Old Russian Bomber

#1
Just had this sent to me - I don't know if it was for real or not - impressive thing anyway
 

Attachments

#2
Air wah
 
#3
tropper66 said:
I don't know - being a lazy slut I forgot to post this bit that came with it

The weaponry carried by this behemoth is shown in the last two pics!
The K-7 first flew on 11 August 1933


In 1930s the Russian army was obsessed with the idea of creating huge planes. At that time, they were
proposed to have as many propellers as possible to help carry those huge flying fortresses into the air.
Jet propulsion has not been implemented yet.
Not many photos were saved from that time, 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
and a bit more here CLICKY - still looks like a cut and paste though, doesn't it?

Here's the answer - it's 3d work LINKY
 
#5
leveller said:
Its a CGI pic, about a russian proposal, it never made production. Thats all I can recall.
I wonder why? :wink:
 
#8
tropper66 said:
sorry, I was a mong to post it without checking it all first. I'll stick to licking windows in future
 
#11
happybonzo said:
Just had this sent to me - I don't know if it was for real or not - impressive thing anyway
And the U.S. Battleship Turrets with triple 16" guns?

Are the Synchronized to fire through the props? :roll: not to mention recoil forces on an aircraft frame
 
#12
A 300+ ton airframe needs a runway about 2to3 kms long to reach take off speed and then if needbe brake and come to a safe stop. that thing would need a hell of a longer, wider runway than that .In the first photo it showed battleship type turrets armed with some pretty heavy guns, looks good but doesn't take in Newtons second law, if anybody tried to fire them. a 120mm tank gun has a recoil inside the tank of nearly a foot and still pushes the tank back about the same distance. Most battleship turrets weigh in at just under 1000 ton each. It seems to have 16 engines and in the 1930s it is unlikely that each engine would be ably to produce 8/900 hp, sorry that would not give enough thrust for that thing to taxi let alone take off
 
#13
#14
A Brab clocked in at about 130 tons
A 747 A380 tu 124 all come in at about 3/400 tons

that thing would weigh about 3 thousand
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
#16
Are you sure this hasn't been lifted from the paintings of Bruce McCall?
 
#17
The Henschel Hs 129 managed to field a 75mm self loading anti tank gun + 12 rounds, and that was with only 1400 hp of engines.
 
#18
strut_jack said:
The Henschel Hs 129 managed to field a 75mm self loading anti tank gun + 12 rounds, and that was with only 1400 hp of engines.
And so did the B25G it carried 75mm guns the Germans tested a 200mm recoiless under a Ju88, There were 25 Hs 129s fitted with an electro-pneumatic recoil system 75mm gun. The Moquito Tetse carried a 57mm 6 pounder anti tank gun to kill U Boats
 
#19
My understanding is that the B25G developed 1700hp per engine, the Henschel's 1400hp was all up.

And the 75mm M4 gun was modified from a field piece so presumably had a slower 'lob' type trajectory while the Henschel's was a tank gun, fast and flat. Potentially more of a clout for the smaller single seat aircraft than the larger multi-crewed bomber...
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads