82,930
edits
Eight jet engines: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
There’s no way anyone can beat the engine count on a Boeing [[B-52]] Stratocruiser: there is not an aircraft designer in history foolish enough to try to fit ''nine'' engines on the same plane — these days, four is considered profligate — and even in the giddy heights of the Cold War, Boeing only tried it once. Thus the B-52 stands alone, quite impeachable. | There’s no way anyone can beat the engine count on a Boeing [[B-52]] Stratocruiser: there is not an aircraft designer in history foolish enough to try to fit ''nine'' engines on the same plane — these days, four is considered profligate — and even in the giddy heights of the Cold War, Boeing only tried it once. Thus the B-52 stands alone, quite impeachable. | ||
“[[Eight jet engines]]” is its own kind of [[knee | “[[Eight jet engines]]” is its own kind of [[knee slide]], and [[legal eagle]]s of a certain vintage — mine — may happily squawk it, as they dispatch that exquisitely-timed [[mark-up]], wry rejoinder, devastating [[provuso]], or [[oneNDA|potentially game-changing industry initiative]]. | ||
But careful: it is easy to confuse a real [[eight jet engines]] situation with the much less edifying “[[two Wankel engines]]” scenario — so named for the Mazda RX-3’s curious double rotary configuration, as featured in [[Top Trumps]] Supercars edition. | But careful: it is easy to confuse a real [[eight jet engines]] situation with the much less edifying “[[two Wankel engines]]” scenario — so named for the Mazda RX-3’s curious double rotary configuration, as featured in [[Top Trumps]] Supercars edition. | ||