More .625 jet engines that aren't underpowered like the only stock one we have now?

[SpaceToad]

Seeing as there is only one, and its underpowered (extremely), a couple more would be nice.

[Tex_NL]

Wheesleys Junos are indeed weak. But I do not call them underpowered when they can do Mach 2 at sea level.

Edit:
Called them Wheesley instead of Juno by mistake. Error has been corrected.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Tex_NL

[SpaceToad]

Thats a drone that probably weighs around 4 tons. It wont accelerate, much less get a business jet or fighter anywhere near that. For conventional use, its definitely underpowered.

Take the stock bizjet that uses it, it barely stays out of a stall.

[Gaarst]

The engines on your average Learjet put out 16kN of thrust each and are a lot larger than 0.625m.

Jet engines are incredibly OP in KSP, and the Juno is no exception.

[SpaceToad]

13 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

The engines on your average Learjet put out 16kN of thrust each and are a lot larger than 0.625m.

Jet engines are incredibly OP in KSP, and the Juno is no exception.

Yeah in a real atmosphere with real lift 16kN would work. KSP Atmo not so much, and seeing as FAR isnt updated yet, its not like we have any choices that accurately represent their counterparts in KSP atmosphere either.

Edited December 9, 2016 by SpaceToad

[foamyesque]

A pair of Junos will get a competently designed plane above Mach 1

 

EDIT:

@Tex_NL: Pretty sure those are Wheesleys, not Junos, and therefore are 1.25m, not 0.625m. If you managed Mach 2 on Junos I'd like to see how.

Edited December 9, 2016 by foamyesque

[Wjolcz]

Juno is way OP. We don't need any more atmospheric engines except for maybe one: electric propeller.

[foamyesque]

44 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Juno is way OP. We don't need any more atmospheric engines except for maybe one: electric propeller.

 

I wouldn't mind a 2.5m version of the RAPIER. Large spaceplanes get kind of silly looking :v

Edited December 10, 2016 by foamyesque

[Wjolcz]

2 minutes ago, foamyesque said:

 

I wouldn't mind a 2.5m version of the RAPIER. Large spaceplanes get kind of silly looking :v

I'm afraid a bigger RAPIER would mean even easier SSTOs. I guess it could be balanced, but IMO it's not needed. It's already pretty easy to build them anyway.

[Rath]

Try flying things with the juno limited to the 10.5Kn of the HES-011, and making decent planes.  The 20kn Juno is really strong.

[Tex_NL]

13 hours ago, foamyesque said:

@Tex_NL: Pretty sure those are Wheesleys, not Junos, and therefore are 1.25m, not 0.625m. If you managed Mach 2 on Junos I'd like to see how.

Apologies. I called them Wheesley by mistake but I was indeed talking about the 0.625 Juno's.
Take a look at the thread link in my original post and you'll get a reasonable idea how I managed Mach 2.

---

14 hours ago, SpaceToad said:

Thats a drone that probably weighs around 4 tons. It wont accelerate, much less get a business jet or fighter anywhere near that. For conventional use, its definitely underpowered.

Take the stock bizjet that uses it, it barely stays out of a stall.

It weighs just over 1 ton. Click the thread link for all the stats.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Tex_NL

[foamyesque]

25 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

Apologies. I called them Wheesley by mistake but I was indeed talking about the 0.625 Juno's.
Take a look at the thread link in my original post and you'll get a reasonable idea how I managed Mach 2.

---

It weighs just over 1 ton. Click the thread link for all the stats.

Huh. I would've thought the ugly thrust curve of the Junos above Mach 1 made that impossible. Nice.

[Tex_NL]

15 hours ago, SpaceToad said:

Take the stock bizjet that uses it, it barely stays out of a stall.

Pretty sure everybody will agree this qualifies as a business jet. And it flies rock steady at 211m/s at 7km. Not bad for Kerbin dimensions. If the stock example can't do a similar then the engines are not to blame. Instead blame Squad for poor plane design.

Edit: And if you were talking about the stock Velociteze. That thing is faster than you might expect.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Tex_NL

[GoSlash27]

I concur with the others here. I'm fine with the Juno as- is and have never needed a more powerful variant. What I would really like to see is a turboprop.

Best,
-Slashy

[Tex_NL]

29 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

What I would really like to see is a turboprop.

Yes. But I don't want my SPH/VAB overloaded with prop engines. Just a 0.625 and a 1.25m. Powerful for their size but quickly loose power at altitude and speed. But that's a completely different discussion.

[Andem]

I think we need a turboprop that has two modes: Liquid Fuel AND Electric.

[GoSlash27]

 ^ Or an all- electric prop that appears later in the tech tree. I'd just like to have an option for a 1.25m prop when aviation first opens up. More range than a Juno, but lower speed.

Best,
-Slashy

[NoMrBond]

A more advanced 0.625 engine option would be nice, personally I think a tiny RAPIER would be awesome, even if it ended up being something like the SCIMITAR/A2 instead of the full SABRE dual-mode capabilities.

There are a few gaps in the parts lineup which would be nice to address.  I don't mind filling those voids with mod/s, but not everyone is happy (or even able) to do so.

[panzer1b]

Im happy with the jumo as is.  Its a bit more powerful then a real jet engine used on a business jet, but considering that everything else in KSP is way heavier then IRL, it compensates for that nicely.  It only dies when you try to carry excessively heavy/draggy stuff with it, or if you try to make military craft with it (believe me, ive tried a few times, dont work well even in a triple engine cluster pushing a 5t starfighter with minimal drag inducing surfaces).

That said, i wouldnt mind a 0.6m and a 2.5m rapier style engine.  Yeah 2.5m would make large SSTOs easier, but if you consider that nothing is stopping us from spamming massive quantities of tiny engines, why not?  Same thing with the large jet engine, yeah i CAN make a plane that will get similar performance with a triple 1.2m jet (or like 20 jumos), but why should i bother with that many more parts just to do the same thing (honetly id prolly settle for the triple engine because of looks, but personal obsession with 3 way symmetry aside, there is no reason you ever want 3 wheesleys instead of 1 of those massive jets).  As for the mini-rapier, who can deny how useful a 1t SSTO would be...  That and i could finally make my new micro-scale starfighters (or at least the ones that are anywher enear aerodynamically stable) SSTO capable without abusing huge amounts of 48-7s-jumo hybrid engines.

[Azimech]

If I need more power, I just stack them. In my mind I just fantasize they're more developed engines. It's not like it's cheating that way, besides, you need the extra air intakes, you have more mass and more fuel consumption.

[Esquire42]

On 12/11/2016 at 2:55 PM, panzer1b said:

Im happy with the jumo as is.  Its a bit more powerful then a real jet engine used on a business jet, but considering that everything else in KSP is way heavier then IRL, it compensates for that nicely.  It only dies when you try to carry excessively heavy/draggy stuff with it, or if you try to make military craft with it (believe me, ive tried a few times, dont work well even in a triple engine cluster pushing a 5t starfighter with minimal drag inducing surfaces).

That said, i wouldnt mind a 0.6m and a 2.5m rapier style engine.  Yeah 2.5m would make large SSTOs easier, but if you consider that nothing is stopping us from spamming massive quantities of tiny engines, why not?  Same thing with the large jet engine, yeah i CAN make a plane that will get similar performance with a triple 1.2m jet (or like 20 jumos), but why should i bother with that many more parts just to do the same thing (honetly id prolly settle for the triple engine because of looks, but personal obsession with 3 way symmetry aside, there is no reason you ever want 3 wheesleys instead of 1 of those massive jets).  As for the mini-rapier, who can deny how useful a 1t SSTO would be...  That and i could finally make my new micro-scale starfighters (or at least the ones that are anywher enear aerodynamically stable) SSTO capable without abusing huge amounts of 48-7s-jumo hybrid engines.

Nertea's Mark IV Expansion has two kinds of 2.5m RAPIER engines, an aerospike and a standard engine. Those should be useful.

[The Optimist]

I believe this is more of an l2p issue than a real gameplay problem.

[Jarin]

On 12/9/2016 at 1:54 PM, SpaceToad said:

Seeing as there is only one, and its underpowered (extremely), a couple more would be nice.

Instead of jumping in disagreeing (lots of people have covered that side nicely) I'd like to see what you're trying to do that you need more 0.625 power for. Maybe some design assistance would do the trick.

[MaxL_1023]

Supersonic business jets are quite unrealistic - they are designed for efficient subsonic flight. 20 KN of thrust is plenty for an engine with a cross-section that small, especially considering how easily you can cluster them on most plane designs. 

[Guest]

The Juno is worse than a downscaled Wheelsey at everything purely because it comes early in the tech tree (like how the Isp of the Flea SRB is arbitrarily worse than the Hammer). Even by the end game it may still be desired for a particular application and it's there that the exponentially lowered stats become a drawback. I personally dislike this, and prefer things like the LV-909 which are great when you get them and remain useful into the endgame.

Edit: I'm sure it was at one point, but it seems this is no longer true (see page 2).

Ultimately it's pretty easy to change the stats on the Juno yourself if you don't like them; increase the thrust as you see fit and copy the Wheesley's mach curve values. I personally modded the Swift engine from SXT to be a supersonic version of the Juno.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Guest