Aircraft with the most jet engines?

[Dallas]

Just a question from another group... I'm cheating and coming over here to
ask.

(Don't worry, I'll come clean them :-)

Dallas

[John Szalay]

"Dallas" > wrote in
k.net:

> Just a question from another group... I'm cheating and coming over
> here to ask.
>
> (Don't worry, I'll come clean them :-)
>
> Dallas
>
>
>

B-52 with 8 ?

[Dallas]

"John Szalay" >
> B-52 with 8 ?


Could it be that simple?... It seems like the ruskies with all their wacky
experimentation would have hung at least 20 on something.

:-)

Dallas

[John Szalay]

"

If you "stretch" the definition of "Aircraft" then it ties the
B-52 with 8

Lun Ekranoplan (caspian Sea Monster) also with 8 jets.

[John Szalay]

"Dallas" > wrote in
k.net:



YB-49 had 8 engines, but it really can't count as a production aircraft..

[John Szalay]

"

Saunders Roe Princess, but only 3 were built

10 Bristol Proteus turboprop engines, 3,200 hp (2,386 kW) each

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Townsend" > wrote in message
...
>
> The B52H bomber had eight TF-33 turbofan engines.
>

Ten when carrying Hound Dog.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jim Townsend" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The B52H bomber had eight TF-33 turbofan engines.
>>
>
> Ten when carrying Hound Dog.

Ten jet engines that is, not ten TF-33s.

[Paul Tomblin[_2_]]

John Szalay wrote:

>
> B-52 with 8 ?

The B-52 with two Hounddog(?) missiles could take off with 10 engines.

[Dave LaCourse]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:09:19 -0500, John Szalay
> wrote:

>"
>
> Saunders Roe Princess, but only 3 were built
>
> 10 Bristol Proteus turboprop engines, 3,200 hp (2,386 kW) each


B36 had six turboprop pushers and 4 jets for total of 10.

[Dave LaCourse]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:46:26 -0400, Dave LaCourse
> wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:09:19 -0500, John Szalay
> wrote:
>
>>"
>>
>> Saunders Roe Princess, but only 3 were built
>>
>> 10 Bristol Proteus turboprop engines, 3,200 hp (2,386 kW) each
>
>
>B36 had six turboprop pushers and 4 jets for total of 10.
>

Correction: Those six prop engines were radials.

[Norm DePlume]

Hello,
Then I guess it's a tie between the Saunders-Roe Princess and the
Soviet "korabl-maket", each of which used 10 jet engines. Although the
KM was a ground-effects aircraft, so it didn't fly more than a few
metres above the ground, it did fly. Here's the URL for theWikipedia
entry, and a picture of each.

[Norm DePlume]

Sorry, forgot the URL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave LaCourse" > wrote in message
...
>
> B36 had six turboprop pushers and 4 jets for total of 10.
>

The B-36 had six piston pushers.

[Mitchell Holman]

Jim Townsend > wrote in
:

> Dallas wrote:
>
>> Just a question from another group... I'm cheating and coming over
>> here to ask.
>
> The B52H bomber had eight TF-33 turbofan engines.
>
>
>

[Norm DePlume]

It was developed by Convair's Photoshop Works to test the feasibility
of creating a bomber with a range so short as to be unable to achieve
a tanker evolution, thereby saving the costs and dangers associated
with in-flight refueling. In eleven consecutive tests it failed to
complete even a takeoff roll. The program was eventually cancelled due
to budget surpluses. At least that's what my uncle told me, and he
should know because he worked in Section 8.

[Mr.D]

"Dallas" > wrote:
>Just a question from another group... I'm cheating and coming over here to
>ask.
>
>(Don't worry, I'll come clean them :-)
>
>Dallas

Does the Blue Angels C-130T count? 4 Allison turboprops plus 8 JATO (Jet
Assisted Take Off) packs.

Or even the YMC-130H?
http://glocktalk.com/sitemap/topic/467354-1.html

[Dave LaCourse]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:28:28 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Dave LaCourse" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> B36 had six turboprop pushers and 4 jets for total of 10.
>>
>
>The B-36 had six piston pushers.
>

See my posted correction soon after my original post.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave LaCourse" > wrote in message
...
>
> See my posted correction soon after my original post.
>

Saw it, soon after I posted my correction to your original post.

[Ron Monroe]

No, because the term JATO is a misnomer. They are not jet engines, they are
rockets.
Ron

"Mr.D" > wrote in message ...
> "Dallas" > wrote:
>>Just a question from another group... I'm cheating and coming over here
>>to
>>ask.
>>
>>(Don't worry, I'll come clean them :-)
>>
>>Dallas
>
> Does the Blue Angels C-130T count? 4 Allison turboprops plus 8 JATO (Jet
> Assisted Take Off) packs.
>
> Or even the YMC-130H?
> http://glocktalk.com/sitemap/topic/467354-1.html
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Monroe" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> No, because the term JATO is a misnomer. They are not jet engines, they
> are rockets.
>

As one definition of "jet" is "a stream of a liquid, gas, or small solid
particles forcefully shooting forth from a nozzle, orifice, etc.", it's not
a misnomer at all.

[John Szalay]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
n
>> No, because the term JATO is a misnomer. They are not jet engines,
>> they are rockets.
>>
>
> As one definition of "jet" is "a stream of a liquid, gas, or small
> solid particles forcefully shooting forth from a nozzle, orifice,
> etc.", it's not a misnomer at all.
>
>
>

Well, IF you want to count JATO, or RATO or ATO as "jets"
then the B-47 with 6 Jet turbine engines and the
the "horse collar" 32 bottle ATO pack wins hands down..

http://www.b-47.com/gallery/pic13/gallery13.html

[Jim[_2_]]

>>snip>>>
>
> As one definition of "jet" is "a stream of a liquid, gas, or small solid
> particles forcefully shooting forth from a nozzle, orifice, etc.", it's
> not a misnomer at all.
>
Oh, the images . . . .

[MaXiLeeCH]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
>
>>>snip>>>
>>
>> As one definition of "jet" is "a stream of a liquid, gas, or small solid
>> particles forcefully shooting forth from a nozzle, orifice, etc.", it's
>> not a misnomer at all.
>>
> Oh, the images . . . .
Tubgirl? :-)

--

Jeff Cochrane - VK4BOF
Atherton
Queensland 4883