82,944
edits
Eight jet engines: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|metaphor|{{image|Eight jet engines|jpeg|The magnificent B-52 Superfortress. So many engines, they had level the playing field for sensitive [[snowflake]] modern types by removing the “number of engines” category altogether.}}{{image|Eight jet engines|png|With engine count, in original 1970s edition.}}}}“The nuts”, when engaged in a game of [[Top Trumps]] ''Military Planes'' edition. | {{a|metaphor|{{image|Eight jet engines|jpeg|The magnificent B-52 Superfortress. So many engines, they had level the playing field for sensitive [[snowflake]] modern types by removing the “number of engines” category altogether. And wtf is “Top Trumps firepower”?}}{{image|Eight jet engines|png|With engine count, in original 1970s edition.}}}}“The nuts”, when engaged in a game of [[Top Trumps]] ''Military Planes'' edition. | ||
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, utterly peachable.<ref>Towards more picturesque speech corner: There is a [[double negative]] embedded in the prefixes here. I deduce that if “''im''peachability” means, as it must, “an imperviousness to peachery”, therefore to be “unimpeachable” — logically, to ''not'' be impervious to peachery — is really just to be “peachable” after all. As with all other views expressed on this site, this one is by no means not unimpeachable.</ref> | 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, utterly peachable.<ref>Towards more picturesque speech corner: There is a [[double negative]] embedded in the prefixes here. I deduce that if “''im''peachability” means, as it must, “an imperviousness to peachery”, therefore to be “unimpeachable” — logically, to ''not'' be impervious to peachery — is really just to be “peachable” after all. As with all other views expressed on this site, this one is by no means not unimpeachable.</ref> | ||