Giant From The 1930's

[red750]

The Russians like building big things.

 

Check out this link to some images of the 12 engined Kalinin K-7 from the 1930s:

 

http://www.gizmag.com/worlds-largest-aircraft-from-1930-giant-russian-k-7-flying-fortress/11461/picture/76168/

 

Not sure if they are photos or artists impressions. Note the passengers climbing the stairs into the undercarriage housing which look like pontoons, and one image showing cannons that look like they would be more at home on a destroyer.

 

According to Wikipedia, the prototype crashed four months into flight testing, either through fatigue fracture in the tail booms caused by engine resonance, or by sabotage. Two further examples were ordered, but then cancelled before they were completed. The designer was executed as an enemy of the state under the Stalin regime.

 

Image from Wikipedia:

 

[ATTACH=full]1020[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]18125[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

[willedoo]

Good link, thanks Peter.

 

I often wonder if that's why the industry was so prolific in times past, it was good incentive to succeed.The best outcome with failure was life in the nickel mine. He had a different way of doing things, that's for sure.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

[Studentbiggles]

Another great aricle red750........and a good read......thanks for sharing, keep them coming :)

 

Fly and Keep safe.........................Alley

 

 

[red750]

Here are a couple of images - one a photo, the other an artists impression of an expansion of the idea, taken from this link supplied by willidoo:

 

http://englishrussia.com/2009/01/25/russian-flying-fortresses/

 

Note not only the armaments in the wings, pontoons, and turrets, but also the engines above the wings, which include both pull and push propellers.

 

[ATTACH]18126[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

[willedoo]

It would be interesting to see if there are any old designs more bizarre than this one.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

[siznaudin]

Snap!

 

[ATTACH]1024[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]18127[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

[red750]

I wondered whether it flew, Geoff, but the caption under the first pic answered that. Needed more wings????

 

 

[siznaudin]

I wondered whether it flew, Geoff, but the caption under the first pic answered that. Needed more wings????

Stronger ones I think, Pete...

[ATTACH=full]1026[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]18128[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

[willedoo]

That just about takes the cake, Geoff. Certainly some ambitious (or crazy) designers around in those days. It looks like a house of cards.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

[siznaudin]

That just about takes the cake, Geoff. Certainly some ambitious (or crazy) designers around in those days. It looks like a house of cards.Cheers, Willie.

Maybe there's something "different" about Italian aircraft designers...?

[ATTACH=full]1027[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]18129[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

[Spin]

Italian aircraft and French cars?

 

[ATTACH=full]1031[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]18130[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

[siznaudin]

Guilty as pronounced (or suggested/inferred...?) ...

 

I'm just an ordinary "bloke" who has a special interest in things at each end of the spectrum dealing with (planes, trains, boats, cars etc...) - that spectrum dealing with complexity, crudity, size etc etc ... whatever. And yes, the Stipa-Caproni/Caproni-Stipa falls well within those bounds. :)

 

[ATTACH=full]1034[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]18132[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

[red750]

The following is copied from http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/phillips.html:

 

The First True Aerofoils

 

The first would-be aviator to approach the problem scientifically was Englishman Horatio Phillips. He virtually invented the science of aerodynamics. In 1884. he took out his first patent for a cambered wing and then tested dozens of different aerofoil sections. These were not just cambered sheets, but aerofoils (wings) that had a rounded leading-edge, were thicker in the middle, and had a sharp trailing-edge.

 

This 20-wing Phillips Multiplane of 1904 managed a hop of 50 ft.

 

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/805/phillips1904350.jpg/

 

If twenty doesn't do it, what about 200? Four rows of 50 aerofoils? Ten times the wings resulted in 500 ft of uncontrolled flight.

 

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/215/phillips1907350.jpg/

 

 

[siznaudin]

Yes, that Monash site's a good one. The Phillips "things" I think of as "venetian blind" aircraft (well, sort of aircraft, anyway...).

 

I think I prefer the Wright brothers' scientific approach over that of Mr Phillips, however ... :)

 

 

[willedoo]

That's good reading, Peter. We sure have come a long way & probably take things for granted a bit nowdays.

 

That Piaggio posted above is an odd one, can't quite figure out how it's meant to work, or maybe it didn't .Looks like the prop would be below the waterline.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

[red750]

Antonov A40-1-1

 

[ATTACH=full]1037[/ATTACH]

 

A novel way to get tanks to the front line in a hurry. Apparently they flew quite well but at the time, Russia didn't have powerful enough aircraft tugs to pull them. However, I wonder how a heavy tracked vehicle would get sufficient speed to become airborne, and wouldn't they come to a sceaming halt on landing?

 

[ATTACH]18133[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

[willedoo]

A bit of a radical concept in it's time, but I suppose no more so than parachuting them out, which is now an accepted norm. Found mention of them here,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_A-40

 

Seems like it glided ok, but slowed the towing aircraft too much.

 

Here's the T60 ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-60 , lists it as 5.8 tonnes. It doesn't look like very high speed track gear like the modern tanks. I'd imagine there would be a lot of clattering going on. I wonder if they had detachable gear for take off, like a sled with wheels or something that they could drop like drop tanks.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

[siznaudin]

[ATTACH=full]1038[/ATTACH]

 

That Piaggio posted above is an odd one, can't quite figure out how it's meant to work, or maybe it didn't .Looks like the prop would be below the waterline.Cheers, Willie.

A good(?) idea but guess what ... no joy.

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Piaggio_P.7

 

Here's another weirdo ... French (again).

 

[ATTACH]18134[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

[willedoo]

Here's another weirdo ... French (again).

Looks like a good cross wind would flip it over.

Reminds me of that saying about aircraft, "If it's ugly, it's British; if it's weird, it's French; if it's ugly and weird, it's Russian." Although I think you could add the Italians in there somewhere. And it's a bit unfair as the British did build some beautiful looking planes, the Spitfire for example.

 

Cheers, Wilie.

 

 

[willedoo]

A good(?) idea but guess what ... no joy.

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Piaggio_P.7

I was thinking it might have something to do with getting it onto the plane via the boat prop & then kicking in the main prop. Reading this, I can see the theory with the hydroplanes standing it up out of the water. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

[siznaudin]

... the British did build some beautiful looking planes, the Spitfire for example.Cheers, Wilie.

Ahem...:confused:

[ATTACH=full]1039[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1040[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]18135[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

[siznaudin]

I was thinking it might have something to do with getting it onto the plane via the boat prop & then kicking in the main prop. Reading this, I can see the theory with the hydroplanes standing it up out of the water. Oh well, back to the drawing board.Cheers, Willie.

In a way(sort of) the Yanks did go back to the drawing board, but a lot later...

[ATTACH=full]1041[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]18136[/ATTACH]