Poll, the R.A.P.I.E.R, what do you think it needs

[rtxoff]

I wish for the Rapiers not to have that problem in breaking the mach barrier. So subsonic to have the same performance as the turnojets. Would make things easier to fly.

[billyoak]

This clearly indicates that RAPIERs are not OK :/

The 20 Rapiers is because only 1m air breathing parts parts are available if 2m parts could be used it would be 5. The purpose of the craft is to show the ratios. 1 rapier per 4-5 tonne of payload and 1 air breathing engine per 14T of craft.

[Kuu Lightwing]

The 20 Rapiers is because only 1m air breathing parts parts are available if 2m parts could be used it would be 5. The purpose of the craft is to show the ratios. 1 rapier per 4-5 tonne of payload and 1 air breathing engine per 14T of craft.

Oh, ratio might be fine, my main problem is that we only have such a small engine. It's actually one of the reasons why I don't even try to make a big SSTO - I don't like the look of a large craft with over-the-top amount of intakes and engines needed to lift it into space.

[Wanderfound]

This clearly indicates that RAPIERs are not OK :/

...on a plane that weighs more than a 747, and has an extreme amount of drag (thanks to all the ramscoops).

Again: it's about drag more than power. Shave your intakes down to the minimum and you can halve your engines. Airhogging is not only ineffective now, it's actively counterproductive.

Four jets will lift a hefty Mk3 in FAR. The excessive drag of stock will raise that a bit, but you should still be able to do a Mk3 mining-equipped SSTA with at most ten jets. Build slick and fly smooth and you'll shave it to 4-6 (which is not an unreasonable number of engines for lifting an extremely massy craft to orbit).

[BrainiacBlue]

I think it needs to be earlier in the tech tree

[billyoak]

Larger parts would be nice but the quad coupler is an easy enough work around. (personally i think a larger cargo bay and larger wing sections would be nice)

From a performance point of view from the poll i don't see them needing a boost.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it needs to be earlier in the tech tree

It would be nice at least before the lvl 3 science facility. For most of the career i ended up using reusable 2 stage rockets to get stuff into LKO.

[Kuu Lightwing]

...on a plane that weighs more than a 747, and has an extreme amount of drag (thanks to all the ramscoops).

Again: it's about drag more than power. Shave your intakes down to the minimum and you can halve your engines. Airhogging is not only ineffective now, it's actively counterproductive.

Four jets will lift a hefty Mk3 in FAR. The excessive drag of stock will raise that a bit, but you should still be able to do a Mk3 mining-equipped SSTA with at most ten jets. Build slick and fly smooth and you'll shave it to 4-6 (which is not an unreasonable number of engines for lifting an extremely massy craft to orbit).

Once again, real Skylon is also planned to be larger than 747. For intakes - that plane seems to have one per RAPIER - isn't it how it's supposed to be? We do need a larger engines and intake or you'll have to make those ridiculous designs with RAPIERS all over the place.

I don't want to build my spaceplanes like this:

[Mister Dilsby]

Once again, real Skylon is also planned to be larger than 747. For intakes - that plane seems to have one per RAPIER - isn't it how it's supposed to be? We do need a larger engines and intake or you'll have to make those ridiculous designs with RAPIERS all over the place.

I concur; and a larger 'Mk3' sized turboramjet too, please. As to the RAPIER's performance numbers, I admit I haven't used it yet in 1.x (my SSTO is a TRJ/nuke liquid-fuel-only design) but it seems balanced. RAPIER should always be worse than a rocket in vacuum, and worse than a straight jet in atmosphere.

[Dilli]

Once again, real Skylon is also planned to be larger than 747. For intakes - that plane seems to have one per RAPIER - isn't it how it's supposed to be? We do need a larger engines and intake or you'll have to make those ridiculous designs with RAPIERS all over the place.

I don't want to build my spaceplanes like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-10270,_Flugschiff_Dornier_Do_X.jpg

I'd happily build a spaceship like that;

Larger air-breathing engines / intakes would solve some of my rapier problems.

I would probably wish for a more scram-jet like engine, either to replace the rapier or as a separate engine. (high thrust at a much higher top speed than the rapier currently tops out at)

[Wanderfound]

Once again, real Skylon is also planned to be larger than 747. For intakes - that plane seems to have one per RAPIER - isn't it how it's supposed to be? We do need a larger engines and intake or you'll have to make those ridiculous designs with RAPIERS all over the place.

Skylon is also supposed to be something like 90% fuel by mass, and built for 9,000m/s orbital velocity rather than 3,500m/s. It's a rocket with a jet boost rather than the Kerbal-style rocket-boosted jet.

Ramscoops are draggier than shock cones, BTW. The shock cones are more heat tolerant, too.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Skylon is also supposed to be something like 90% fuel by mass, and built for 9,000m/s orbital velocity rather than 3,500m/s. It's a rocket with a jet boost rather than the Kerbal-style rocket-boosted jet.

Ramscoops are draggier than shock cones, BTW. The shock cones are more heat tolerant, too.

I don't care if I have to build it as a jet-boosted rocket - I would happily do so, I just want to be able to do it with reasonable amount of engines. Current RAPIERs do good for small-to-medium Mk2, but not for large planes. Just give me a larger engine! Not a better one, but larger. Sure, quadcouplers do something, but they look ugly.

[sam.johnson841]

Tweak Scale solves any need for larger, (or smaller) engines.

- Sam

[Chaos_Klaus]

I don't like the look of a large craft with over-the-top amount of intakes and engines needed to lift it into space.

Well ... that would be a description for like ... any rocket.

I mean, come on. Putting a payload into orbit takes a little payload and loads of engines and fuel.

Don't whine about rapiers being too small for your mk3 spaceplanes. Maybe think about it the other way. Maybe mk3 planes are just too heavy and draggy to use only a few rapiers.

How can you possible go about this with: "Hey it's really inconvenient that I have to use so many engines for my insanely big and heavy craft." ??? Maybe we should ask Squad to reduce gravity some more, because it's really annoying having to bring all these big engines and all that fuel just to get a tiny sattelite into orbit.

Didn't KSP teach you anything? It's about finding solutions to problems *within* the boundaries of the game.

In this thread people have proven that you can bring reasonably large space planes into orbit with only a few rapiers. You need to pilot it right to break the soundbarrier. So what. Piloting is half the fun of KSP.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Chaos_Klaus I was under impression that for rockets we have options to go with a larger engine if you need a larger craft. Not so much for spaceplanes. That is the main problem.

In this thread people have proven that if you install a mod (FAR), you can bring large planes into orbit. That's interesting, but not quite relevant.

[magnemoe]

The 20 Rapiers is because only 1m air breathing parts parts are available if 2m parts could be used it would be 5. The purpose of the craft is to show the ratios. 1 rapier per 4-5 tonne of payload and 1 air breathing engine per 14T of craft.

This is the same issue as the LV-N, then players want to build big they are limited by part size and have to spam engines.

2.5 meter engines+ intakes would solve this issue

[SciMan]

I think the Rapier closed cycle needs to act more like an Aerospike, because a rocket engine that will operate in a wide range of atmospheric conditions, using the same nozzle as an air-breathing engine, needs to be able to compensate for changing atmospheric pressure, like the Aerospike does. In other words, higher ISP at both sea level and in vacuum.

-Still annoyed by Vacuum ISP nerf to all LFO and solid fueled rocket engines, except the Sepratron I.