Second photo, fifth from the left - Amelia Earhart. That commie bastard.

Fark it, Dmitri. Just throw another propeller up on that sucker.

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."

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.

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

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?

But where are the ninja vampire vixens, hmmm?

Awesome game is awesome.



/Hot like Rivet

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.

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...

that'd make a kick ass aerial grow-op.

except for that whole can't fly thing.

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.

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).

Russia will always be the Tim Taylor of the world.

And we had the six a turning and four a burning ten engine monster not counting the APU(s?).

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.

These reconstructions look about 3 times as large as the actual plane.

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

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

as i looked through the pictures, I started hearing the "Imperial Death March"

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.

aspAddict: Russia will always be the Tim Taylor of the world.

Подробнее власти!

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

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....

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.

It looks like the next Warhammer: 40,000 big seller.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

Once they add a wave motion gun to it, will be unstoppable.

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.

Actually the AC-130 has its roots in a budgetary and logistical problem.
The Harrier is one of our more effective attack aircraft because it can land in the bush, rearm, and get back in the fight moments later. Its the fastest way to respond as the mission evolves.
Unfortunately fighters are expensive and harder to maintain. Bombers need big runways and take a long time to reload.
These old transport aircraft are cheap and can land anywhere. By using cannons and machine guns instead of bombs and missiles you increase the number of strikes you can perform on a mission and reload them with no need for heavy equipment or massive cargo shipments.
It works great so long as you have air superiority and the enemy doesn't have a lot of anti aircraft kit.

Making a UAV to replace Specters would probably be a self defeating attempt because of the high development costs to replace good old redneck engineering.
Sometimes simple is best.