Is that an engine? Doesn't look like one. I don't see the prop, and it is too close to the bottom of the fuselage for a prop anyway.That looks like the RedBull one that hit a log in a water landing a few years back!
.. and another with three engines (look closely):gig:
The Caproni obviously did not have enough engines, plenty of wings though.That's a great photo.
NASA is now proposing n engine airplanes, for large values of n. I suppose it makes sense for little brushless motors. Seems like extra IC engines on a regular airplane would lead to more cooling and intersection drag. I wonder how many Cox .049's would take to make an RV-4 go? Of course you'd have to wash it down after every flight. ;-)
Speaking of multi engine aquatic aircraft, how about this one?:
View attachment 77315
It looks frivolous, but Seversky actually took out a design patent on this thing.
It's actually a floatplane. The bottoms of the fuselages separate and extend as floats.
Of course it's hard to beat the Dornier X:
View attachment 77316
I'd say the Caproni Ca.60 is getting there:
View attachment 77317