Why Stalin Didn't Want The ME-262 Copied (And What Happened Next) 

Your video on this is a lot saner than mine ;)

The 262, although impressive, was already becoming obsolete, coupled with axial flow engines that couldn’t be manufactured with mature metallurgy, it really wasn’t as good as many people thought it was. 1947, 5 years after the first flight of the 262 and 3 years after its introduction, saw the first flight of both the Sabre and MiG-15. Aviation advancements from 1930 -1960 were bonkers. When a government issues requirements for aircraft to replace those that haven’t even flown yet, you know things are moving quickly.

The photo at time 1:10 should be very informative for those who refuse to accept the purpose of the wing sweep of the 262. This photo of a prototype clearly shows that at first only the outer panels were swept back from the originally straight design, which was done to change the relationship between the center of gravity and the center of pressure caused by engines that were heavier than planned. You can see the wing inboard of the engine remains straight. The whole point of sweeping the outer panel was to avoid changing the structure of the fuselage to move the wing attach point. The sweep of the inboard panel was added later simply by extending the line of the outer leading edge to add additional surface area at the front of inner panel, and the trailing edge remained straight. By the way, the 262 wing was swept nowhere near 35 degrees, it was only 17.5, the same as the DC-3. 35 degrees is more like the F-86.

Small note - in engineering we are taught first thing you do is look at solutions that already exist to avoid reinventing the wheel. And you use them or modify to fit you requirements or design something better. "Copying" something still needs to go trough same tests and validation as something original.

I harbored the same question for years. The Soviet Russians pride themselves on being inventors and innovators and proud copyists. The Russians have no compunction about copying foreign technology, unlike the proud Americans, British, and French. But the Russians don't just copy for the sake of copying. They copy just the best. For example, the Soviets had the opportunity to reverse engineer and copy a captured American F-86A in 1952-53. But the Soviet Air Force declined. Their new MiG-17 Fresco was reaching operational status and it was faster and had a higher ceiling than the F-86A. My opinion is that the Soviet test engineers and scientists adjudged the Me-262 to be an obsolete design by 1946. The Soviets felt they could do better with their own domestic designs, albeit heavily influenced by German aerospace technology. In this they were proved right with the MiG-15. The foolish British Prime Minister Clement Atlee provided the rest, free samples of the British Nene and Durwent jet engines which the Soviets reverse engineered and produced without paying royalties. Stalin thanked the British by calling them fools.

Meanwhile the B-29/Tu-4 team had to be absolutely faithfull to the B-29, even if they saw problems...

Oh.. Friday evening in Or-straya .. Grabs Whiskey, pours a generous shot.. settles down for some NAPFATG. It's the little things that keep me going.

The only non-German Me 262 that I like is the Kikka which is solely based on the manual of the fighter because the blueprints were sunk in a submarine so they remade almost the whole machine. Some said it handled better in low speeds thatn the 262 and had a smaller silhuette. Its maiden flight was 3 days before the first atomic bomb hit Japan thought

Thanks for the video. I was at WPAF base in Dayton and they had an engine on display. The ME-262 I was told was a maintenance hog. As much as people are in awe of the ME-262 it was not a credible fighting aircraft for what was needed and day-to-day operations. The numbers on the Spitfire Supermarine posted almost as good of numbers as the ME but didn't require the manpower and logistics to operate. The Soviets went with the British engine for their jets eventually for good reasons including higher reliability.

You and Drachnifel have restored my faith in the sterling English spoken language along with all of its wonderful attributes such as clever construction of the sentences and some succulent satire and I’m glad to have come across this superb channel and I cheekily encourage you to narrate a few audiobooks if you’re interested and also have the time. Thanks again and best wishes.👏📚☘️

An interesting thing was discovered about the shape of the 262 fuselage when one was stripped to make templates to repair others. The individual panels had only simple curves. There were no compound curve so that untrained people could build them. The simple curves gave rise to the fuselage having that odd cross sectional shape.

The common theme in early jet aircraft design is the lack of reliable engines

Always appreciative of anything featuring the 262 that acknowledges damn near everyone with an aviation industry was dicking around with jets and concepts for years.

Objectivly this is a fairly dry recitation of facts and numbers regarding some obscure, and frankly unimpressive, performance wise, aircraft that never quite made the cut. Subjectively, I could watch for hours, just fascinating. Thanks for the content.

You continue to exceed expectations. Great topic well done. Keep it up

I cannot tell you how much I enjoy all your aviation videos. You lay out the facts and history so clearly, concisely, and entertainingly that it makes them compelling even if the chosen subject wasn't about my favorite aircraft. I served 7 years in the USAF and have a pretty good understanding of USAF aircraft history and have found everything you say is accurate. I also love that your videos are narrated by you and not a digital bot which I hate. Keep up the good work. BTW I love your English accent, it so reminds of my English grandmother.

Thank you for this upload!

Excellent presentation with so many pictures and diagrams of Soviet aircraft unknown to the 'West' for the length of the USSR's existence and then some. It is fitting you start off with the short films of the tail dragging prototype Me-262. Nice work!

The United States spend $3 Billion to develop the B-29 Superfortress. That is a full billion more than the Manhattan Project. The Bomber had 1 Million parts and was the most complex flying machine ever created. Stalin was able to "Intern" Four B-29's when they had to make emergency landings during a Missions on Manchuria. One B-29 was allowed to fly home with it's crew at the end of the war. Stalin had a B-29 taken apart completely with every piece laid out for a grand meeting with all of Russia's manufacturing companies required to attend. He assigned a part to every company that was required to copy that exact piece perfectly. The Soviets Debuted it's B-29 Superfortress clone that they called The Tupolev Tu-4 nicknamed by NATO "The Bull" in a soviet airshow. The Soviet Union invited foreign observers, including Western military attaches, to the event. During the parade, three Tu-4s and a Tu-70 passenger version flew over the airfield at 600 feet. Western observers initially thought the aircraft were B-29 bombers that had been diverted to the Soviet Union during World War II. However, when a fourth Tu-4 appeared, the observers realized that the Soviets had reverse-engineered the B-29. The Tupolev Tu-4 was the USSR's Principal Strategic Bomber until the Mid 50's. The Chinese flew the Tupolev Tu-4 until 1988.

This video was a treat. Not only was there a tail sitter version of the Me-262 but multiple examples of the Gigant glider version on the field.

I love this type of content, well done.

Well this was a good thing to wake up to and start my day with!

This is a wonderful and informative video. Thank you!

Thank you for a very good exploration into this subject. I find the evolution of early military jets to be fascinating.

Everything built is based on a previous work then improved on. If examples of the previous work are obtainable. Politicians and the military brass make the public believe it is an all new exclusive design.

Great video...👍

algo post, love your vids!

Great vid , Well researched an imaged , the Yak 15 " Tadpole " was a good description , the Me 262 is still one of my Favourite Jets Abiet its Short comings which I put down to other Failings within the German mish mash of Top heavy Mis Managment an the loss of gaining required Nickel for the Engines , Great vid .

I was waiting for this notification

It is interesting to see how quickly the relatively backward Soviet Union was able to adapt and develop modern technologies. The success of the Soviet space programs is perhaps the best example of this.

Speaking of Yak-28, would this qualify for its own video? I know it may not be entirely in your wheelhouse, but there are so many interesting variants!

The Gloster Meteor compared to the 262 was in squadron service earlier. Was in action earlier. Was more reliable than the 262. Had better quality. Most 262 never flew in service. The Luftwaffe lacked pilots and fuel. Where the 262 had limited advantage over the Meteor was in speed and the 262 looked better

Very cool video, but it would be nice if it used the correct measurement system for plane stats.

Frank Whittle patented both centrifugal and axial flow engines, Ohain in Germany copied Whittle's patents making a centrifugal engine but it went nowhere. Germany adopted axial flow rather than Ohain`s failure. Whittle realized that centrifugal was easier and it worked bringing in a jet engines that outperformed piston planes. Metropolitan Vickers went ahead with axial flow R&D being well ahead of the Germans. Rolls Royce took on Whittle's design, improving it. The USA were given Whittle's designs. Post war France tried to make the German jet engines work properly and reliably, wasting years while Armstrong Siddeley went ahead with the Metropolitan Vickers design. RR made the Derwent and Nene, with the Nene in 1944 giving twice the thrust of any other engine on the planet. RR then made the excellent axial-flow Avon in 1950 the first reliable axial-flow engine, taking nothing from German failures. The Avon is still used today in ground based use. The USSR tried to get the German BMW to work properly but gave up when they got the RR Nene. Czechoslovakia had some 262's after WW2, dropping the plane. All modern turbojet engines and planes owe their existence to the British designs not the German failures.

Amazing research. I'm a true aviation history nerd, but I've never heard of most of these planes.

Could ya make an video on the Horten Ho229? I'm still kinda confused about it....

This example is an early tail dragger variant of the 262. It was replaced by a tricycle layout for better control during takeoff.

The term "simply copying" in engineering is merely a contradiction because the involved effort is never simple and the final product is never a direct copy. Reverse engineering has become a popular and appealing narrative in modern aircraft histories, often giving the false impression that "copying" someone else's work is simpler, cheaper, faster, and more practical than creating your own design. However, in reality, reverse engineering can prove more costly, less efficient, and more troublesome than straightforward engineering. Generally, it is always better to design and engineer your own product rather than trying to understand the reasoning behind another engineer's designs, especially when that engineer is unavailable for questioning.

Interesting you choose the footage of the tail wheel 262.

It's funny how all the planes that were mentioned got ruined by one guy

Another banger video. Thanks for the consistently awesome content.

The service speeds of the 262 in combat was around 515 mph while RR Griffon powered Spitfires in 1944 could reach up to 480 mph, only 35 mph less. The 262 had poor maneuverability and control issues at high speeds at around 550 mph resulting in the tail surfaces locking driving the plane into the ground. The pilots were instructed not to go over 450 mph. The engines would stall if the throttles were opened too fast - a major flaw. The minor sweep of the Me 262's wing was never designed with the intention to gain high speed, it was to gain balance when fitting the engines. The inboard wings were almost straight with the outer wings swept. The Meteor and 262 were major advances in technology at the time, but it's important to know what stood out. The Germans were facing fuel shortages in mid 1944. Their supplies of aviation fuel were cut off by the Soviets in the east. Without an adequate supply of aviation fuel the Luftwaffe's BF109, and FW190's would become useless. Germany had lots of coal mastering the manufacturing of J2 synthetic fuel which was suitable for jet engine use. The Luftwaffe invested in jet fighters and bombers from 1944 onwards as they had little option. In the UK the advantages of jet engines were well known, yet propeller aircraft made in massive volumes were more than suitable, so the development of jet aircraft was never seen as vital to the war effort. Whittle's design was taken by the government so any other designer or company could use for their own designs leading to centrifugal flow engines by other companies like Rolls Royce, De Haviland as well as Whittle's Power Jets. Metropolitan Vickers were working on axial flow turbojets first running in 1940, with multiple types produced during the war for use in high speed launches and gensets. There were *five* turbojet engines in the UK under R&D in WW2: *1) Centrifugal,* by Whittle (Rover); *2) Centrifugal,* by Frank Halford (DeHaviland); *3) Axial-flow,* by Metro-Vick; *4) Axial-flow* by Griffiths (Rolls Royce); *5) Axial flow compressor, with reverse flow combustion chambers.* The ASX by Armstrong Siddeley; The Metropolitan Vickers designs were test flown in 1942 producing more thrust than anything Germany produced with a longer service life. The axial-flow were more expensive compared to the centrifugal designs with still development problems to solve, so being funded by the government they were never selected for any aircraft with cost being one of the rejection points. Metropolitan Vickers produced the first successful turbofan engines rated double anything Germany ever produced during the war. Also the turboprop engine found large-scale use post war because of its excellent fuel consumption.

The two most important factors in aircraft design are the wing and the powerplant(s). Structure was a big consideration in the early era, but was more or less standardized by the 1940s.

Amazing, what do you think was the ratio of proposed and/or prototype designs to actual production aircraft? 10:1? 20:1?

that 1 min and 19 sec dolly shot at the beginning is pretty impressive for 1945(?).

I mean the czech built some and they still had major problems with them, especially with the engines

I guess the date of the test flight gave Jakovlev high hopes.

Good video nice to learn about soviet aircraft.

Thanks

What is "thorium radar"?

The concept of a tail-dragger jet fighter makes my brain itch.

I saw the bomb under the protoype and thought you were gonna say "and the second protoype was destroyed in an accident..."

ME-262 was downed by Kozhedub in La-7 without much effort. Soviets already were working on MiG-9 at that time too. No reason to copy ME-262. Moreover those were produced for a while in Czechoslovakia from leftover parts as mentioned in video, but were not exactly loved.

It's because they simply didn't have the capability, meaning Soviet production methods simply weren't up to the task. There was a similar situation with the StG-44 assault rifle. It made extensive and particularly ingenious use of stampings, the production of which is a high industrial art and not trivial. It takes quite a bit of finesse to engineer the dies to produce those stampings and to control the process to ensure the necessary quality. The Soviets ATTEMPTED to produce a copy, the Sudayev AS-44, which understandably ran into severe production issues. The project was a complete failure. It wasn't until after the war that the Soviets were able to complete a new assault rifle fit for Soviet production methods with the assistance of Hugo Schmeisser.

I was wondering if you were going to touch on the Beagle and the Firebar. At least there was a picture of the Beagle and a footnote on the Firebar. The Firebar reminded me of .. oh, why don’t you make this light bomber into an interceptor.

Anybody else think those Su designs were influenced by the Bell P-39 and P-63? The Soviets loved their Cobraskis.

"The Me-262 itself has been endlessly covered elsewhere, so I'm not going to walk back over old ground." Then proceeds to recite every spec of the Me-262. 🙄

Ultimately it was not as good as people thought.....and still think to this day

What are we looking at here? 17:14 🎉. I live for these drops 🎉.

Man I'm here early!

the reason for the 262 swept wings was down to luck not judgement .-because of the very long axial compressor jets -they needed to move the CG rearwards .It was not done to improve the transonic performance - the Meteor did not have this CG problem with its much shorter centrifugal compressor jets - so got conventional straight wings

centrifugal flow engines were just more mature at the time vs axial flow and easier to integrate

Have you ever thought of doing a video of the history of the afterburning jet engine?

Yakovlev: Excellent plane, did you test if it can land on the bottom of the lake?

Interesting how much of a say Stalin had in the development of aircraft considering he never flew.

Whatever Soviets would field as their 0-gen jet fighters, would be made insignificant by MiG-15 anyway. And all these pod mounted engines would be kind of maintenance nightmare.

ultimatly, the Soviets made the right decision, the me 262's on-paper superiority over things like the Meteor was not really all it was cracked up to be. However, I must wonder that if they had ever tried to do something along the lines of the Me 262 Hg III with the pods merged with the main body and the swept wings if that would have had a significant impact on aircraft performance, or (more importantly) Soviet aircraft development in relation to twin jet and a potentially earlier adoption of axle compressor jets (though that was gonna happen soon anyway)

10:43 scrapping the prototype in '48 just shows, how much some people can hold a grudge (if squeezing out of the budget wasn't already a clear enough sign) 10:49 what were the afterburning RD-10F used on? MiG-9? 16:58 Yes, that seems perfectly in line with holding such a grudge... 21:08 Proof! See? There! 😂

Is the ME262 supposed to catch fire when it lands?

Even in Nazi Germany ongoing desogns would have made the Me 262 obsolete if the war had somehow continued (and Berlin hadn't won the Nuke sweep stakes from Hiroshima). While the HO (or Go) 229 flying wings are a darling of many but I think the FW Ta 183 (which had won the contest against the Me P1901 for the next fighter) would have replaced the production of Me 262s if time allowed. However at the end of the day it was the lack of critical materials to make lasting and stronger turbo jet engines which was always going to cripple Germany's ability to keep up with the Allies.

*There is a myth that the Germans were way ahead of the British in jet engines and planes in WW2, when the opposite is true.* The WW2 German jet engines were extremely unreliable with low performances and very high fuel consumption. The German *axial-flow* turbojets never worked as they wanted, being developed up to 1953 by the French to obtain a usable engine. The French lost a lot of time playing around with the German engines, instead of working with the British. The French and Soviets after WW2 tried to improve the German axial-flow engines and largely failed. The Germans did not invent the axial-flow turbojet, they based everything on Frank Whittle's patents. The British Metropolitan-Vickers F.1 axial-flow engine was running on a test bed in 1941. The F.2 was an axial-flow being an extremely advanced design using a nine-stage axial compressor, annular combustor, and a two-stage turbine. It powered a Meteor in November 1943. It was considered unreliable and never saw use during the war, hence why the British went for the reliability, controllability and quick development of the centrifugal turbojets. The Metro-Vick F.3 was the first ever *turbofan* in 1943. Metro-Vick developed the F.9 Sapphire, however left the jet business in 1947 giving all their designs to Armstrong Siddeley, who commercially produced the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire engine, which was licence built in the US as the J-65. The British in order to get a usable and reliable jet engine, with the technology of the time, went for a *centrifugal* design rather than the troublesome axial-flow design. This design produce more thrust than an axial-flow in WW2 as the Ne e dud in 2944. Centrifugal was quicker to develop and reliable outperforming the best piston engines planes at the time. It took 5 months to develop, while the first _reliable_ axial-flow engine was the 1950 Rolls Royce Avon, which took 5 years to get right. The Avon is still in production as a ground based gas turbine, with the aero version in production for 30 years. In 1945 the French made and tested some German designed turbo jets made with quality alloys unavailable to German industry in WW2. They ran for 25 hours instead of the 10 hours of the Germans engines that used poorer quality steel. Not much better. The German axial-flow engines failed because of heavy design flaws. The centrifugal compressor used by the first British Meteor plane was fine and much more reliable, but unable to reach high compression ratios. This limited performances. Centrifugal compressors were used up to the 1960s. In 1945 the team from the French ATAR laboratory plus some BMW and Junkers engineers, were engaged by the French SNECMA research bureau, with the objective to build a new reliable and performing axial-flow turbojet. The BMW 003/Jumo004 was considered unusable. It was tested on the first French jet aircraft, the 1946 So6000 Triton, overheating and exploding. The plane only flew with a Rolls Royce Nene centrifugal turbojet. The ATAR project took 6 years to produce the first acceptable axial-flow turbojet (ATAR 101 B1), produced in 1953. So 8 years research and developments by the French using the German jet engines as the base. It was installed on the first French jet fighter, the Dassault Ouragan. The French lost a lot of time because the German jets had poor efficiency and some concept failures. The failures were essentially in the combustion chambers and fresh air circulation to reduce the external temperature of the engine. The BMW jet was known for overheating problems which precluded fuselage installation. *The question at the end of WW2 was: what is the most efficient way to produce jet fighters?* The answer was clearly not adopting the German design of engine and fuselage. The build costs for a jet engine were much higher than a piston engine at the time with the fuel consumption near 3x. The centrifugal compressor the British adopted in some planes was the best choice with 1944-45 technology, more compression pressure was not an advantage when the hot turbine was unable to resist higher temperatures. The German turbojets had big overheat problems as the engine would not work in an enclosed fuselage for single-engined fighters. This defect was immediately noted by the French on the 1946 "SO 6000 Triton" prototype, and by the Soviets on the 1946 Mig 9. The Soviets quickly replaced the BMW 004B2 by the centrifugal Rolls Royce Nene which worked without problems, dismissing the BMW engine for fighter planes. The Rolls Royce Nene was copied to the last nut by the USSR being installed in the Mig 15 being used effectively in the Korean war. The Meteor was the first proper fully developed jet plane in squadron service. The 262 was slightly faster than the Meteor F3, but extremely unreliable. *The British would never put into the sky such an undeveloped plane as the me262.* The British could have had a jet fighter operational in 1941, but it may have been as bad as the me262. The Germans advanced R&D on jets after they interrogated captured British RAF men. They learned the British were advanced in jet technology and flying prototype planes. Until then the Germans had no intention of mass producing jet planes. The rushed together Me262 started _claiming_ kills on 26 July 1944, the Meteor claimed its first V1 kill a few days later on the 4 August 1944. *But the Meteor was a proper fully developed jet plane, not a thrown together desperate effort as the me262 was.* The me262 fuselage was similar to a piston plane with the pilot over the wings obscuring downward vision, while the Meteor was a proper new design fuselage specifically for jet fighters with a forward of the wings pilot position giving superior pilot vision, as we see in planes today. The cockpit was very quiet. The sweptback wings of the me262 were to move the engines further back for better weight distribution, not for aerodynamic reasons as is thought the case. The me262's airframe was based on piston engine planes, even with an initial rear tail wheel. The tricycle landing gear was only introduced when it was found the thrust of the jet engines would scorch the runway surface as the exhaust faced downwards. The nosewheel was unreliable. The Meteor's airframe was designed purely for jet propulsion even with a high tail to prevent thrust interfering with the tail which could affect control. Centrifugal compressors are still used in turboprops. Between a turbo jet and a turboprop, the only difference is the turbine, not the compressor. The last centrifugal compressor jet engine still in service on a handful of commercial aircraft like the Fokker 27, is the Rolls Royce Dart turboprop. A very reliable engine made in 27 versions, but with high fuel consumption to modern engines. The Rolls Royce Dart Turboprop turbo jet engine was produced the longest, being a comparable design turbojet to the likes the Rolls Royce Nene. The rugged engine was produced from 1946 up to 1987.

The MIG with the engines tucked under the fuselage looks a bit like a scorpion from below.

It looks like the Soviet engineers took the tail design from the Bell P-63 “KingCobra”, and put it on the Su-9 aircraft.

Tossing an instant 🕳 on a competitors runway.😮

Copying makes an very big part in the history of flight development everyone did everyone does.

The MiG 15 was a German design with a British engine.

One of the greatest blinders of all time.. was Britain gifting jet engine tech to Russia.. within a few years the Russians were using them against British pilots over Korea …

One reason to copy the Germans above anyone else is that you're quite likely to end up "borrowing" some of their equipment in wartime. How nice to overrun an airfield and your stuff is magically already compatible.

Reverse engineering is not as simple as it looks. The US tried to reverse engineer the MG-42 and botched the job. The Tu-4 was far more complex and the USSR managed to credibly reverse engineer the B-29.

Yak-28: Nothing wrong! LFAX-9: Man...

Strange, they copied loads of other things such as B29s and early RR jet engines.

262 with a tailwheel?

0:06 First guess : it sucked, cos the engines sucked, had poor ground clearance, and a bad tailplane

The British sale of Nenes and Derwents comes up in almost every Soviet jet development story until the early 60s in some cases. Has to be one of the most monumentally poor decisions of the Cold War. Have you seen any information on the who and why? Was it a denial of the political situation, an attempt at preventing souring relations, a thumbing of the nose at the Americans, or simply a reflection on the desperation for hard currency at the time?

The Me 262 was performant yes but not rugged at all! Its engines have a few tens of hours of lifetime at best! soviets always wanted rugged low maintenance stuff.

"I'm Grady and today on Practical Engineering, we're going to reverse engineer the first Jet fighter. [State Anthem of the Soviet Union plays]"

just "think of" any SU 11 with those Huge Cannons! Also used in "ground attack?" think of 57 0r 75mm? auto, nevermind the smaller ones, all with Prox fussed ammo? WHOOOW? ARTY from God? and not much good hi speed AA at the time.

only wwii german designs worth copying were submarines and rockets apparently

👍

WOuld have been nice if you would have included metric units into the video. It simply sucks to always pause the video in order to translate that unintelligable gibberish into seomthing that makes sense.

That's more like a copy of the Nakajima Kikka than than 262. Or both the Soviets and Japanese looked at the 262 and reached the same conclusions separately.

24 second after upload

a lot of Soviet designs were great...on paper...in reality not so much....for example: T34 was fast, on paper, but there was no Soviet Superman so no one was ever able to get it into 4th gear and a lot of people could not even get it into 3rd gear...

I get fed up of the supposed superiority of the Me 262. In reality it was a dead end and deeply compromised. Its flat out speed and armament were more than let down by it's awful climb rate, lower ceiling, and poor engines that gave it a thrust/weight ratio far worse than any other early jet fighter. Had it faced Meteors or Shooting Stars it would have been lucky to get a shot off without total surprise and its opponents flying low.

He failed to copy the one thing that was so advanced in Me262, the swept wing?

Why reinvent the wheel when it has already been invented

Captured German technology n technicians played a big roll for Russias first jet powered jet fighters.

Are You nuts? Stalin's engineers copied the Me-262, but only with 1 engine. The jet is called MiG-15.

ngl the I-212 reminds me of the L-39 Albatross? and also the MiG-15 as well? *WAIT TWO 76MM CANNONS ON AN ESCORT FIGHTER? YOU WHAT?*

Was confused at first. You refer to the Soviet copy as the Su-9. The Su-9 was a single engine aircraft that first flew in 1959. Also this early Su-9 was superseded by an improved model named Su-11. But the Su-11 was an improved model of the later Su-9. I see that multiple sources indicate you are correct. I haven't encountered examples of Soviets recycling aircraft designations like this. I'm curious if there was any sort of intelligence error by the West and what their sources were during the tight security of the Stalin era. Or maybe, despite my 50 years of studying military aircraft and being a type recognition expert during my service, those sneaky commie rat bastards just snuck one by me.