Does any one NOT spam intakes for SSTOs?

[Merinsan]

I've in the past put lots of intakes (not clipping them though), but I don't anymore.

I found that in order to get up really high you virtually have to use part clipping.

Putting lots of intakes on a plane until it looks ridiculous doesn't give you much more altitude.

I now tend to put 3 intakes per fuel reserve (1 ram and 2 radials), plus 2 on the central body.

The most important thing to getting into orbit with the SSTO is the flight profile - and you don't need lots of air for that.

[Geschosskopf]

In 0.23, there is no longer any need to spam intakes because they changed how intakes and/or engines work. You don't even need to throttle back to prevent flameout anymore--that seems to happen automatically. The net result is that you can now get way higher and faster on fewer intakes than before so there's no need to spam intakes.

[CleverClothe]

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.

[Citation Needed]

Most (90%+) of the jets I can think of have a 1:1 ratio in game terms. The rest are essentially 2 radials and 1 engine.

[Whatshtisthis]

I usually use an air-intake-to-engine ratio of 1:1 or 2:1.

[Scoundrel]

The problem with the intake system is that it is an overly simplistic solution to a very complex problem. Actual aircraft intakes are based on the engine and airflow required at whatever velocity the craft as a whole is optimized for. Since we have neither variable geometry intakes nor the ability to resize intakes, we're left with adding additional intakes. Of course, it doesn't help that IRL massive intakes are actually a huge detriment to SSTO... but this is the Kerbalverse, where planets are denser than any known element in existence, so it probably doesn't make much sense to compare RL to KV. Anyhow, I personally spam intakes to a degree: I won't add 40 intakes for the sake of adding 40 intakes, if 8 will get me to space, savvy?

And I wouldn't call spamming intakes "cheating" by any stretch of the imagination, since it's: a) a single player game; and if intakes were variable airflow, people would just make a big intake rather than spam them, which would get the same results as spamming them. But that's simply a matter of rationalizing an opinion one way or another, and judging how another person plays a single player game is nothing more than an exercise in narcissism anyways. As far as I'm concerned, if you're having fun spamming/not-spamming intakes, then more power to you!

[DaveofDefeat]

I put 15-1 all the time, turbojets are op anyways. I have fun! btw I mechjeb everything into orbit now.

[SkyRender]

My general rule of thumb is "two intakes per engine max". That generally gets me good speed on up to 20KM and lets me get to orbit without too much extra rocket shenanigans.

[Moar Boosters]

My latest SSTO doesn't have any air-intakes at all.

I might have gone a bit crazy with the aerospikes.

[Spatzimaus]

Once upon a time, I stacked intakes, generally 7 ram intakes per turbojet. Then I downloaded B9, which has some very nice radial intakes, so I was able to relax the ratio a bit.

Then came 0.23. I took my previous 3-turbojet design (34 tons), swapped the middle turbojet for a RAPIER, and tried to get to orbit. It's amazing how much easier it is now; below ~20km I didn't notice a huge difference, but at about 23k the difference was huge. I'd previously watch my intake air quickly deplete, forcing me to hit the rockets at about 1200m/s, and I'd reach orbit with about 1/3rd of my fuel supply. Now, the air barely depletes at that altitude, I can hit 1400m/s before using rockets, and I reach orbit with nearly 2/3rds of the fuel.

Basically, intake spamming is just no longer as important as it used to be, and for that I'm thankful.

[ComradeGoat]

Stacking them - never. That's cheating. Multiple intakes per engine though is fine, IMO.

[Tic-Tac]

I Usually put one circular intake or ram intake (depending on the design of the ship, the ram ones look more "sci-fi"), and maybe two or three mod added radial intakes (that have the performance of the radial intake, but just look more aerodynamic, can't find an image now)

It doesn't have lots of air intake(the max I had was something lile 1.6 or 2), but it's just eye-friendly

And I usually play with FAR, so it might be why it is easier to get to orbit, since atmosphere gets less dense faster, and getting out of it requires a bit less of d_V

Edited December 18, 2013 by Tic-Tac

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

Up to 4 per engine for me.

I some times clip them.

[Spyritdragon]

I don't stack intakes and i never have. Up to now i've never really considered it - haven't been busy with SSTO's much, and i've usually just flown one RAM and one radial per engine.

For my 'ethic principles' though, as long as it is within reason, i don't mind putting multiple intakes per engine, as long as i don't have to clip them and they each have their legit physically-realistic spot.

[peadar1987]

I try not to stack, but sometimes there's limited clipping, as I use a cubic strut and a ram intake to approximate a radial ram intake, which I feel is a part the game is missing slightly.

That said, I've never gotten an SSTO spaceplane into orbit with FAR!

[ola]

That said, I've never gotten an SSTO spaceplane into orbit with FAR!

Son, getting to orbit with FAR is the easy part, trust me. Landing makes orbiting seem like a walk in the park.

I've lost count of how many SSTOs I've spun out during descent.

And on topic: I use as many intakes as FAR lets me before they start acting as drag chutes - not many, in other words. No clipping.

[Tidus Klein]

I used to try and not spam intakes. But I quickly learned you almost have to in order to get the performance you want and not have your plane look like a flying junkyard.

So ya I clip intakes.....but only in a realistic way, a new intake has to be visable and must make logical sense on that area.

No hidden intakes behind parts/fulsalages.

[spectrhz]

I do not spam intakes, unless I want to.

[RoboRay]

People that need to stack a dozen intakes on an SSTO to make it work just aren't trying.

[Pixel of Life]

I used to spam them. Then I learned to build proper SSTOs (and fly them correctly!) and I don't need to do that anymore.

[Murph]

I don't spam intakes. Excessive intake:engine ratio is cheating, pure and simple, in my book. It takes the skill and achievement out of designing a good plane, might as well just hack the part.cfg for the engines and/or intakes, or debug yourself infinite fuel. Multiple intakes per engine is not necessarily spam in my book, if they are attached in a reasonably realistic manner, and the total number is reasonable (more or less max 2 axial ram intakes, or 1 axial + 2 radial ram intakes, per engine). If there's cubic struts jammed onto them, I'm likely to consider that spamming and hate it.

Each to their own, however. KSP rules are whatever each individual wants them to be, so spam all you like (if that's your thing). Just don't bother trying to convince me that your intake-spam design is anything other than a cheat, or that it's actually a good design, or that intake spam is actually necessary.

[Pds314]

My most recent ship had 2 Ram intakes and 2 RAPIER engines.

I sometimes spam if there is a challenge that wants me to send SSTOs to the other side of the universe or something, but normally I just have somewhere between N and 2N, and when I do break that, it is with the intakes mounted semi-reasonably (e.g. unobstructed and not clipped and not on a cubic octagonal strut)