a DC-3 as being called, a ‘DC-3’. Similarly with the 737. Ultimately, whichever is called the same name the most, in addition to being made in prodigious quantities, wins.

The keep-the-name trick is an old technique much loved by manufacturers to keep type certification simple. Fokker were particularly adept at it, with such contrived designations as F.28 Mark 100 and F.27 Mark 050 ( F.100 and F.50 in the brochures ).

So basically the name means nothing.

There is no commonality between a 737-100 and a 737-900 except a few fuselage frames and that horrid, noisy windscreen.

The 100 / 200 and 300 to 500 series could be considered one type, but the 737NG is as different as the DC-3 was from the DC-2.

Edit: discussing this in the office, one comment made was that modern type names such as “737” really now mean as little as “iPhone” or “BMW 3 Series”. The are brandings to identify market niche, not actual model designations.

I think the 737 and the 319 belong on the commercial forum until they are going into museums

Muesum of Flight 737-100 🙂