Least favourite engine

[RocketPilot573]

The Ion Engine, that thing is sooooo useless. It can't even push a tiny probe to were its needs to go, and before we had rover wheels all my rovers had them and well, those didn't go very far...

[Ession]

My least favorite is probably the nerva. It's just to good. I don't like the fact that using anything else for interplanetary stuff is pretty much wrong (in a efficiency kind of way). I hope this changes a bit when we get different resources for the nerva (make the radioactive fuel more expensive for career mode or something).

My least USED engine is definitely the white radial one.

[Khrissetti]

Aww, what's with all the white radial hatin'? One of my favourite engines for Mun landers, its high thrust makes suicide burns a piece of cake, and strapping the legs to radially mounted engines gives the landers a nice wide bsae to land on.

The ant entine I've used once, to lift a probe lander off the top of my personnel lander on Minmus.

[Pbhead]

I can see the ant being useful to provide a moment to keep a non-symmetrical ship flying straight... Like a RCS port that is automatically on and in equal proportion to your main engine.

It would take a long of engineering though.

[Aeshi]

I go with the guy above, for the same reason. Seriously, Who did ever use this? It's like an engine for ants! Wait a sec...

It makes quite a good engine for tiny Landers/Rovers, which I've been using it for.

OT, my least favorite engine is the LVT-45, I've never been able to find a situation where they'd be worth taking over LVT-30's.

[cypher_00]

I tried to land a probe on Minmus once with just 1 LV-1 ant thinking the low gravity would make that 1 engine enough to make it safely to the ground. I thought wrong.. not a pretty landing.. So my vote is for that engine.

[TheHengeProphet]

My least favourite engine (and as a result, essentially the only one I never use) is the Mainsail. As a result, I guess I can't vote.

Anyways, it simply has TOO MUCH THRUST. *gasp* Yes, I know those words are heresy here on the forums, but when the engine has more power than the structural capability of the parts it moves... I've had plenty of rockets accordion because a random part (usually the rockomax RCS tank, but often something else vital) explodes from excessive impact force enacted by the Mainsail engine. Yes, yes, I could throttle down, sure, but that actually doesn't always work with this...

[PakledHostage]

My least favourite engine (and as a result, essentially the only one I never use) is the Mainsail. As a result, I guess I can't vote.

I agree that this poll is badly biased. Many forum members (myself included) might like to vote for an engine that isn't listed.

Lump me in with the heretics, but I'd vote for the LV-N as my least favourite engine. In my opinion, it is unbalanced because there are no consequences to using it despite the obvious safety concerns.

[Canopus]

Lump me in with the heretics, but I'd vote for the LV-N as my least favourite engine. In my opinion, it is unbalanced because there are no consequences to using it despite the obvious safety concerns.

There is a consequence. Its hasn't very much thrust.

[UmbralRaptor]

If we're allowed to include solids, I vote for the BACC. While not as bad as in 0.16 or 0.18, it lacks the thrust and/or mass ratio to really distinguish it from the RT-10. Of course, there was no reason to use an RT-10 over a BACC in 0.17...

If we have to go with LFEs, I would probably say the Poodle, with the Mk 55 as a close second. If you're building giant landers, consider a pair of aerospikes instead.

I'm not sure why the 24-77 is on this list, as it's a good engine. Maybe because for lolhuge rockets the mainsail has better TWR and Isp?

[PakledHostage]

There is a consequence. Its hasn't very much thrust.

OK, but what about the PB-ION engine then? It has even higher ISP and lower thrust, but no risk of raining radioactive material down on the citizens of Kerbin when there's a launch failure or when you de-orbit one. If low thrust balances high ISP, what balances the risk of radiating the citizens and environment of Kerbin? I'm not saying that everyone needs to take that into account when they play but for those of us who do, the LV-N isn't a good choice.

[jwenting]

poodle is cheap, reasonably efficient, and short (like the LV909). A long engine like a nuke can make a rocket harder to control and look weird.

Engine I use least I think of the engines I have used (haven't tried the aerospike, LV-1, and ion engines yet) is the LV-T45. The 30 has more thrust and lower weight.

Might come in useful for its thrust vectoring in some builds, but for now I slap on a bit of extra monoprop and that works as well.

[Pbhead]

OK, but what about the PB-ION engine then? It has even higher ISP and lower thrust, but no risk of raining radioactive material down on the citizens of Kerbin when there's a launch failure or when you de-orbit one. If low thrust balances high ISP, what balances the risk of radiating the citizens and environment of Kerbin? I'm not saying that everyone needs to take that into account when they play but for those of us who do, the LV-N isn't a good choice.

Frack kerbin. I need to deorbit my LV-Ns so i can easilly recollect all the blutonium, which is now easily collectible on kerbin's surface.

[Jenteb07]

My vote goes to the radial ones, never used them.

I love the ant engine btw, nice engine to get probes into orbits and even land some of my probes.

[MBobrik]

I found niche uses for all engines. But the white radial overweight fuel guzzler. It has a slightly greater gimbal range, but not enough to make a difference. If it had, say 20 x the normal gimbal range, I would have some use for it, but right now, you are better off with a radially attached fuel tank and a normal engine.

Edited June 4, 2013 by MBobrik

[MockKnizzle]

I dislike the Mainsail, solely because the engine bell isn't nice and pretty like the LV-30 or the Skipper.

[L.J. Silver]

My favorite is the Poodle, Mainsail, and LV-Ns. They have served me well on interplanetary, lifting, and going to the moon.

My least is the ant. I mean, who Dafuq uses it?

I'm ok with the ion engine. I dislike the white radial, uses up too much the, too little thrust.

Ant engines power all my remote tech satellites, very very light and used on the right probe it brings a lot of versatility. My remote tech probes are delivered in a approximate orbit around the wanted body, then ,with the ant engine and 3 grey small fuel tanks the probes can circularize, change planes or change orbit and still have fuel left for additional future manouvers.

Radial white and the LVN with no thrust vectoring are the ones i use less.

[JimmyMadness]

it's a tie between the ant engine and the white radials for me, simplly because i've never used them

[Dunbaratu]

Ion Engine - but that's more because of the limitation in the physics engine that prevents time warp faster than 4x while throttled up, rather than a problem with the ion drive itself.

The ion engine is pointless if you can't time warp the use of it.

[Bothersome]

I'll go with the ant engine, too weak for ships, too inefficient for probes.

I think you not seeing a good use for such an engine. These are great for use when docking craft. Especially when driving a larger craft. They can save you tons of RCS fuel if used correctly. Of course, once you get proficient with the docking process, then they become more or less useless again.

[Lazro]

The Ion Engine is frankly useless in my opinion. Too slow, and you need a lot of baggage for that one miserable engine (Solar panels, batteries, xenon...) You're usually better off using a higher power engine with a good Isp. While you do need even more mass, having a higher thrust offsets that and makes burn times bearable.

[thestookem]

The Ion engine is my least favorite, I've never once used it.

[John FX]

I really tried to like the ion and the ant. Couldn`t find a use for them. Maybe when costs are more important in career mode they will have a use again but not for me currently.

[Anglave]

I say the aerospike. A single one of them is unusable (without part clipping) on an upper stage, and they aren't that efficient anymore, nor powerful enough to replace an LVT-30 (which weighs less) and they don't Gymbal. They suit a niche market - SSTO's, and only certain ones, there are better options than the aerospike. Ions are too underpowered to be of any use if you don't want 35 minute burns.

The poodle however, is great. It's good for Shuttles around the LKO system. Poodle+Tank+3 Man Pod+RCS can go LKO-Mun-Minmus-LKO without refuelling. It also has the highest Gymbal range, 3.0 degrees.

The big white radials? Great for skycranes! I've built an entire Minmus base using ships that went LKO-Minmus base landing on just those engines. Two of them gives a more delta/v on a ship than q poodle does, with space to have things underneath. You could say radial mounted Nervas, but man those things are huge.

The ant? The ant can land small probes on Gilly, Ike, Minmus, Mun, Give probes enough d/v to do transfers around the joolian system, and fine tune geostationary or whateversynchronous orbits. ANY probe i deploy anywhere has this engine. unless of course, it's like kuiper-belt-orbiting, then I use an Ion for even finer tuning. The Oscar-B also gives a useful place to mount scientific equiptment or solar panels on Stayputnik orbiters.

Wow, I pretty much couldn't disagree with you more. The Aerospike has a very important niche, having a high atmosphere ISP and relatively high thrust for its weight means it's a good choice for atmospheric launches. Particularly from Eve, where you'll be spending entirely too long in thick atmosphere. It's true they have stability issues. Clusters of T45's or Skippers are easier to use for Kerbin launch.

The Poodle has terrible ISP and Thrust to Engine weight. It has essentially no niche; if you're using it near a planet or in an atmosphere, you'd be better off with an Aerospike or clustered/radial T45s. If you're using it in vacuum you'd be better off with LV-Ns or 909s. If for some reason you really need higher thrust at the cost of lower vacuum ISP, you could still use clustered/radial T45s and be better off.

The big white radials for skycranes? Maybe. But what's their advantage over other engines, like the T45 or 909 (depending on how much thrust your crane needs)? They're so much less efficient, I'd need a really compelling reason to use them.

The ant. Oh lord, the ant. Thrust to engine weight of 50, ISP of 220-290. And not enough thrust to lift anything but the smallest probe on the lightest body. And if you're doing deep space maneuvers, you want to opt for a higher ISP engine.

A pair of 24-77's weighs six times as much as an ant, but it's only a difference of 0.15 mass. And they provide more than thirteen times the thrust. A thrust to engine weight ratio of over 111, with an ISP of 250-300. Better than the Ant in every way; higher efficiency at any altitude, better TWR, and more useful thrust. The only time you'd pick an ant over them is if the extra 0.15 mass is more important to you than the higher efficiency and 13 times as much maximum thrust. Which is... never. Because seriously, 0.15 mass?

Edited June 4, 2013 by Anglave

[3_bit]

The white engine was pretty much MADE for those rare people who want to make space shuttle replicas.