RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

DivePac88 -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/8/2009 4:44:01 PM)

This Russian flying fortress 'takes the cake' I think. [:D]

[image]local://upfiles/30275/2E8BE66A843C47C9BC6E3F533FF6108D.jpg[/image]



rtrapasso -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/8/2009 4:57:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

This Russian flying fortress 'takes the cake' I think. [:D]

[image]local://upfiles/30275/2E8BE66A843C47C9BC6E3F533FF6108D.jpg[/image]

What the heck is this thing??? [X(]

EDIT: Ah, the K-7 Bomber... i wonder what K-1 through K-6 looked like, since they've obviously achieved perfection here... [:D]



rtrapasso -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/8/2009 5:01:28 PM)

i like this view of it, although now i am pretty sure the whole thing is a spoof:

[image]local://upfiles/7543/DF032F3E38C440C5BE8A48CA736E2C66.jpg[/image]



DivePac88 -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/8/2009 5:04:43 PM)

Here is one in action with a Nazi saucer. [;)]

[image]local://upfiles/30275/A02EEB3B74FB468EA37C9E2690DFBAE9.jpg[/image]



rtrapasso -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/8/2009 5:05:55 PM)

Well, there is a K-7 bomber/transport entry in Wikipedia... if you can believe it - only one built, and it crashed... so the photo above is an exercise in creative computer graphics... here is supposed to be a real picture, though:

[image]local://upfiles/7543/492825E8FA624C5EA65BE3066A599EEE.jpg[/image]

EDIT: Not visible here is a 7th "pusher" engine on the trailing wing (although some sources say there were 2 additional engines)... i kinda like the idea of a 7-engined plane... the prototype supposedly crashed after structural failure of one of the tail booms... 2 more prototypes were never completed.



DivePac88 -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/8/2009 5:06:18 PM)

Here is the real K-7.

[image]local://upfiles/30275/51C019B06EE14F6DB5D72FA810CF8ED8.jpg[/image]



DivePac88 -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/8/2009 5:08:03 PM)

And here is a plan.

[image]local://upfiles/30275/B1E3C488117E462981CA88253925009E.jpg[/image]



Mynok -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/8/2009 5:09:30 PM)


You do have to admire the triple 16" turret on that fake beast though! [:'(]



Terminus -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/8/2009 5:47:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

Honourable mention to the Blen IV (Bolingbroke this one, but hey...).

...but dang the B-10 hit must'a hit every branch falling out of the ugly tree.

[image]local://upfiles/8484/2083E91ABB7243579709C262A797BBDD.jpg[/image]


Compared to some, the Blenheim was a beautiful airplane...



Dili -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/8/2009 7:36:02 PM)

quote:

Bombers were not designed or built to be pretty, or win awards, they were built do a job, don't care how ugly it was, if it got you to the target, let you hit the target and then get you back home, you didn't care how ugly it was


I don't remind any real* ugly plane that was successful.

*that a large majority says so.



Nikademus -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/8/2009 8:14:00 PM)

Being built ugly can help spoil the aim of AA gunners. [:D]



R8J -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/8/2009 8:25:04 PM)

I disagree. She's cute.



pasternakski -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/8/2009 8:35:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: R8J

I disagree. She's cute.

Well, I guess, in sort of a big-boned, hammer-swingin', Stalinist-era worker kinda way.

Do Svidaniya, big boy!



Anthropoid -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/8/2009 9:27:43 PM)

Beauty is in the eye of the bombholder?



AW1Steve -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/8/2009 10:24:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

Honourable mention to the Blen IV (Bolingbroke this one, but hey...).

...but dang the B-10 hit must'a hit every branch falling out of the ugly tree.

[image]local://upfiles/8484/2083E91ABB7243579709C262A797BBDD.jpg[/image]


Compared to some, the Blenheim was a beautiful airplane...


Except for the deformed nose greenhouse, I'd say that it has very pleasant lines. [:)]



Jim D Burns -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/8/2009 11:08:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok
You do have to admire the triple 16" turret on that fake beast though! [:'(]


Now let's not go changing history here Mynok, [:-] that's two x triple 16" turrets, not just one. Note the undercarriage area. [;)][:D][:D]

Jim



rtrapasso -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/9/2009 12:58:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok
You do have to admire the triple 16" turret on that fake beast though! [:'(]


Now let's not go changing history here Mynok, [:-] that's two x triple 16" turrets, not just one. Note the undercarriage area. [;)][:D][:D]

Jim

They could fire them when making a landing on a short runway... of course this was a bit rough on the people at the airbase, not to mention the folks in the "greenhouse" cockpit area right in front of the guns... [X(] [:'(]



Kingfisher -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/9/2009 2:04:45 AM)

Impressive, but unfortunately it does not belong in this thread as this is no bomber. Note the wing-mounted 76mm guns. Clearly, this was built with dog fighting in mind.



Nikademus -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/9/2009 3:05:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

Here is one in action with a Nazi saucer. [;)]

[image]local://upfiles/30275/A02EEB3B74FB468EA37C9E2690DFBAE9.jpg[/image]


dum dum dum dum dum dum dum FLASH!!!!!! AAAAAAHHHHHHH....KING OF THE IMPOSSIBLE (guitar solo)




Apollo11 -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/9/2009 8:02:42 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

And here is a plan.

[image]local://upfiles/30275/B1E3C488117E462981CA88253925009E.jpg[/image]


Sweet Jesus! [X(][X(][X(]


Leo "Apollo11"



Odin -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/9/2009 9:59:51 AM)

Son Schrott[:D]



Historiker -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/9/2009 11:02:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

Here is one in action with a Nazi saucer. [;)]

[image]local://upfiles/30275/A02EEB3B74FB468EA37C9E2690DFBAE9.jpg[/image]


dum dum dum dum dum dum dum FLASH!!!!!! AAAAAAHHHHHHH....KING OF THE IMPOSSIBLE (guitar solo)



Yeah, Queen!

But I'm really insulted in seeing that the nazi sauver only has one tripple turret. [;)]



timtom -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/9/2009 1:34:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

Honourable mention to the Blen IV (Bolingbroke this one, but hey...).

...but dang the B-10 hit must'a hit every branch falling out of the ugly tree.

[image]local://upfiles/8484/2083E91ABB7243579709C262A797BBDD.jpg[/image]


Compared to some, the Blenheim was a beautiful airplane...


Except for the deformed nose greenhouse, I'd say that it has very pleasant lines. [:)]


Certainly. Trim off the nose and you're more or less left with a Beaufort or Beaufighter.



Durbik -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/9/2009 1:36:51 PM)

quote:

But I'm really insulted in seeing that the nazi sauver only has one tripple turret.


it's just a top turret, who knows what's underneath



Panther Bait -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/9/2009 1:40:06 PM)

The model fighting the Nazi saucer appears to be different to me.  No triple turrets, but something else on the bottom.  Four Tesla death rays perhaps??  And at least one more in a dorsal mount?

Mike

Also the props seem to be synchronized somehow. The high-speed photography stopped all the props in the same orientation. Amazing technology.



Anthropoid -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/9/2009 1:43:37 PM)

I'm pretty sure those are Surovov Mk XII Rocket boosters.



Historiker -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/9/2009 2:22:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Durbik

quote:

But I'm really insulted in seeing that the nazi sauver only has one tripple turret.


it's just a top turret, who knows what's underneath

You are right. Maybe it has a lot of missiles and is filled with Wunderwaffen [;)]



flaggelant -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/9/2009 2:31:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok
You do have to admire the triple 16" turret on that fake beast though! [:'(]


Now let's not go changing history here Mynok, [:-] that's two x triple 16" turrets, not just one. Note the undercarriage area. [;)][:D][:D]

Jim

They could fire them when making a landing on a short runway... of course this was a bit rough on the people at the airbase, not to mention the folks in the "greenhouse" cockpit area right in front of the guns... [X(] [:'(]



not only runways, i bet it could've served as a airbreak as well
(after which gravity suported enough acceleration to get up to a flying speed again [:D])



DivePac88 -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/9/2009 3:06:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

The model fighting the Nazi saucer appears to be different to me.  No triple turrets, but something else on the bottom.  Four Tesla death rays perhaps??  And at least one more in a dorsal mount?

Mike

Also the props seem to be synchronized somehow. The high-speed photography stopped all the props in the same orientation. Amazing technology.


Here is the model in question on the deck.

[image]local://upfiles/30275/3BEF63FA0A7D4C73A07DE142C9075D93.jpg[/image]



Canoerebel -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (6/9/2009 3:20:07 PM)

All this yacking about "ugly bombers" and nobody has seen fit to follow up on what seems to be the most preposterous claim in this thread? That Eleanor Roosevelt was a "knockout" when she was younger? Here she is in 1943:

[image]local://upfiles/8143/36DE967E2FE243CC858953FCCAF81D9A.jpg[/image]



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.344727