Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'panther'.
Found 6 results
-
Playing Career mode in 1.2, and still getting use to some of the new mechanics. I haven't unlocked the ramjet, much less the RAPIER yet, so best that I have is the Panther. I found I was having too much aerodynamic drag with radially mounted engines, so I did what I could with having my engines in line, using the parts I've go unlocked so far. Obviously, I needed bilateral symmetry for the engines, but couldn't make it fit having two engine types - a Reliant and the Panther. So I went with symmetry on a 45° angle. For some reason, I couldn't get this thing to go down the runway in anything close to straight, so I ended up launching it off clamps, which required a quick boost from the rocket engines. I've since worked out a better SSTO, but thought this was interesting enough to share. Something else interesting, is I've been playing with kOS, and created an Ascent Sequence Program, where I input different altitudes, what angle to pitch to, and action groups to activate. After many different ascent profiles, I've managed to get this thing into orbit with a whopping 42 m/s delta-V to spare. I was able to rendezvous and rescue two lost astronauts. Problem was re-entry. Turns out, I'm not use to the new heat mechanic, and the cockpit would overheat and explode when entering prograde. I even tried keeping my angle up and slowing down as much as possible in the upper atmosphere. It's possible I could have eventually figured something out, but I eventually tried going in retro so Jeb wouldn't melt, then tried to flip 180°. That flip didn't happen, and instead I plummeted tail end first, but fired my engines slowing me to about 55 m/s when I hit the ground. Jeb and the rescuees survived! Good enough for now.
-
I'm sure some of you out there use it, but aside from its lower cost and reverse thrust capability the wheesley has no real advantages over the panther jet engine for use on low atmosphere jet planes. The panther is more fuel efficient, produces more thrust, and has less mass than the wheesley. So why would anyone use it? Does it just exist in the game so players in career mode can have an engine for their early aircraft? I'm curious to know what use it would have that the panther wouldn't be better at. In my opinion there should be more distinction between the wheesley and the panther, such as greater fuel efficiency or less mass. -
I've seen a LOT of questions about low tech level SSTO Spaceplanes. Most of the info I could find was horribly generic, conflicting, or outdated. So here are a few of my designs that either work, or just need some details ironed out. I have Stations in Kerbin, Mun, and Minmus Orbit, as well as a Mun Surface Base. The primary drive for my reusable spaceplane mission is crew swaps and training runs. I'll post hangar pictures here of each craft full and empty showing the Center of Mass and Center of Lift. Following that will be a few pictures of successful missions for each SSTO. I also plan to post KerbalX links once I get familiar with that system. I am running a lightly modded install of KSP 1.1.3: Kerbal Alarm Clock, Kerbal Engineer Redux, Navball Docking Alignment Indicator, Better Crew Assignments, Aviation Lights, Final Frontier, KIS/KAS, and SCANSat. Since the forum glitches for me if I leave it too long, I'll submit this first post, and then reply to it with each design. The first successful SSTO Spaceplane I managed was the Kerb Fan (Prototype) SSTO, followed by the Kerb Fan (Crew) SSTO, and my current project is the Kerbal SSTO HWGAA*. There is no real naming protocol yet. Everything can be considered in-house pre-production equipment, but the plan is to eventually standardize designs and naming. *The "Here We Go Again (Again?)" follows the Kerbal SSTOs "No Way," "Maybe," "Possible," and "Here We Go Again."
-
Hi all. I have some very specific mission requirements that I've toodled around with and haven't yet gotten to work. So I've decided I need some help from the forums. Right now I'm using 2 Thuds for rockets and 3 panthers for jets. My intakes are engine nacelles and a circular intake on the front of a Mk1 Inline; I don't have ram intakes yet. I'm using stock aero, not FAR (which is a first for me). Here, have a link to the craft file: https://kerbalx.com/crafts/13522/ and a picture: It needs to be able to get at least 2 passengers (preferably more, but I'll fly more missions) into orbit, rendezvous with a station in 125km x 125km (not dock), and re-enter. I'm comfortable with a bingo fuel reentry. Right now it gets into an 85km x -60km suborbital trajectory. My flight pattern involves getting up to Mach 2.5 around 15km on afterburners, then cutting over to rockets for the rest of the flight (keeping jets on until they starve out for the extra savings). I originally tried a single-core plane without the extra fuel on the front; it behaved similarly, but I had to enter a shallow dive from 10km to punch through the Mach barrier. I'm comfortable doing that, if it works, but with 3 Panthers this is just point and zoom. What modifications do I need to make to make this work? Am I flying it correctly, or is there a more efficient profile? I haven't flown SSTOs since 0.90, and I haven't flown stock SSTOs ever (I'm a FAR aficionado momentarily exiled by my potato computer). Thanks pre-emptively for your help. -
Some stock spaceplanes use the Panther, but none have it in wet mode by default or an action to toggle it. An auto-switch function for the afterburner would be convenient to have, the auto-switch will activate the afterburner if the throttle is max, and deactivate the afterburner if throttle was decreased. The auto-switch can also be disabled.
-
I'm sure this has been asked but I cannot seem to find a thread on it. Which is better the J-X4 Whiplash or J-404 Panther (on wet/afterburn mode)? I am asking in regards to thrust first, efficiency second, and any other differences. By looking at the information I don't see any difference but I want to make sure. I'm making an SR-71-esque plane
