Talk:Polikarpov Po-2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

looking at the map i see western germany belonged to the warsaw pact. everyday i learn something new here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.232.209.48 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 7 August 2007.

Just another typical day on Wiki. You're probably better off reading some sixth grade term paper on a subject - it will undoubtedly be more accurate, not to mention better written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.16 (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ночные Ведьмы

Can somebody transliterate? Trekphiler (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can: "Night witches". Asharidu (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. (I suppose I should have guessed...) Trekphiler (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First Female War Pilots

The article does not yet mention: In 1942 the Soviet Union became the first nation to allow women to pilot war planes - they used the Polikarpov Po-2. Nice SPIEGEL story: http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/5522/stalins_himmelstuermerinnen.html Epsiloner (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

so... you should add it. This is wikipedia. Skiendog (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Surviving sample in the hands of Paul Allen?

CNBC ran an article recently that named a Po-2 in the hands of Paul Allen. Can anyone confirm/deny whether this Po-2 of his was one of the Po-2's already listed in the "survivors" section we have running? Did he purchase the plane from one of the museums/collections? Skiendog (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yekaterina \ Nadezhda for Katya \ Nadya

Russian myself, I suggest changing Russian female names listed in the article to their more accepted formal variants: Yekaterina for Katya (as per respective Wikipedia naming page; although I believe that better phonetic transcription for that name in English would be "Yekatereena") and Nadezhda for Nadya (as per respective Wikipedia naming page; although I also feel that more correct phonetic transcription would sound as "Nadyezhda") respectively. As given now ("Katya" \ "Nadya" - these are child \ very informal names, not to mention that such form could be used in a derogatory sense conversationally), it sounds like we're discussing a couple of teens at best. Even if these pilots were actually teens (which does not sound uncommon for me, regarding that war), I feel that Wikipedia should stick to more formal naming (as per pilots' official documents; though I do not have at hand any documents regarding these exact pilots, I do not feel that there is even a 0,01% opportunity they were regarded officially as "Katya\Nadya" at any matter; such an informal, "closest-relative" reference simply could never be used in any official state-bound source (okay, it still has a 0,0001% chance...)), in contrary to a form given there. If anyone opposes that, please feel free to object here. Thanks for reading this and sorry for my Engrish :D Cheers 212.248.42.90 (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Was edited just to see the redlink come blue :) Right one. The other pilot' article is yet to be created though. Cheers. 212.248.42.90 (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Production figures?

The article currently claims an uncited production figure of 40,000 - this really needs backing up. Bill Gunston's The Osprey Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft 1875–1995 (1995) says 32600–33300 built (p. 288). What appears to be a online copy of Shavrov [1] says 32711. Russian Wikipedia says ~33,000. Any advances?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleaned out some of the 40,000s as that seems to be unsupported. In addition, the dates of when production ended (and for who) are mentioned in three different places - whether Polish production, minor workshop production or Aeroflot production, aside from production from the main Soviet factories. NiD.29 16:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

missing year.

"On 28 November, at 0300 hours, "

What year?

68.38.197.76 (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Nerve saw"?

The article states that the Po-2 was called the "hermosaha" ("nerve saw") by Finnish troops. All sources I am familiar with credit that nickname to the R-5 reconnaissance airplane rather than the Po-2.--Death Bredon (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably propaganda in either case, as similar names have turned out to be for other Allied types. One does not usually bestow such names on one's opponents aircraft - more often a name that ridicules it in some form is used, even if there is a hint of truth to the name. A sewing machine in contrast is a machine used mainly by women... NiD.29 16:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Not "copies" of the Po-2

I have removed the sentence stating that " Many foreign designers copied U-2 (Po-2): Avro Tutor (Great Britain, 1930), Focke-Wulf Fw-44 (Germany, 1932) and so on." That is ridiculous. The Avro Tutor was the direct successor of the Avro 504, which was popualar worldwide, and supplied to Russia in large numbers. It is obvious that neither the Tutor or the Fw 44 shares more than a similar layout and purpose with the Po-2, and there were numerous nations that made similar aircraft. The basic type and intended usage has been around since WWI. I don't see any possible claim that other nations "copied" the Po-2. They all came up with slightly more advanced versions of WWI era trainer/utility aircraft. There was no need to "copy" anyone else, it was a logical move, and European nations had been making aircraft of this type since WWI, before Russia ever did. The only way one could claim that others "copied" the Po-2 is if it had some novel and unique design feature that later appeared on other aircraft, or if it was a whole new, unprecedented type of aircraft made to fill a category that no one else had thought of yet. Nether one of these was true of the Po-2. The British made the Avro 504 (and others). Russia bought a lot of them. Later on, different nations realized independently that the 504 needed a replacement, so they all individually designed a more modern, yet equivalent aircraft. There is no reason to think that anything else would have happened. It's not a surprise move that would require a genius to think up. I think the closest you could say is that Russia was first to produce a new-generation trainer (and I have no idea if that's true or not), but that is NOT the same as saying that others "copied" them. Even if other nations were inspired to come up with new aircraft to "keep up" with Russia, so they weren't left with old trainers while Russia had modern ones, that is STILL not the same as "copying" the Po-2. It could be argued that it would be "copying" the RUSSIANS, but not the Po-2. That would require some direct relation between the Po-2 and the other aircraft..45Colt 04:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Colt, when you removed the vandalism, you also removed the existing reference, which was not added by the vandal. Please be more careful next time. - BilCat (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry; I didn't even realize that was considered "vandalism". I didn't notice that it had disappeared; it didn't highlight the reference when I highlighted the text, so I assumed the number would stay. Not totally used to this "Beta" editor yet, although it does make a lot of things easier..45Colt 05:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Map Error?

On the map, Laos is not colored red, but it is listed in the body of the article. Which is correct? Gregorybard (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Laos was added as an operator without any source or edit summary in 2012 by an school IP editor - I've reverted it as unsourced and almost certainly vandalism.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Crucial data missing

The most salient features of the Po-2 were its low stalling speed, and STOL capability. The article is long and well developed, with numerous anecdotes and trivia, wow. But nowhere in either the stats block or the text is the stall speed or takeoff distance listed. Freederick (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)