[Suggestion] Balanced, diverse spaceplane engines

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

In KSP, rocket parts are perfectly balanced around this triangle. They are all equal, having their own advantages and disadvantages over each other. This enables an ability to have good strategic choices and all engines have a use. The opposite with spaceplane parts, and I believe this should be fixed.

To have some examples...

Spoiler

• The size3 rockets are inefficient because of poor staging ability, expensive, but really easy to use (you can orbit anything)
• Nukes are quite expensive, increadibly hard to use (No oxidizer, no gimbal, poor TWR, years of burn time) but are also increadibly efficient.
• Most size1 parts are cheap, rather efficient, but hard to use (you really have to spam them if you want to orbit heavy vessels)
• There are 3 engine types, each with stats perfectly optimized for certain tasks. These are low-stage, mid-stage, and orbital engines.

Not the case with planes. There are six engines, and a vast ammout of intakes and a dumb nacelle/precooler system.

• 4 of the engines are for sandbox-players, who want to create realistic crafts. The Panther , Juno, Goliath, and the Wheesley are these. Completely purposeless in career, unless you have really stacked up dozens of surveying, as all jet engines are rather expensive, and while you visit these sites with a plane, you could have at least 2 rocket launches for way more profit.
• The Whiplash is an engine that could be useful in getting to orbit, if you have 2 of them near 8 RAPIERS.  Otherwise, they are terrible compared to the RAPIER. Can get to orbit, and further, but unlocking the RAPIER is way more easier than using it (for most players)
• The RAPIER is the only way of going to space due to its complete superiority

It's quite sad that Tier1<Tier2<Tier3<Tier4 and no more variety. I believe each jet engine should be equal*, and be given a part in the career game.

*Of course, not compleely equal, as a high tech engine should be only a slightly better than a low tech one, in addition to increasing engine variety and having more useful purposes, such as orbiting instead of atmospheric flight

The current engines could be adjusted or even new ones added to fill these categories...

• 1-VTOL-suitable engines
• 2-Low-budget surveying engines
• 3-Beginner-friendly super easy to fly SSTO engines
• 4-High thrust, SSTO-assistor (Whiplash...)
• 5-A rocket motor for planes, rocket SSTOs, and Eve landers
• 6-Advanced, really efficient OP engines but supporting strictly only orbiting
• 7-Advanced engines supporting interplanetary SSTOs
• 8-Cheap, efficient, but incredibly hard to operate engines for SSTO masters
• 9-Pay-to-win engines (I mean expensive but otherwise OP, so losing them is disasterous)
• 10-Electric propeller/rotor

Be welcome to share your ideas about the entire point: making jets equal and balanced, and direct suggestions about which category could be assigned to which engine through what modification. Or even suggest new categories that you feel are desperately needed from the game.

These are:

• Own plane propulsion category (me)
• Fix recovery issue (being able to recover expensive parts with 100% cost) (Nich) The solution is probably some maintenence cost or attrition (life span) both for plane and rocket parts.
• My ideas for assigning those categories to engines:

Spoiler

 

So the categories assigned to the engines, with describing what modifications are needed for it:   Before all, let me tell that currently, spaceplanes are a bit OP and too hard. It'd be the best to make them less efficient but much easier to use for SSTOorbiting. My tweaking will have this done, while 8 and 9 is still present for masters.

• 1:new engine/Panther

With attributes of having high gimbal, bad efficiency, and small enough size for 2 of them to fit into a Mk.2 cargo bay, and one of them for an 1m cargo bay (yet to be added) Incredible thrust-size ratio, but poor efficiency in return. The last one could fit the panther...

• 2:Juno

Available really early in the game, they could support the need for planes in the very early game with reduced cost. Of course, it wouldn't be used much unless it gets better stats or more phys-warp available...

• 3:Whiplash and partially RAPIER

 It's obvious that a such engine would have to have: High thrust, /rather/ constant vel.curves that are suddenly cutted during flame-out. I would say the Whiplash is the best for this category, but don't froget the RAPIER. It's a single type of engine that takes you to orbit, and being high-tech, it won't need much fuel Couls be perfect for beginners. But I'd feel guilty if our best current engine was made into a toy for beginners... So, I decided to have category 3 assigned to both engines, but only partially to the RAPIER, giving it a rather constant thrust until a point, after which it's hard to proceed. Masters won't have to switch mode after that point, being able to properly exploit the RAPIER.

• 4:Whiplash

As said. Changes in point 3 would also strengthen its current position as an assistance for heavy planes mainly using other engines. With increased TWR and thrust strictly cutted earlier, it would greatly help in a hard phase of orbiting with a giant craft: the early ascend wouldn't be so hard and slow, but, as the thrust is suddenly cutted from these Whiplashes before reaching OP speeds, the part that makes a craft op is still only relying on your primary engines.

• 5: An aerospike. Either a new one or the current one redone

All description points towards an engine that's efficient, remains efficient at all altitudes, even on Eve, and has minimal drag, while having large thrust with a properly large mass, but a small radial size. Its weakpoint could be its cost, and no utility stuffs such as electricity, gimbal, or  bottom attachment node, that would only able its usge with planes or bottom stages where cost doeasn't matter (EVE) And these kinds of nerfs are why a new 1m aerospike would be a better choice than redoing the current one, keeping which for shuttles.

6+8: New engine

Everything points towards a scramjet-type engine. An engine that has extremely good vel.curves, making it the most efficient of all, while having a low cost. Its weakpoint is that it's extremely hard to use, and you can only use it for cargo delivery to LKO. It could be hard to use if it had low atm.curves with those good vel.curves, not only making overheating crazy, but resulting an EXTREMELY difficult ascend path. Also, low TWR makes it hard to use as well. Not ableing it to pass LKO has several ways. One is the already mentioned low TWR. With a huge mass, it's clearly not worth it to take them with you. Another one is not abling its craft to have efficient transfer engines, by having an ascend path that gives you only a little time to circularize, making an inefficient, high thrust engine necessary, while consuming even further engine slots by having more engines requied. This could be done by unabling the engine to run at low speeds, like a realistic scramjet. It would have to rely on other engines to accelerate the craft to supersonic speeds. So, you need strong engines until supersonic speeds, an individual rocket, and a vast ammout of scramjets. No more place for orbital engines. Also, the best thing about it is that it could able the basic jets and Panthers to have their part in orbiting, as Panthers help you to get to supersonic operational speeds, and, if scramjets could work inefficiently and weakly from subsonic speeds to supersonic operational speeds, Whesleys Junos and Goliaths could be used for orbiting!

7+9:RAPIER

Engine supporting the orbiting of long-range SSTOs. Expensive but efficient. Easy to fly until supersonic speeds, and after that, it's harder to proceed (suddenly changing stats requie a new ascend path)(I am uncertain about having this 'difficulity change' necessary, it could only serve beginners)  As no additional engines are needed, only a few of them is enough for your craft, leaving space for nukes for interplanetary and ect. missions. This specialization could be strengthened by making them have a low mass, supporting long ranke missions again.

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2016 by CaptainTurbomuffin

[Nich]

Pay to win doesn't matter because it will likely be recovered for 100%  No incentive to choose 8 over 9.  I would suggest giving engines a usable life span but that doesn't really add any value to the game.  Perhaps cap recovery at 50% other side of kerbin only recovers for 5%

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

46 minutes ago, Nich said:

Pay to win doesn't matter because it will likely be recovered for 100%  No incentive to choose 8 over 9. 

That's completely true. 9 could be the same as 10 but with no hard difficulity, and high cost wouldn't matter with complete recovery. But still, it requies a greater investment, which can be a disadvantage. Also, losing it is more problematic. But that's all. It's really a problematic part of the game.

[SpaceplaneAddict]

....... OH MY GOD! THIS IS THE BEST DAY OF MY LIFE!!!!
 I'm gonna



Stay Determined . . .
People say planes get way more love than rockets. I say that spaceplanes are easily way different. You can't compare a spaceplane to a airplane for a reason. One can and one can't go to space.

Edited April 5, 2016 by SpaceplaneAddict

[tater]

Something to think about after every single rocket part is redone to not look awful, and after some decent space station and base parts are added. The last thing the game needs are more magic spaceplane parts.

[SpaceplaneAddict]

2 hours ago, tater said:

Something to think about after every single rocket part is redone to not look awful, and after some decent space station and base parts are added. The last thing the game needs are more magic spaceplane parts.

There are shiny new SPACEplane parts? When? Where? I see no SPACEplane parts that are new in 1.0 or above...

Oh. You meant the AIRplane parts they added, jets specifically, huh?

Stay Determined. . .

Sarcasm is not nice if not used jokingly

Edited April 6, 2016 by SpaceplaneAddict

[tater]

Any plane parts in KSP work for spaceplanes, I've seen the pictures. Plus all the non cylindrical fuselages are space plane parts, and all are new and shiny, unlike 100% of the rocket parts, which look awful.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

12 hours ago, tater said:

Any plane parts in KSP work for spaceplanes, I've seen the pictures. Plus all the non cylindrical fuselages are space plane parts, and all are new and shiny, unlike 100% of the rocket parts, which look awful.

Quite true, but rewriting some parameters is way more easier than creating whole new models. If you want better rocket models, you can only help in that if you create some. Remember that plane parts look more shiny and beautyful because those textures were a mod originally, which got later integrated into the game. I absolutely agree with having "too much spaceplane parts", in the meaning of being disturbing while constructing rockets -when I want rocket parts but half of them are plane parts. The same in the opposite direction. I wish we had a separate category for "plane propulsion" with fuselages and jets in there. Anyway, if I want the revolutionization of plane parts, that could go here, so I've added it. Also, I find the quantity of wing parts too much, as I'd love to have stock P-wings. Of course, that's not likely to happen. On the other hand, one of the points of this suggestion is to make each spaceplane engine usable for orbiting. So guess what, if they were already useful for orbiting, I wouldn't suggest it. Also, I didn't desire strictly new engines, but the modification of current ones. I don't want generally /better/ plane parts, but ones that are better at X and weaker at Y. But I might agree with planes being a bit too op with the recovery cost. Also, what pictures are you talking about?

Edited April 6, 2016 by CaptainTurbomuffin

[tater]

The pictures bit was a joke, since I only see spaceplanes in pictures, I never make aircraft at all in KSP. Well, that's not true, in 1.5 years I think I made a couple a long time ago.

[Scientia1423]

I think there are 3 categories already in game refering to jet engines.

COMMERCIAL: Juno, Goliath & Wheesly

HYPERSONIC: Whiplash & Panther

Experimental: RAPIER

[KerikBalm]

Biased poll is biased.

The engines now all have a role. "Each jet should be optimalized[sic] for a task" is already the case.

My career mode has made use of every engine so far except the goliath.... because its basically just a big wheesely.

VTOL engine? The panther in AB mode... no other engine has that much static TWR

"3-Beginner-friendly super easy to fly SSTO engines

4-High thrust, SSTO-assistor (Whiplash...)"

I think high thrust engines like the whiplash are beginner friendly... point to 20 degrees, full throttle, circularize... none of this stuff with fighting the sound barrier, or shallow high speed ascents that put you on the verge of burning up.

"5-A rocket motor for planes, rocket SSTOs, and Eve landers"

Uhhh, they are called rockets... we have them

"6-Advanced, really efficient OP engines but supporting strictly only orbiting"

I assume you mean by strictly only orbiting, that you mean strictly in space... in which case I direct you to the LV-N and ion drive

"7-Advanced engines supporting interplanetary SSTOs"

I direct you to the LV-N

"8-Cheap, efficient, but incredibly hard to operate engines for SSTO masters"

What does that even mean? you want a minigame where players must complete quicktime events to keep the engine running?

"9-Pay-to-win engines (I mean expensive but otherwise OP, so losing them is disasterous)"

Terrible idea, unless you remove quickloads. Besides, this does nothing for sandbox, and career difficulty settings are so variable... in my career I could lose 5 million and it wouldn't be a complete disaster.

"10-Electric propeller/rotor"

Yes, I like

Wheesely: Very efficient, thrust reverse is great, don't think of just kerbin, think of laythe. Thrust reverse is great when you don't have a runway, or ability to recover and spawn again facing down the launchpad. Allowing my planes to stop in shorter distances, reverse if they are in a bad position, turn tighter on the ground (engines on one side thrust forward, engines on the other side reverse). Great for maneuvering on the ground next to surface bases and surface fuel depots. I use them in combination with panthers on a mk3 plane to move stuff around the surface of laythe

Goliath: same as above, bigger... reduces part countfor large craft...

Juno: for when you want to save funds by sending a smaller payload, or you want something to just transport one kerbal to grab surface samples you missed with your probes

I was going to send this to Laythe, but I changed the wing piece, Two of the modified ones are on the way to laythe now:

Panther: For efficient high speed transit in the atmosphere, great for moving from biome ot biome on laythe, moving surface fuel depots, etc... also good for short takeoff ability in afterburning mode, VTOLs, etc... these work great on laythe... the best 1.25m airbreathing engine for static thrust (beats the whiplash due to the density of laythes atmosphere and their density curves)... also allows for versatile craft capable of really high speeds, that can switch over to dry mode for economy

Yup, thats been in dry mode the whole time

Here's my laythe transport, in this case the cargo is a special rapier+ fuel module to allow it to SSTO.

It can load and unload a variety of payloads, I've designed fuel truck/depots, science labs, habitat modules, ISRU rovers, etc, that fit in the mk3 bay and can load by the ramp... although I've held off on launching them outside of sandbox until I see what the wheelchanges do in 1.1

Whiplash: Great for high speed suborbital travel around kerbin or laythe... you can use them to go orbital, but I like to use them on laythe to make quick trips to the poles for example... climb at a relatively high angle (lets say 30 degrees), and go on a suborbital high speed hop, if cruising around at 600m/s with panthers in dry mode is not enough. They are better than rapiers for this because of the higher TWR at the relevant speeds and altitudes, the better Isp, and the electric generation is nice. They can also combine with rapiers to help push past mach1. Note the combination of whiplashes and rapiers in my profile pic.

I also find them great for VTOL sstos. The rapier lacks the static TWR, and with a rocket/airbreathing hybrid craft, the part of the flight regime where the rapier outperforms the whiplash is too brief to make a difference. The rapier closed cycle is useless in this case, because the main rocket engine (a mammoth or KR-2L mostly, sometimes a mainsail or skipper) is more efficient and plenty powerful once high in the atmosphere.

SSTO rockets are much easier and faster to use than SSTO spaceplanes, but whiplash assisted SSTO rockets are more efficient, and I have much better results using whiplashes than rapiers... I'm considering looking at panthers since they are lighter and have the same static thrust, and I think their pressure curve gives them a bit of an advantage between 1 to about 0.45 atmospheres. Their thrust-mach curve doesn't really give them an advantage anywhere vs the whiplash though.

The only engine I haven't used on a craft in career is the goliath

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

Spoiler

 

The engines now all have a role. "Each jet should be optimalized[sic] for a task" is already the case.

My career mode has made use of every engine so far except the goliath.... because its basically just a big wheesely.

VTOL engine? The panther in AB mode... no other engine has that much static TWR

"3-Beginner-friendly super easy to fly SSTO engines

4-High thrust, SSTO-assistor (Whiplash...)"

I think high thrust engines like the whiplash are beginner friendly... point to 20 degrees, full throttle, circularize... none of this stuff with fighting the sound barrier, or shallow high speed ascents that put you on the verge of burning up.

"5-A rocket motor for planes, rocket SSTOs, and Eve landers"

Uhhh, they are called rockets... we have them

"6-Advanced, really efficient OP engines but supporting strictly only orbiting"

I assume you mean by strictly only orbiting, that you mean strictly in space... in which case I direct you to the LV-N and ion drive

"7-Advanced engines supporting interplanetary SSTOs"

I direct you to the LV-N

"8-Cheap, efficient, but incredibly hard to operate engines for SSTO masters"

What does that even mean? you want a minigame where players must complete quicktime events to keep the engine running?

"9-Pay-to-win engines (I mean expensive but otherwise OP, so losing them is disasterous)"

Terrible idea, unless you remove quickloads. Besides, this does nothing for sandbox, and career difficulty settings are so variable... in my career I could lose 5 million and it wouldn't be a complete disaster.

"10-Electric propeller/rotor"

Yes, I like

Wheesely: Very efficient, thrust reverse is great, don't think of just kerbin, think of laythe. Thrust reverse is great when you don't have a runway, or ability to recover and spawn again facing down the launchpad. Allowing my planes to stop in shorter distances, reverse if they are in a bad position, turn tighter on the ground (engines on one side thrust forward, engines on the other side reverse). Great for maneuvering on the ground next to surface bases and surface fuel depots. I use them in combination with panthers on a mk3 plane to move stuff around the surface of laythe

Goliath: same as above, bigger... reduces part countfor large craft...

Juno: for when you want to save funds by sending a smaller payload, or you want something to just transport one kerbal to grab surface samples you missed with your probes

I was going to send this to Laythe, but I changed the wing piece, Two of the modified ones are on the way to laythe now:

Panther: For efficient high speed transit in the atmosphere, great for moving from biome ot biome on laythe, moving surface fuel depots, etc... also good for short takeoff ability in afterburning mode, VTOLs, etc... these work great on laythe... the best 1.25m airbreathing engine for static thrust (beats the whiplash due to the density of laythes atmosphere and their density curves)... also allows for versatile craft capable of really high speeds, that can switch over to dry mode for economy

Yup, thats been in dry mode the whole time

Here's my laythe transport, in this case the cargo is a special rapier+ fuel module to allow it to SSTO.

It can load and unload a variety of payloads, I've designed fuel truck/depots, science labs, habitat modules, ISRU rovers, etc, that fit in the mk3 bay and can load by the ramp... although I've held off on launching them outside of sandbox until I see what the wheelchanges do in 1.1

Whiplash: Great for high speed suborbital travel around kerbin or laythe... you can use them to go orbital, but I like to use them on laythe to make quick trips to the poles for example... climb at a relatively high angle (lets say 30 degrees), and go on a suborbital high speed hop, if cruising around at 600m/s with panthers in dry mode is not enough. They are better than rapiers for this because of the higher TWR at the relevant speeds and altitudes, the better Isp, and the electric generation is nice. They can also combine with rapiers to help push past mach1. Note the combination of whiplashes and rapiers in my profile pic.

I also find them great for VTOL sstos. The rapier lacks the static TWR, and with a rocket/airbreathing hybrid craft, the part of the flight regime where the rapier outperforms the whiplash is too brief to make a difference. The rapier closed cycle is useless in this case, because the main rocket engine (a mammoth or KR-2L mostly, sometimes a mainsail or skipper) is more efficient and plenty powerful once high in the atmosphere.

SSTO rockets are much easier and faster to use than SSTO spaceplanes, but whiplash assisted SSTO rockets are more efficient, and I have much better results using whiplashes than rapiers... I'm considering looking at panthers since they are lighter and have the same static thrust, and I think their pressure curve gives them a bit of an advantage between 1 to about 0.45 atmospheres. Their thrust-mach curve doesn't really give them an advantage anywhere vs the whiplash though.

The only engine I haven't used on a craft in career is the goliath

 

 

A great answear. Before this was answear was posted, I've added my examples how I tought it could work. I'd be pleased to see your reaction/answear to that.

Engines already have some kind of specialisation, but this is quite weak, and could (should)  be increased. Most of my examples are about that, keeping the engines' current role, and strengthening their position there. 6-7-8 was misunderstood, and for 5, I meant a rocket engine for this specific role. I mostly agree with the rest, expect your opinion about beginner-friendly crafts. I've been teaching players KSP SSTOs, but it's completely hard for all of them. What you've just described is one of the easiest ways, and still everyone needs a lot of patience and practice to finally orbit a craft I could take to a Mun-flyby. It's just too hard for them. Most players don't even care about the plane-part of the game, saying it's too hard for them.

Edited April 6, 2016 by CaptainTurbomuffin

[KerikBalm]

Still, I think the whiplash is more SSTO beginner friendly than the rapier, because the rapier is heavier, and produces less thrust until pretty high up, so you need to know the specific of the thrust curves and the problems with the mach barrier, etc. All that is not beginner friendly, which is why I say the whiplash is more beginner friendly than the rapier.

They don't have a good idea about these curves:

(well its just a plot, I haven't fitted curves using the tangent data to it)

The rapier is an engine for SSTOing in a horizontal launch plane.

The whiplash is an engine for SSTOing in a VTOL craft (can have wings to maximize the benefits of the airbreathing regime). Its also an engine for a horizontally flying plane that doesn't go to orbit... given that this is a game mostly about space, that role is somewhat limited. Right now in my career, almost every mission makes use of whiplashes or rapiers for getting to space depending if I have the patience for a horizontally launched and landed SSTO that day or not. I rarely use whiplashes in a purely suborbital regime... but I do on occassion. I considered sending whiplash powered things to laythe, but I didn't... how that I think about it, maybe I should have put a pair on my laythe ssto - uses 4 rapiers, but only really needs all their thrust for water takeoffs. It carries a lot of excess LF for suborbital jaunts to other biomers without kicking into closed cycle... a pair of whiplashes would provide even more takeoff thrust, and make better use of the LF for flying around before going back to orbit/the surface base... plus EC generation for sending those huge atmospheric analysis science transmissions

The same problems are there for the goliath, wheesely and Juno - its a space game, and these engines are nearly useless for getting to space (I did manage a Juno "SSTO" but it needs a launch dolly... I designed a launch dolly that never leavesthe runway and gets 100% recovery... but the SSTO needs to do a water landing)

The Panther is in a good place I think, with the best static TWR, and is usable as a spaceplane engine, and a super cruise very efficient engine, and great thrust vectoring.

The wheesely and goliath are certainly not engines to take you to space... you have to think of them like rover wheels and such... they are for use at the destination, not getting to the destination. Unfortunately... there's only one destination to use them at... unless... mods

(one version of my personal Duna with seas and photosynthetic life in the oceans to explain the oxygen atmosphere mods)

I completely agree about needing an electric propulsion.

I found the goliath provided quite a nice model for a ducted electric fan when scaled down to 1.25m:

 

[KerikBalm]

13 hours ago, CaptainTurbomuffin said:

A great answear. Before this was answear was posted, I've added my examples how I tought it could work. I'd be pleased to see your reaction/answear to that.

Engines already have some kind of specialisation, but this is quite weak, and could (should)  be increased. Most of my examples are about that, keeping the engines' current role, and strengthening their position there. 6-7-8 was misunderstood, and for 5, I meant a rocket engine for this specific role.

I think the specialization is quite strong... there's a big difference between the rapier, the wheesely, the panther, and the turboramjet. Its the wheeselye, goliath, and juno that are similar. The juno gets a pass for its small size.. leaving just the goliath as abig version of the wheesely.

On 4/5/2016 at 8:06 PM, CaptainTurbomuffin said:

In KSP, rocket parts are perfectly balanced around this triangle. They are all equal, having their own advantages and disadvantages over each other. This enables an ability to have good strategic choices and all engines have a use. The opposite with spaceplane parts, and I believe this should be fixed.

 

 

No... they are not perfectly balanced, you must be the first to say that... as for your examples...

" toy for beginners" "engines for SSTO masters " "8 and 9 is still present for masters" "Masters won't have to switch mode after that point"

KSP is a physics game, not amount of skill or competence is going to make one able to SSTO from Eve sea level... physics says no.

If you propose something, it must be about the physics stats, and the role must follow naturally from that.

The rockets are not balanced around "easy to use" and not even cost so much (mainly thats just the SRBs and the vector).

rocket engines have a few relevant stats: TWR, Isp, gimbaling, an alternator. Rarely do gimballing or an alternator factor into it. Mainly within each size category, its a balance of TWR and Isp, with Isp allowing further balance between atmospheric and vacuum stats.

For jets, the relevant stats are:

Static TWR/thrust, Isp, what mach # they reach their peak TWR/thrust(their thrust curve), their thrust:atmospheric density curve, gimballing, the presence of an alternator, and mode switching.

You can tweak this to have engines optimized for high speed and altitude flight (the rapier), or low speed and altitude flight (the wheeseley), and things in betweenthe best orbital spaceplane engine will always be the engine that gets you to the ghighest speed an altitude.

Now... a ramjet cannot produce static thrust. A turboramjet(like the SR-71's engines) can... they work using a fairly standard turbine compressore that gets bypassed at high speed. We could model this as a "mode switch", or have an engine that is lighter and is just a plain ramjet/scramjet, and have people use... say the panther to get them up to a good velocity... I'm fine with that.

Right now what we have is the rapier... it can produce static thrust, but it has the worst static TWR of any jet engine, and it stays the worst until you pass mach 1, which already provides for the scenario where you may use a different engine for getting past mach 1. Its also terrible for flight in the low atmosphere due to its bad Isp and density curve that means it performs best at high altitude.

Unless you give specific about their actual physics stats... there's not much to evaluate about your examples...

Also, you seem to have only 1 goal in mind: getting to space. And with only 1 goal, the variation becomes quite limited: you want the whiplash or rapier depending on your ascent profile.

Some of us have use for the low mass 0.625m engine, or the thrust reversers and high Isps of the wheesely/goliath, or the efficient high speed cruise of the panther, or its TWR and high gimbal.

To me every engine already has roles that they are best suited to based on their physics properties, and I see no problem

[Scientia1423]

On 4/5/2016 at 7:06 PM, CaptainTurbomuffin said:

 

 

 

Wait, so every jet engine is based on an illuminati triangle?