Does any one NOT spam intakes for SSTOs?

[horndgmium]

Seems a bit cheaty to me. I like to keep to natural limits of physics and construction (as in, stacking an intake on top of another means the one under it can no longer take in air. Oh and how two things can't occupy the same space at the same time).

Typically I keep to 2n+1 intakes, where n = the amount of engines, with no intake stack.

What amount do you guys think is reasonable?

[Madrias]

My strategy is this: No two intakes can be in the same space, but I can have multiple intakes per engine. I tend to limit myself to one stack-mounted intake, plus two Radial intakes per engine. It might be considered air-hogging, but I consider it reasonable.

On an inline-engine design where I don't use a stack-mounted intake, I tend to use 6 radial intakes at most. Again, it might be considered air-hogging, but I do believe it's logical. Either way, I'm shoving as much air as I can into the engine within reason.

[Taleric]

I don't even touch them, just not my type of KSP fun. I see them as broken but people are too reliant on them to change at the moment.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Taleric

[Hodo]

I don't, I run a strict 3:1 intake to engine ratio. Which is about the most I can find in real life.

[SargeRho]

My most recent SSTO has 6 intakes (2 ram intakes, 4 radial intakes), and 2 engines. I don't think that's "spamming".

[Anton P. Nym]

I routinely put multiple radial intakes on my craft to get a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio, but I don't "stack" intakes. More out of esthetic reasons than anything else... one option missing in the game is the option to put larger intakes on to increase airflow, so I justify the added radials as a form of inlet widening.

-- Steve

[Travisfv]

I'm almost ready to give up on them all together. In the last week I've spent an hour a day trying to figure them out. Did it once, but the plane had to land early because I had no battery left. But that was the only one to do it. No matter how hard I try nothing works all that well. I tried the new rapier engines, can't do it with them. Tried the regular jet engines with ram intake and 2 extra intakes per engine. Nothing.

I think I'm gonna go back to rockets. Quicker to orbit, I can get them to orbit, and it's so much easier balancing RCS thrusters on a capsule than across a plane.

And it seems every thread I've looked into give the same advice but none it helps me get my planes to orbit. Unless someone can point me to an extremely detailed guide, I think they're out for me.

[Brotoro]

I use two intakes per engine.

[Queue]

I use 2 per engine,

Though for a challenge i enjoy using non optimal pieces such as radial or scoop and jet engines. I feel a very strong sense of accomplishment in a way no other game has done... makes me smile

[Van Disaster]

One intake per engine, unless it's a single engine. Usually two then just for symmetry ( but usually surface mounted mod ones ).

On the other hand my spaceplanes sometimes have rocket boosters or drop tanks, so they're not SSTOs...

Edited December 18, 2013 by Van Disaster

[El wonso]

I do not spam intakes, here are my limits (per engine):

2 ram/circular intakes (I usually use 1)

1 engine nacelle

4 radial intakes

I don't use everything at once ofc.

[Kronikor]

Put all the radial intakes!!

[iornfence]

My rule is that if you have to make the plane look stupid to add the extra intakes, it isn't happening. This usually leads to just over 2 intakes per engine, which is plenty for my small SSTOs.

[Liowen]

My current one has 2 engines with 1 ram each and 2 radials each. I mount thee radials nearest to the center one on top and one underneath, I am most likely over killing it but it does look nice...at least I think so. I have been told to use those wire cubes and put more ram air on it, but it just doesn't look right to me. I figure I got into a 120lm orbit and landed tonight so it must be working, of course this is with the RAPIER engines as well.

[Ravenchant]

2 ram or circular intakes per engine at most. With radial...the number can be higher, but those are usually one-engine planes. And no stacking, of course.

The only exception to this rule was my machingbird challenge entry- airhogging is almost mandatory there!

[-Gamah]

finally made my first successful SSTO flight with 1 intake and 1 engine thanks to the new rapier engine

(playing since .13)

[Stargate525]

Largest I've ever done is nine. One regular intake on the front of the thing, and then eight in a circle around it. That was mostly because I wanted it to look big and burly rather than get into space with it.

[FlamedSteak]

I don't clip them, but I'll cram them anywhere they will fit. I don't use a lot of the radials as they seem pretty negligible above 10K and I wonder a lot of the time if they're worth the weight.

[elxverde]

Fighter planes and jets in real life use multiple intakes per engine, so I don't see how it's "unrealistic" to use multiple non-clipping intakes per engine in KSP, a game with small planets not very far apart and a space program but no cities.

[Queue]

Fighter planes and jets in real life use multiple intakes per engine, so I don't see how it's "unrealistic" to use multiple non-clipping intakes per engine in KSP, a game with small planets not very far apart and a space program but no cities.

I did not know this about modern aircraft. Do you have any recommended books on the topic? I have been wanting to read up on all things avionics but really have no idea were to begin

[longhornchris]

I don't, but I also use FAR so the drag model is both more realistic and more forgiving. I also have self-imposed rules about airflow through structures - i.e. no inlets mounted to fuel tanks.

That said, when using B9's 'big' SABRE I will use multiple radial mounted intakes on the engine to get the equivalent performance of putting one of the big SABRE intakes.

Also, the only fighters I know with multiple intakes have multiple engines (ex. F-15, F-22, multiple curent gen MiGs) OR have 2 intakes to the single engine for symmetry (ex F-35, F-104) because the single nose intake doesn't work very well.

[horndgmium]

Fighter planes and jets in real life use multiple intakes per engine, so I don't see how it's "unrealistic" to use multiple non-clipping intakes per engine in KSP, a game with small planets not very far apart and a space program but no cities.

Yeah, like I said I personally use 2n+1 (usually because of a nose intake). Clipping is pretty stupid imo

[liweih]

Gosh, I used 48 radial intakes and 2 ram intake to let my ssto fly above 30000m. In real life, the SR-71 flies on that altitude with good engine and air intake. If stock parts don't provide such things and I do not want to modify my file, what can't I used multiple ones?

[Hodo]

Gosh, I used 48 radial intakes and 2 ram intake to let my ssto fly above 30000m. In real life, the SR-71 flies on that altitude with good engine and air intake. If stock parts don't provide such things and I do not want to modify my file, what can't I used multiple ones?

The SR-71 uses the speed of the air to maintain its air requirements. And it topped out at around 26km altitude, not 30km.

[lammatt]

i dont.

10characters