A model of this airplane was used to carry a space shuttle. In this picture below the airplane had a few extra engines added since then.
How is the number of engines decided on an airplane? Why not use bigger engines?
Aviation Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for aircraft pilots, mechanics, and enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityA model of this airplane was used to carry a space shuttle. In this picture below the airplane had a few extra engines added since then.
How is the number of engines decided on an airplane? Why not use bigger engines?
When are more engines better than not on a plane? When one or more of them has quit working.
It's a fake yes. A simple search for model number 925 shows no such plane existed, nor it could with the lower wing covered like that.
Fewer engines are better. It reduces complexity, and improves statistical reliability (Lusser's law).
Two is minimum for jetliners, because still an improved reliability does not mean a single engine won't fail, so it's better to have another to rely on.
The reason for 8 (B-52), 6, 4, 3 (a bit more complicated as it can be a workaround for pre-ETOPS era) is the available technology at the time of designing the plane.
That is why one of the lightest quads was an old giant plane (engine technology hadn't matured yet past 160 hp).
A 777 could not have two engines until the technology grew enough to make the most powerful turbofan.
Related: Are two twin-jet flights more efficient than one quad-jet flight? (Keep in mind that there are costs other than fuel that increase with the number of engines; [systems] complexity for one and the associated maintenance.)