VTOLs, BJE balance, Aerospike balance, Nuke balance, Unique air intakes, Scramjets, better RAPIERs

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

VTOLs

After 1.0, jet engines no longer produce a constant thrust. The more speed you have, the more thrust you get. As a result, when trying to make a VTOL, you get the lowest possible thrust. As part of making intakes unique, the currently useless engine nacelle could solve this problem. Just like in real life, the engine nacelle could generate airflow. As a result, with an engine nacelle, you could start with higher thrust, due to the velocity curves. This could also be useful with cruising planes, as you could

take-off and accelerate to your cruising speed faster. For example, if the nacelle provides a mach 1 airflow, your engine's performance will be as good if you were flying at mach 1. After exceeding mach 1, the nacelle becomes useless. (This would mean that you get a constant thrust until mach 1, wich is inappropriate. There could be a slight increase in thrust as the real airflow increases, within mach 1)And the best VTOL engine? The new Basic Jet Engine is really small, it could fit in an 1-m cargo bay *cough* , ( Also, how about an 1 m in-line VTOL container? ) making it an ideal choice for VTOLs, in size. With the nacelle, it should have enough thrust to lift things up. I say it should have at least 90kN thrust, with the nacelle.

Of course, there's a problem. The vel.curves of the BJE are so low that even if the nacelle provides a mach 1 airflow instead of no airflow, you still get a thrust of 84 instead of 70. Based on the Vel.Curves, the max. thrust you can get is 119kN, at mach 1.67. If the vel.curves would give much more thrust, the BJE could have real use. I don't want much. here are the old vel.curves, and the ones I would like to see. (note that I count with 70 as stationary thrust. In theory it's 80, but in practice¹, it won't go over 70. I don't know why, could someone explain this to me?)

I am not suggesting values, I just show an approximate suggestion of something I would like to see.

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 128]

[TR]

[TD=width: 64]mach number[/TD]

[TD=width: 64]current thrust[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]0[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]70[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]0,35[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]67,2[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]1,05[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]84[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]1,67[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]119[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]2,15[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]77[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]2,3[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]35[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]2,5[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]0[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 192]

[TR]

[TD=width: 64]mach number[/TD]

[TD=width: 64]desired thrust (approx)[/TD]

[TD=width: 64]desired thrust with a nacelle (approx)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]0[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]70[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]100[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]0,35[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]85[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]105[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]1[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]120[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]123[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]1,5[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]110[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]113[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]1,8[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]55[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]58[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]2[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]0[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]0[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Diagram:

As the devs say, they want the BJE to be a subsonic cruising turbofan. Than why it is that it performs better at more than 2 mach than the normal, cruising speed? And that it's the best at mach 1.7? As you can see, I just moved the vel.curves towards a SUBsonic engine, rather than a sonic engine. Also, I ran a few tests in-game¹, and I found out that even if I am an experienced pilot, I could hardly exceed mach 1, using a simple BJE plane. So, if most players can't even exceed mach 1, why do we even have thrust beyond that? A subsonic engine? <...>

If you look at the diagram, you'll see that my suggested values aren't so OP. Than let's have a try! Use my test mod, and try the new BJE yourself! Note that I'm not a modder, and I don't even know much about programming, but I could make a simple mod with these changes. Because I couldn't mod the nacelle thing, there's a second engine, with the nacelled stats. If you are a modder, and you could mod that, feel free to do that.

Conclusion:

-BJE beomes a sub-sonic engine from a sonic engine

-Engine nacelle improves airflow

-No intake air from the nacelle

-No fuel from the nacelle

-Goliath engine with higher starting thrusts, due to the nacelle

---

Unique air intakes

The requiement of intake air could be another tool of balancing jet engines. In past, this was the only tool. The number of air intakes determined the performance of jet engines. Those were mad times, when we added about 10 ram intake per engine, and we could get to orbital velocities. But luckily those times are gone. Now, to avoid such jet-to orbit desgins, a new stat, atmospheric curve, was introduced. Not only the speed, but the atmopheric pressure also determines your engines' performance. You can't go too high, because your thrust is automatically lowered, and cutted around 26000 m. This is a quite balanced system, but it completely abandoes the usage of intake air.

(I ran a test: I locked my heading, and did a fully automatic horizontal acceleration (you know, the second phase of orbiting) and I wrote down my altitude, speed, and thrust at the main events of the acceleration: Max thrust at the engines, Max speed, and flame-out. I had 2 turbojets on the plane, and 7 shock cone intakes. After completing a test, I reloaded the save I took after leveling off, and repeated it with different intake-setups. The result was me writing "...!" on the paper. In all 4 tests, in all 12 events, every value was (approximately) identical (of course, there were 3-4 m/s and 100-300m differences, but those are negligable when I am going from 8000m to 26100m). The results showed, that running 2 turbojets on 7 shock cone intakes, and 1 shock cone intake, is IDENTICAL. I didn't bother trying 3 jets with 1 intake, but this is bad, isn't it? You need one intake for 2 engines. )

The problem there is that why we still have 8 types of air intakes, if even one from the cheapest can run 2 jets. In past, when we had to spam intakes to have better planes, this diversity was vital, but now, it's useless. Also, note that there was NO difference, in practice, between open and closed intakes. I see 2 possible solutions for this:

The need of air intake should be increased. I don't say I want 5 intakes per engine, but half intake should be miserable, one intake should be good, one intake and a radial should be perfect, and adding more intakes should be horrible, due to the increased drag. And than, replace atmospheric curves with air intake. atmospheric curves are so... intangible. If jets wouldn't flame-out because the pressure's too low, but because of the lack of air intake, it would be fine. This way atmospheric curves could be extended slightly by adding more intakes, but not like in the old times, because drag would be increased significantly, and something that's described soon

2

, the intakes'heat apllied to the engines. The difference between going slow in a thick atmosphere and going fast in a rare atmosphere would be tons of special heat applied to the engines. I don't really like this one, it's like returning the old system.

2.:Keep both need of air and atm.curves, just increase the need of air, so that a bit more intake air is necessary to have the same performance as before.

²The mentioned heat: While certain intakes (Ram Air Intake; Mk1 inline fuselage; Structural intake; Shock Cone intake) ram the air, they produce a large ammout of heat. This heat is applied to the engines³. Beyond sonic speeds, this gets stronger. This is a very very large ammout of heat, that can be either reduced by spamming radiators on the engines, or by directly cooling the airflow with a precooler, in a much more efficient way. ³(if this heat was right applied to the intakes, it couldn't be removed with precoolers) So if you want to go really fast (1400-1500?) you will need a precooler. If you want to go even faster (1700-1800?), on such speeds that are out of most engine's capability, this effect becomes unexpectedly strong, and you might need a lot of precoolers.

And now, that we have a need for intake air, how could the intakes be made more diverse?

I tought about certain intakes not being able to generate more intake air from faster airflow than a limit. So each intake could have a speed limit. Beyond that limit, if you go faster, you won't recieve more intake air from that. (note: this is speed, not mach) For example, the circular intake's turbofan can get intake air from an airfow of 300-400m/s . This is the max. spin rate of the turbofan. If you go faster than 400, the turbofan can't spin even faster, so you will still get the same ammout of intake air. 400 is the limit at both sea level, and in the high atmosphere. With spaceplanes, at higher altitudes, you'll get less intake air, as the density is lower, but you are not getting more air from the higher speeds.

-Circular intake:

a sonic intake. Its turbofan couldn't get more air from faster flow than 300-400m/s, as the turbofan can't spin too fast. Can be still used with fighter jets. At very large speeds, the turbofan is destroyed. It can bear large speeds and temperatures when closed. Applies more drag than a flat plate when opened, when closed, approx. as much drag as an aerodynamic nose cone. Please, an animation for closing it. And also, an animation for the turbofan in it. As this is not a ram intake, it applies no extra heat to the engines. Compared to the others, it produces decent ammout of intake even at lower speeds.

-XM-G50 Radial Air Intake:

with a really large intake area, it's nearly as good as a circular air intake. Use it when you don't have a frontal attachment node for a circular intake. Maybe a transition between the circular and the ram intake. I don't have any specific ideas for this one, but it shouldn't be much more expensie than the circular one.

-Ram Air Intake:

used with supersonic speeds. (1200-1400?) May not produce enough intake air at subsonic speeds (so the engines will have a slightly lower thrust, due to the slight sortage of air) As it rams the air, it heats it up significantly. Won't produce more thrust beyond supersonic speeds, but will produce more heat (so you better close it). Also, please, a closing animation! Like a shutter closing the intake area! When open, slightly less drag than the circular intake. When closed, as much drag as a type B advanced nose cone.

-Mk1 inline fuselage:

Same as the Ram Air Intake, but inline, and a lower intake area. (less intake air, and applied heat, and drag.)

-Structural intake:

transition between the Ram Air Intake, and the Shock Cone intake. Small intake area, but not so expensive (you can spam it if needed)

-Shock Cone Intake:

The extremist. Same as the Ram Air Intake, but with a larger, hypersonic speed limit (1600-1900?) and cost. Note that just like the ram air intake, it also provides more heat at higher speeds, and you can only use it with advanced engines with significantly high velocity curves. While open, slightly less drag than the circular air intake. While closed, as much drag as a Type A Advanced Nose Cone

Conclusion:

-Intake air vital

-Halved intake air-halved thrust (unless you had a surplurus from air)

-Intakes that ram the air apply additional heat to the engines, based on the mach number

-On higher mach numbers, this gets significantly strong

-This heat is a very strong heat, but precoolers can significantly reduce it

-Precoolers not giving intake air

-Precoolers not giving fuel

-Precoolers reduce the airflow's temperature, much more effectively than radiators.

-Precoolers have low mass, but high cost

4

-Intakes having a max. airflow speed

-Open intakes: high drag

-Closed intakes: low drag

-Intake closing animation

---

Aerospike

Before we had RAPIERs, we made SSTOs with turbojets and an aerospike. Now, it's not an SSTO-engine. Many people claim that yes it is, because it's short, and it won't be smashed, but that's a far-fetched argument. The good thing in an aerospike is that it produces relatively constant thrust and isp, making it useful for EVE landers. However, I'd like to make it a perfect spaceplane-engine. The high atmospheric isp is useless, as there's nearly no atmospheric pressure on the altitudes where your jets flame-out. The good thing is that it offers a rather good efficiency even on orbit. Because on spaceplanes, you usually don't have many engine slots, but you have a large, heavy fuselage, high thrust is essential. What I would like: an aerospike, wich has nearly identical vacuum stats with the Poodle engine, but it's size 1. This would be awesome for spaceplanes. Maybe some more mass, as aerospikes have high mass, not simply 1 ton... But the best idea, is that due to its pointy shape, it should have minimal drag! With spaceplanes, regular rocket motors produce a HUGE percentage of your drag! If the aerospike had less drag, it would be awesome for spaceplanes again! But if the aerospike is same as the Poodle in vacuum, and a lot better than it in atmo, why should we even use the Poodle?

-Cheaper

-Lower-tech

-Can be stack attached

-When stack attached, it has less drag due to that fairing

-Aerospike having a bit higher mass (so that they are not identical)

-It's rocket style

But wait a second! The aerospike having more thrust, and less drag? It could be even more useful for those who bother abusing EVE! Jackpot

Conclusion:

-Aerospike having significantly less drag

-More mass, more thrust!!

---

Nukes:

Nukes are a critical part. They have been over-nerfed, but this also helped for them with planes. Now, you can't make an only jet and nuke plane, wich would be really overpowered. Now, due to their high mass and low thrust, you won't have enough TWR to make it to orbit. If you add more nukes, you'll have enough TWR, but you won't have enough DV than, due to the significant extra mass. My idea is that, due to the fact that there's a nuclear reactor in them, they could either be switched on and off limited times, or that they could only run for a limited ammout of time, before their core is depleted. Than, they could have more thrust or less mass. But spaceplanes than... Anyway, I just shared my ideas, I hope you might find a solution that favors both plane and rocket balance.

---

Advanced engines

So you can only use the shock cone intakes with engines that have really high vel. curves. I tought about 2 really high-tech engines: a renewed RAPIER, and a new scramjet.

RAPIER

I tought that the RAPIER could be the simple, easy-to-fly variant. [ spoiler= here I describe how the RAPIER could be made more beginner-friendly and super easy to fly until 1400-1500m/s. After that, you would need 2 additional precoolers (totally 3) and you could proceed until 1600-1700m/s, but in a harder-to fly way, so veterans could take advantage of it too. ] Somewhere being a rocket, not only a ramjet, it could have more... constant thrust. Higher base thrust and lower thrust multiplier from vel.curves could make it more... rocket like. Also, it could behavie exactly like a rocket... Anyway, this would help a LOT to those players, who are new to planes, but are experienced with rockets. (every new player). The engine could have greatly extended vel.curves, allowing it to reach hypersonic (1600-1700?)speeds. The RAPIER wants to be a replica of the real-life SABRE engine, am I right? The SABRE is made of an air-breathing rocket, and a cluster of ramjets. Altough it's not working like that, but KSP RAPIERS could be made of an air-breathing rocket, that produces a rather constant thrust, and a ramjet, that produces more thrust at higher speeds. You would start with the constant thrust of the rocket, and as you hit larger mach numbers, the ramjets will start to produce more and more extra thrust. After reaching large speeds, the ramjets might eventually flame-out, due to their lower vel.curves. At the very large speeds, you could still proceed with the rocket, crippled by the really large speeds. With this small thrust, you could get to about 1700m/s, before you eventually flame-out due to the high vel. or atm. curves. I know it's not how it works with the SABRE, but it could be nice for KSP. Normally, you could get a 1400-1550 m/s from it, with a classical setup: Shock cone, Precooler, RAPIER. To stick to this setup, and for other reasons⁵, the Max. temperature of the RAPIER should be lower. You would just not get overheated. But if you want to go further, you might add 2 extra precoolers. Than you can proceed using the rocket only, crippled by the high speeds, but still producing about 70-80kN thrust. You could go until 1600-1700, before you eventually flame-out, either due to the atmospheric or the velocity curves. After that, you could continue like a powerful rocket.

Also, the SABRE is rather optimized for operation in vacuum, while the nozzles of the KSP RAPIER are more effective in atmo. Playing with this could help to balance.

Because precoolers determine the atmospheric performance of most engines, they should cost more.⁴ Also, the RAPIER engine should cost less. Expensive precoolers, cheap RAPIERS. That way, the RAPIER could be used until ~700 m/s,⁵ before they overheat and explode, due to the lack of a precooler. So the cheap RAPIER, witouth an expensive precooler, could get to approx.700m/s, before having to switch mode. Excellent for a rocket booster. Why is that good? The RAPIER means "Reactive Alternate-Propellant Intelligent Engine FOR ROCKETS". That would make sense this way.

Also, I would like the RAPIERs, and their precoolers to be really light. That way, it could be an excellent SSTO engine, that's right perfect for going beyond LKO. Not only because the light mass, but because it's a one-engine-type to orbit, that saves you engine slots, for nukes for example. Also, if we wanted it to save even more engine slots, it could have higher thrust and mass (like with the aerospike). Of course, still relatively to the thrust, low mass.

Conclusion:

-RAPIER easy to fly for beginners until approx. 1400-1500m/s (maybe because it's performance is a bit rocket-like. Who are new to planes, are always familiar with rockets)

-RAPIER hard to fly from approx. 1400-1500 to 1600-1700

-Optimize it's efficiency for atmospheric, or vacuum, if it's needed for further balance.

-Average setup: Shock cone intake, Precooler, RAPIER

-Cheaper RAPIERs, expensive precoolers + low RAPIER max. temp ---> Single RAPIER is cheap, but works on a much lower performance ---> Good for rocket booster ---> Fitting it's name

-Setup beyond ~1400-1500m/s: Shock cone, 3 precoolers, RAPIER

-Light mass for a RAPIER-setup (but large cost)

-Increase TWR-size ratio if you want it to save even more engine slots

-RAPIER system is expensive, but fuel efficient + RAPIER system has low mass + RAPIERs save engine slots ---> RAPIERs Excellent for going beyond LKO

6

-RAPIER-powered stock crafts? One for beginners, with the safe setup, and one for experienced players, with the 3-precooler-per-engine hardcore setup. (Cargo? Interplanetary?)

⁶For example, SingleStageToLaythe, and if you're good enough, back; Munar tourist plane; Minmus base supplying; ect.

---

Scramjet

The high-tech alternate to the RAPIER. Also, in my suggestion, it's opposite. So where RAPIERs are low, scramjets come into place, and where scramjets don't work, RAPIERs excel.

Basically, a scramjet is a Supersonic Cumbusting Ramjet; a ramjet that can work on much higher speeds. However, it's heavier, and consumes more fuel. Also, even more fuel consumption on lower speeds, not to talk about not being able to operate at subsonic or sonic speeds. It needs a rather large speed to be able to operate. (200-300m/s?) After that, it works, but on a hideous low efficiency, and a rather low thrust. ( Isp 800-1000?) After reaching really large speeds, the scramjet will be able to operate optimally, around 1000-1400m/s. Here, it can have a greater thrust and Isp (1500-2000?). Altough it consumes loads of LF; it's still incredibly efficient, because you can use it to reach most of your orbital velocity. Scramjets should flame-out around 1800-2100m/s.

Flame-out on a such high velocity, not only because of the vel.curves, but also the atm.curves. Altough it's the next tier in spaceplane engines, it shouldn't have much higher atm.curves than the turbojets. That's insanely OP! Instead, I suggest that they have similar acceleration altitudes, but the scramjet reaches much higher horizontal speeds, but due to the similar atm.curves not much higher vertical speeds, leading to a relatively low apoapsis, and limiting the use of nukes for orbiting.⁷ Of course, it should have slightly better atm.curves, to be able to handle the increased acceleration province. And how about raming the air on such INCREDIBLE speeds? Well, scramjets are heavy due to their strongly heat-resistant materials. This allows them to bear the high temperatures, even witouth using the precooler, that couldn't operate at such airflows. So they need no expensive precoolers at all. But the engine itself is made of heat-resistant materials, leading to a higher mass. Instead of having a very high max. temperature, I recommend ignoring the majority of heat. If it had a very high max temp., it would survive, but this very high heat is spread to other parts, wich would not survive. I recommend that it ignores a large percentage of the intakes' heat, so at very large speeds, a little heat is still being spread.

Also, unlike the RAPIERs, a scramjet-setup requies lots of engine slots, as you need not only rockets to finish orbiting, but some kind of other propulsion to accelerate them to the efficient speeds. Also, if the scramjet's thrust is not increased compared to its mass, you might need more of them.

How about an aerodynamic shape? Something that has about as much drag as a RAPIER with the nosecone at the back.

So the scramjet is an engine that takes you to LKO with relatively a proper ammout of LF consumed, and with minimal rocket fuel requied. Witouth precoolers, and with not so much fuel consumed, it's the cheapest, most efficient way of orbiting payloads. The downside is that you won't have more engine slots for nukes, and due to the really high mass of scramjets, you even couldn't take it anywhere further. So while RAPIERs are excellent for going further, the scramjets can't support that. ⁷Also, if the atmospheric curves are rather low, you can't go on a steep ascend path, meaning that you couldn't take advantage of the high starting velocity for orbiting, and use only nukes. Finally, trying to take advantage of high vel.curves at low ascend paths, is really difficult, believe me. Also, piloting something at 1800-2100m/s, in the not so high atmosphere, is also difficult. Wouldn't the plane itself overheat? Well, I did a similar test, and I found out that plane parts can bear really high temperatures, using radiators. But in my other suggestion thread, there are some balanced solutions for this one too.

Conclusion:

-can get to approx. 1800-2100m/s

-consumes much fuel

-Despite the low efficiency, it needs as little fuel to get to orbit as nothing before

-A very very small percentage of the intakes'heat is applied. Precoolers don't work with them.

-(relatively to the RAPIER), low setup cost

-Excellent choice for orbiting

-Operates from approx.200-300m/s

-From 200-300 to 800-1000, poor efficiency and thrust, you better use another engine here

-Requies very complex propulsion, that consumes engine slots

-Maybe lower TWR, so that you need more of them than normal, consuming even more engine slots

-Rather low atm.curves (but still high vel.curves) ---> not so easy to fly

-Low apoapsis + no free engine slots ---> No usage with nukes

-High engine mass (but still enough thrust so that you are not suffocating from low TWR) ---> No usage outside LKO

-Stock craft

---

Diagrams

I made some diagrams to present how these new intakes and engines could work. In each diagram, the bottom left corner is the KSC. The vertical line is the altitude requied for LKO, and the horizontal line is the velocity requied for LKO. The top right is LKO!

Again, I am not suggesting values, I just show an approximate suggestion of something I would like to see, altough most of the stats are based on test-flights.

Circular intake with basic jets

Why would you want to use basic jets for orbiting?

Circular intake with turbojets

The intake is limiting the turbojets. After passing it's speed limit, you still get some air, but just as much as if the airflow was 400m/s.

Ram air intake with turbojets; low TWR

It's a safe ascend with turbojets. Here, we remain in a safe province, where our jets overheat, and just don't blow up. If you want to be even safer, because you don't like temperature stripes, or orange engines, you could add 1 precooler for 2 engines.

Ram air intake with turbojets; high TWR

Here we push he turbojet to its limits, and we need a precooler per engine here. Due to velocity and atmospheric curves, you couldn't get anything better than this. Great piloting skills are also needed here to have a perfectly timed horizontal acceleration.

Ram air intake, RAPIER

We try to bring out as much as we can from the RAPIER here, but the intake is limiting us. A precooler is needed per engine.

Shock cone intake, RAPIER, low TWR

A safe ascend with the RAPIER's optimal setup: an engine, a precooler, and a shock cone intake. It's really easy to complete.

Shock cone intake, RAPIER, high TWR

Pushing the RAPIER to its limits. Due to the significantly increased heat, 3 (!!!) precoolers are needed per engine, as well as great piloting skills to have a perfectly timed horizontal acceleration.

Scramjet with basic jet

It's possible to run a scramjet with basic jets, as even with the rebalance, they could get you to mach 1.5, after a dive, with nearly no fuel consumed. This means you can launch scramjet-crafts from airliners. After the dive, your scramjet could slowly accelerate to cruising speeds from its own power, but while consuming loads of fuel. Than, it's a routie horizontal acceleration, with lots of LF consumed, and with reaching really high speeds. Also, due to their low thrust, you might need 2 basic jets for each scramjet.

Scramjet with Panther

I don't have actual data about the panthers, but they should be able to accelrate you to the minimal speed, and beyond, so you could use panthers in most of the inefficient phase, until you get to the operating speed, while not consuming so much fuel. Should be the best for scramjets.

Scramjet with turbojet

Turbojets accelerate you to the minimal speed, than they accelerate you to the operating speed, and even beyond. They're good with scramjets, but they consume more fuel than the panther during this.

Scramjet with RAPIER

Not the best combo, as RAPIERs could do the job nearly during all flight. Not to talk about having to choose from the RAPIER's high atm.curves and the scramjet's high vel.curves. The scramjet is also not needed from 1400-2000. Than why would you take that extra mass?

---

You can download my test mod, wich includes the new basic jets, here. I am planning to add something similar to the scramjet and the new RAPIER if I find out how can I assign ISP to vel.curves, not atm.curves. Before you complain, try the mod, and see wether you're right.

Edited September 8, 2015 by CaptainTurbomuffin

[Red Iron Crown]

Where did you copy/paste this from? HTML is not supported here.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

Where did you copy/paste this from? HTML is not supported here.

I've fixed it. I wrote it here, but I couldn't post it first, as it said I was logged in on another page, and I need to refresh. After refreshing, that happened. Luckily, I had a plain save of the text saved in notepad. After some editing, and redoing its end, it's ready, altough that save was taken before I corrected my mistakes, so there might be mistakes, but I'll check it again soon.

[NathanKell]

Quick note: The BJE is, currently, a *low* bypass turbofan, closely modeled on the F100 (dry, not wet). My understanding is that the hope for *1.1* is to turn it into a high-bypass turbofan.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

Quick note: The BJE is, currently, a *low* bypass turbofan, closely modeled on the F100 (dry, not wet). My understanding is that the hope for *1.1* is to turn it into a high-bypass turbofan.

In my suggestion, I wouldn't make it stronger or weaker, just adjust where it's strong and where it's weak. The nacelle thing might look OP for the first time, but have you tried it with VTOLs? I find it excellent (that's because I balanced the stats until I found it excellent). Also, if you try those engines in-game, you'll notice that you won't get a huge advantage, just enough so that you won't suffocate from low thrust. Performance in aim for orbiting or altitude/speed haven't been buffed.

In my understanding, 1.1 will add a new 2-m high-bypass turbofan, while the BJE will only get a retexture. If it's performance was increased, why would the panther be needed? Correct me if I am wrong