I was just reading through some stuff on the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo:

"...After dropping their bombs, mainly on or near their intended
targets, Doolittle's sixteen B-25B bombers left Japanese airspace,
essentially unhindered by enemy air interception and anti-aircraft
gunfire. One of them, suffering from excessive fuel consumption, had
no hope of reaching China and so headed for the closer Soviet Maritime
region. After landing north of Vladivostok, this plane and its five
crew members were interned by the then-neutral Soviet authorities. The
crew ultimately returned to the U.S. by way of Iran...."

I'm wondering why they didn't ALL head for Vladivostok... seems a
safer alternative in my mind...

(although I don't know the facts - there may have been a real good
reason for heading to China)

Cheers,
Richard

>I'm wondering why they didn't ALL head for Vladivostok... seems a
>safer alternative in my mind...

The object was to get the planes to China, where they would have
joined the CATF. They failed because of the early launch (a Japanese
fishing boat / picket boat? spotted the task force), which stretched
the flight beyond their capabilities. Directing them to Russia would
have been to throw away both planes and crews. (Russia was obligated
to intern them, and did so for a time.)

It certainly was a screw-up. What I don't understand is that if the
formation had launched later in the morning, they would have gotten to
China later at night. What chance did they ever have of a safe
landing?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >I'm wondering why they didn't ALL head for Vladivostok... seems a
> >safer alternative in my mind...
>
> The object was to get the planes to China, where they would have
> joined the CATF. They failed because of the early launch (a Japanese
> fishing boat / picket boat? spotted the task force), which stretched
> the flight beyond their capabilities. Directing them to Russia would
> have been to throw away both planes and crews. (Russia was obligated
> to intern them, and did so for a time.)
>
> It certainly was a screw-up. What I don't understand is that if the
> formation had launched later in the morning, they would have gotten to
> China later at night. What chance did they ever have of a safe
> landing?
>

Pretty poor but they'd have had more fuel to spare to look for
an airfield.

Keith

>It certainly was a screw-up. What I don't understand is that if the
>formation had launched later in the morning, they would have gotten to
>China later at night. What chance did they ever have of a safe
>landing?

According to everything I've read or seen on TV, with the beacon at the Chinese
airfield off, it was nearly impossible to find. Apparently it was a small
strip, intentionally camouflaged to hide it from the air.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Richard > wrote:

> I was just reading through some stuff on the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo:
>
> "...After dropping their bombs, mainly on or near their intended
> targets, Doolittle's sixteen B-25B bombers left Japanese airspace,
> essentially unhindered by enemy air interception and anti-aircraft
> gunfire. One of them, suffering from excessive fuel consumption, had
> no hope of reaching China and so headed for the closer Soviet Maritime
> region. After landing north of Vladivostok, this plane and its five
> crew members were interned by the then-neutral Soviet authorities. The
> crew ultimately returned to the U.S. by way of Iran...."
>
> I'm wondering why they didn't ALL head for Vladivostok... seems a
> safer alternative in my mind...
>
the Soviet Union was not at war with Japan. They (the Soviets) probably
would have been right ****ed at a mass violation of their neutrality.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

>the Soviet Union was not at war with Japan. They (the Soviets) probably
>would have been right ****ed at a mass violation of their neutrality.

Not really. Every plane that landed was a gift to the Russian air
force.

They especially liked the B-29s that landed there, later in the war.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Did they not build their own version of the B-29, based on the blueprints they
constructed of the model they had at hand?

George Z.

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >the Soviet Union was not at war with Japan. They (the Soviets) probably
> >would have been right ****ed at a mass violation of their neutrality.
>
> Not really. Every plane that landed was a gift to the Russian air
> force.
>
> They especially liked the B-29s that landed there, later in the war.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put CUB in subject line)
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

George Z. Bush wrote:

> Did they not build their own version of the B-29, based on the blueprints they
> constructed of the model they had at hand?
>
> George Z.
>

Yes, they did: the Tupolev Tu-4 `Bull'.


Regards,
Ralph Savelberg

> Did they not build their own version of the B-29, based on the blueprints
>they
>> constructed of the model they had at hand?

I do not believe they had any blueprints. The Tu-4 was completely reverse
engineered.
VL

MLenoch wrote:

>>Did they not build their own version of the B-29, based on the blueprints
>>they
>>
>>>constructed of the model they had at hand?
>>>
>
> I do not believe they had any blueprints. The Tu-4 was completely reverse
> engineered.
> VL
>


I don't think they had blueprints of the original. However, the reverse engineering process undoubtedly

included making their own blueprints based on the actual aircraft (most
likely in metric units BTW).

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

MLenoch wrote:
>> Did they not build their own version of the B-29, based on the blueprints
>> they
>>> constructed of the model they had at hand?
>
> I do not believe they had any blueprints. The Tu-4 was completely reverse
> engineered.
> VL

I think we're saying the same thing. I didn't say that they had any
blueprints....I said that they made them by taking the airplane apart, measuring
and weighing everything, and putting their findings down on their own
blueprints, so that the Tupelov people could build an airplane from them. If
that's reverse engineering, that's undoubtedly what they did.

George Z.

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 08:21:44 -0500, "George Z. Bush" > wrote:

>Did they not build their own version of the B-29, based on the blueprints they
>constructed of the model they had at hand?

>George Z.

Yes, it was the Tupolev TU-4 "Bull". Naturally the Soviets claimed that it
was an original Soviet design.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote:

<<Yes, it was the Tupolev TU-4 "Bull". Naturally the Soviets claimed that it
was an original Soviet design. >>

It was amazing, right down to the fillaments in the radio tubes and every screw
and thread!

-- Charlie Springer

(Regnirps) wrote in message >...
> Alan Minyard wrote:
>
> <<Yes, it was the Tupolev TU-4 "Bull". Naturally the Soviets claimed that it
> was an original Soviet design. >>
>
> It was amazing, right down to the fillaments in the radio tubes and every screw
> and thread!
>
> -- Charlie Springer

Great article on that that plane's development:

http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/2001/FM/TU-4.html

On 05 Nov 2003 07:58:30 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:

>Alan Minyard wrote:
>
><<Yes, it was the Tupolev TU-4 "Bull". Naturally the Soviets claimed that it
>was an original Soviet design. >>
>
>It was amazing, right down to the fillaments in the radio tubes and every screw
>and thread!
>
>-- Charlie Springer

It certainly was a great exercise in reverse engineering. I think that some of
it was due to fear. If the TU-4s started auguring in they could blame the
"stupid Americanski design", but in order to do that, it had to be an
exact copy.

Al Minyard

"Mike Zaharis" > wrote in message
om...
> (Regnirps) wrote in message
>...
> > Alan Minyard wrote:
> >
> > <<Yes, it was the Tupolev TU-4 "Bull". Naturally the Soviets claimed
that it
> > was an original Soviet design. >>
> >
> > It was amazing, right down to the fillaments in the radio tubes and
every screw
> > and thread!
> >
> > -- Charlie Springer
>
> Great article on that that plane's development:
>
> http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/2001/FM/TU-4.html

Great article indeed!

Didn't know the Sovs were going to bomb Budapest!

John

(Mike Zaharis) writes:

> Great article on that that plane's development:
>
> http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/2001/FM/TU-4.html

Indeed, thanks for posting the link.
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan