If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Fark SearchWeb Fark

         more options... Create account

(Some Guy) Amusing Most awesome photos you'll see today of a 1930's Russian Flying Fortress dogfighting a Nazi flying saucer, velociraptors suspiciously absent   (englishrussia.com) divider line 90
More: Amusing  
•       •       •

17625 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Nov 2009 at 1:22 AM   |  Make this a Fark FavoriteFavorite    |   share: Share on OMGTWITTER WEB2.0share on StumbleUponshare on Facebook  more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!

90 Comments   (+0 »)


First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
Sgygus [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 12:32:22 AM  
I'm guessing that this aircraft never left the ground.

 
FlashHarry [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 12:35:33 AM  
come for the cool fake airplane and stay for the awesome russish:

In 1930s Russian army was ... by the idea of creating huge planes. At that times they were proposed to have as much propellers as possible to help carrying those huge flying fortresses into the air, jet propulsion has not been implemented at those times yet.

Not much photos were saved since that times, because of the high secrecy levels of such projects and because a lot of time passed already. Still on the photo below you can see one of such planes - a heavy bomber K-7.

Now modern history lovers in Russia try to reconstruct according the plans left in once to be top-secret Russian army archives their look in full color. This is one example based on ideas of Russian aviation engineers of that times.

 
GAT_00 [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 12:38:40 AM  
Uh, right. That's like a giant version of Hughes' Hercules.

 
FredaDeStilleto [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 12:40:24 AM  
Second photo, fifth from the left - Amelia Earhart. That commie bastard.

 
jims4x4toy [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 12:44:01 AM  
Link (new window)

 
House of Tards [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 12:46:09 AM  
Fark it, Dmitri. Just throw another propeller up on that sucker.

 
Confabulat [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 01:17:53 AM  
What would be the point of one of those anyway, other than just being a badass airplane with giant guns? Doesn't seem very practical.

 
mamoru [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 01:21:04 AM  
Looks like something out of a Studio Ghibli movie.

 
Esn 2009-11-07 01:32:01 AM  
Sgygus: I'm guessing that this aircraft never left the ground.

According to that Wikipedia article it actually did leave the ground... no info on how fast it could fly, though.

"K-7 first flew on 11 August 1933. Then on 21 November 1933 the aircraft crashed due to structural failure of one of the tail booms, killing 14 people aboard and one on the ground. Although two more prototypes were ordered in 1933, the project was canceled in 1935 before they could be completed."

 
Mentat [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 01:33:36 AM  
Where's the Rocketeer?

 
DarkSoulNoHope 2009-11-07 01:33:49 AM  
Confabulat: What would be the point of one of those anyway, other than just being a badass airplane with giant guns? Doesn't seem very practical.

Not to also mention, quite slow and unless they did the gun turrets properly, easy to shoot down.

 
Sgygus [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 01:35:47 AM  
Esn: K-7 first flew on 11 August 1933

The K-7 is not the same aircraft as shown in the linked article, if I am not mistaken.

 
The All-Powerful Atheismo 2009-11-07 01:38:02 AM  
Esn: Sgygus: I'm guessing that this aircraft never left the ground.

According to that Wikipedia article it actually did leave the ground... no info on how fast it could fly, though.



Except for that whole "Maximum Speed" thingy

 
EviLincoln [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 01:41:05 AM  
They should have one of those at the super bowl this year.

 
majestykelf 2009-11-07 01:41:33 AM  
Someone needs to make a video game with that plane in it IMMEDIATELY!

Crimson Skies II: Holy Shiat, Look At That Monstrosity!

Who's with me?

 
Robo Beat 2009-11-07 01:42:25 AM  
But where are the ninja vampire vixens, hmmm?

 
OnmyojiOmn 2009-11-07 01:48:32 AM  
Awesome game is awesome.

digilander.libero.it

/Hot like Rivet

 
video man 2009-11-07 01:48:51 AM  
For a second there, I thought "Star Wars" met the Commies and the Nazis, and I shat bricks.

 
queezyweezel 2009-11-07 01:49:14 AM  
DarkSoulNoHope: Confabulat: What would be the point of one of those anyway, other than just being a badass airplane with giant guns? Doesn't seem very practical.

Not to also mention, quite slow and unless they did the gun turrets properly, easy to shoot down.


I know. Silly concept.
www.nationalreview.com
(yeah, the Russian version was a spruce goose, but they were on the right track)

 
crab66 2009-11-07 01:50:08 AM  
Sgygus: Esn: K-7 first flew on 11 August 1933

The K-7 is not the same aircraft as shown in the linked article, if I am not mistaken.



It looks a hell of a lot like the actual photos in the article.

The renders are exaggerated bullshiat.

 
fearmongert 2009-11-07 01:50:33 AM  
i180.photobucket.com

 
Zeno-25 [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 01:51:06 AM  
englishrussia.com

Battleship turrets on a huge farking plane!? No wonder it crashed, it probably blew itself apart.

The Soviets always had a way of outdoing themselves...

 
DerekSD 2009-11-07 01:52:56 AM  
that'd make a kick ass aerial grow-op.

except for that whole can't fly thing.

 
Sgygus [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 01:57:23 AM  
crab66: It looks a hell of a lot like the actual photos in the article.

The photo of the K-7 in the Wiki article looks like it might fly ... but the 'K-7' in the headline-linked article not only appears much larger, but has all kinds of crap thrown on it as well.

/similar looking landing gear, I admit

 
Its_not_a_meme 2009-11-07 02:08:16 AM  
Esn: Sgygus: I'm guessing that this aircraft never left the ground.

According to that Wikipedia article it actually did leave the ground... no info on how fast it could fly, though.

"K-7 first flew on 11 August 1933. Then on 21 November 1933 the aircraft crashed due to structural failure of one of the tail booms, killing 14 people aboard and one on the ground. Although two more prototypes were ordered in 1933, the project was canceled in 1935 before they could be completed."


Fly? Yes. Land? No.

superherouniverse.com

 
rthanu 2009-11-07 02:20:47 AM  
queezyweezel: DarkSoulNoHope: Confabulat: What would be the point of one of those anyway, other than just being a badass airplane with giant guns? Doesn't seem very practical.

Not to also mention, quite slow and unless they did the gun turrets properly, easy to shoot down.

I know. Silly concept.

(yeah, the Russian version was a spruce goose, but they were on the right track)


it's a cool plane, but only practical if air superiority is well established, and even then only serves a tiny role. Creating a monstrosity instead of modding a run of the mill cargo plane is hardly the right track.

Kinda like the A-10, the most bad ass airplane in existance. The only problem is the fact that its designed role, tank killing, could be done just as well with a F-16(with much less danger presented to the pilot).

 
RockIsDead 2009-11-07 02:22:11 AM  
Like communism, the concept sounded better than the reality.

 
aspAddict 2009-11-07 02:30:43 AM  
Russia will always be the Tim Taylor of the world.

 
Thats an 827 2009-11-07 02:32:42 AM  
And we had the six a turning and four a burning ten engine monster not counting the APU(s?).

 
Kludge [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 02:37:54 AM  
rthanu: ...

Kinda like the A-10, the most bad ass airplane in existance. The only problem is the fact that its designed role, tank killing, could be done just as well with a F-16(with much less danger presented to the pilot).


False. The A-10 has the capability to destroy way more tanks than an F-16.

The A-10 can carry more ordinance, plus the 30mm cannon is designed for penetrating MBT armor. The 20mm cannon in the F-16 is not.

 
Kludge [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 02:43:33 AM  
These reconstructions look about 3 times as large as the actual plane.

Forward-firing battleship turrets? Definitely some serious history buffs at work here.

 
omgwtfbbq! 2009-11-07 02:53:23 AM  
Kludge: These reconstructions look about 3 times as large as the actual plane.

Forward-firing battleship turrets? Definitely some serious history buffs at work here.


It actually takes off backwards, by firing the battleship cannons to get extra thrust.
/It makes sense, if you drink enough
//Like everyone at englishrussia.com

 
puckhead 2009-11-07 03:03:34 AM  
as i looked through the pictures, I started hearing the "Imperial Death March"

 
Befuddled 2009-11-07 03:15:57 AM  
rthanu: Kinda like the A-10, the most bad ass airplane in existance. The only problem is the fact that its designed role, tank killing, could be done just as well with a F-16(with much less danger presented to the pilot).

What are you smoking? The A-10 got mothballed to the national guards because the jackass flyboys in the Air Force don't wan't to fly something that goes low and slow in the close air support role.

The military should have given the A-10 to the Marines. The Marine pilots better understand the job of close air support than the Air Force.

 
social benthos 2009-11-07 03:48:15 AM  
aspAddict: Russia will always be the Tim Taylor of the world.

Подробнее власти!

 
SuperCatBarf [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 03:49:28 AM  
Looks like a modernist condo complex designed by a moron and funded by a retard with tons of cash...basically, Soviet early faking-technology-era type stuff.

 
Dumle 2009-11-07 03:52:03 AM  
Zeno-25: Battleship turrets on a huge farking plane!? No wonder it crashed, it probably blew itself apart.

The Soviets always had a way of outdoing themselves...


Uh, yes...I guess the small details like a battleship turret being 5 stories tall and weighing in at around 1,500-3,000 tons each doesn't matter.

/shoopd
//seen quite a few pxls in my time

 
maxheck 2009-11-07 03:57:27 AM  
John Campbell unavailable for comment, but presumed to be masturbating furiously in his grave.

/ they power it with Red Mercury.

 
SuperCatBarf [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 04:02:47 AM  
Also, Cory Doctorow will discover this in a week, shriek, pogo, and clap with delight like a 12-year-old girl, declare it steampunk, post it on BoingBoing, and get worldwide acclaim, at which time it will be greenlighted again on Fark.

 
sapper_pig 2009-11-07 04:12:37 AM  
Befuddled: rthanu: Kinda like the A-10, the most bad ass airplane in existance. The only problem is the fact that its designed role, tank killing, could be done just as well with a F-16(with much less danger presented to the pilot).

What are you smoking? The A-10 got mothballed to the national guards because the jackass flyboys in the Air Force don't wan't to fly something that goes low and slow in the close air support role.

The military should have given the A-10 to the Marines. The Marine pilots better understand the job of close air support than the Air Force.


Actually, the A-10 was a replacement for the WWII era Douglas Skyraider, the close air support AC used during Vietnam. The primary mission for the A-10 is close ground support, unlike the F-16, which was a cheap, though very good fighter with limited bombing capability. The slow speed, armor, and bad ass gun mad the A-10 the success what it is, especially during the Gulf War.

The AF did try to make a ground support version of the F-16. The Cranked Arrow was more like a delta wing, so it can carry more bomb loads. In fact, the AF was trying get rid of the A-10s up to the Gulf War period, but the A-10s success kept them around.

The former Soviet version of ground attack is the Su-22 Frogfoot.

Now you know....

 
bhcompy 2009-11-07 04:45:51 AM  
Confabulat: What would be the point of one of those anyway, other than just being a badass airplane with giant guns? Doesn't seem very practical.

b.mektroid.net

 
Coelacanth 2009-11-07 05:35:26 AM  
It looks like the next Warhammer: 40,000 big seller.

 
LavenderWolf 2009-11-07 05:58:59 AM  
SuperCatBarf: Also, Cory Doctorow will discover this in a week, shriek, pogo, and clap with delight like a 12-year-old girl, declare it steampunk, post it on BoingBoing, and get worldwide acclaim, at which time it will be greenlighted again on Fark.

Who the F*ck is Cory Doctorow and why does anyone care?

 
Slug2468 [TotalFark] 2009-11-07 06:58:31 AM  
LavenderWolf: SuperCatBarf: Also, Cory Doctorow will discover this in a week, shriek, pogo, and clap with delight like a 12-year-old girl, declare it steampunk, post it on BoingBoing, and get worldwide acclaim, at which time it will be greenlighted again on Fark.

Who the F*ck is Cory Doctorow and why does anyone care?


I've been reading Cory Doctorow stories free online, other than an author with a hard on for Disney I don't know who he is though and nobody cares.

 
KerwoodDerby 2009-11-07 07:14:47 AM  
sapper_pig: The primary mission for the A-10 is close ground support, unlike the F-16

Precisely. The Marines wanted something that could strafe the bad guys and make another pass within 2 minutes (that's from my bad memory). The F-16 can do one strafe and then he's gone for minutes circling around, while your guys are getting shot at. Also, a turbofan is a lot more forgiving about debris and projectile fragments, which are often found in a war zone.

 
Gridlock 2009-11-07 07:19:52 AM  
You know there is a rule for ever military expenditure that the counter-cost of shooting it down should be much higher.

For example, big slow airplane meets large spread wide fishing net floating upward on weather balloons.

Cost of airplane = millions
Cost of net + balloons = hundreds of dollars

 
Verfall 2009-11-07 07:30:31 AM  
KerwoodDerby: sapper_pig: The primary mission for the A-10 is close ground support, unlike the F-16

Precisely. The Marines wanted something that could strafe the bad guys and make another pass within 2 minutes (that's from my bad memory). The F-16 can do one strafe and then he's gone for minutes circling around, while your guys are getting shot at. Also, a turbofan is a lot more forgiving about debris and projectile fragments, which are often found in a war zone.


Which is why the whole "replacing the A-10 with an F-35" thing just strikes me as moronic. The A-10 does its job nearly perfectly. The only other planes I can think of that match its reliability based on its role are the Hercs for transport, and the B-52's for just blowing the shiat out of things.

As far as I'm concerned those 3 airframes should just be constantly modernized till we reach a level of UAV reliability that can match them.

 
wildcardjack 2009-11-07 08:05:55 AM  
That's only a big plane if you haven't spent any time around modern heavy jets.

That being snarked, it must have moved like a cow.

 
Parthenogenetic 2009-11-07 08:20:07 AM  
Confabulat: What would be the point of one of those anyway, other than just being a badass airplane with giant guns? Doesn't seem very practical.

Don't you know *anything* about the terrifying secret weapons of the Nazis?

You should watch more History Channel...

img35.imageshack.us

 
Public Call Box 2009-11-07 08:30:09 AM  
majestykelf: Someone needs to make a video game with that plane in it IMMEDIATELY!

Crimson Skies II: Holy Shiat, Look At That Monstrosity!

Who's with me?


Well I'm passing this link onto my Crimson Skies Pulp game master. This thing is just the sort of thing those Nazi's in Chicago would try to build.

 
Displayed 50 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all


[Continue Farking]