Jump to content

The new, longer jet engine models

Red Iron Crown
 Share

Do you like the new, longer jet engine models?  

261 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you like the new, longer jet engine models?

    • I like them.
      114
    • I dislike them.
      61
    • I have no strong opinion/don't care.
      51

Recommended Posts

Pthigrivi

Pthigrivi

Posted
Posted

Kordolius nice job on all that homework. I still like this idea, I just worry it adds unnecessary complication and some really difficult balance problems. Can I ask you how you arrived at your mass numbers? Have you considered what happens when you mis-match basic and advanced engines? If that not a thing thats ever advantageous, then why separate them? There's also some complicated math thats gone into the pressure/thrust curves, and Im worried that something thats already a touchy thing to feel through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kordolius

Kordolius

Posted
Posted (edited)
Kordolius nice job on all that homework. I still like this idea, I just worry it adds unnecessary complication and some really difficult balance problems.

Thanks for your words, I'm worried by that too, and that's the reason I started to build some synthesis info to see what kind of "good idea" it was.

Can I ask you how you arrived at your mass numbers? Have you considered what happens when you mis-match basic and advanced engines? If that not a thing thats ever advantageous, then why separate them?

Well basically, I considered (first approach) that nozzles are 0.5t each, and I determined engine mass by substracting that mass to their equivalent (so 1t for Wheesley-eqv, 1.3t for Whiplash-eqv, 1.4 (whoops, should have been 1.5) for rapier-eqv

As for mis-matching, here are a few calcs :

Basic engine, adv nozzle : +10% thrust (88 / 80), same consumption level, more heat produced (47 / 39) compared to Wheesley

Adv engine, basic nozzle : +47% thrust (118/80), more consumption, more heat produced (49 / 39) compared to Wheesley, but -10% thrust and -30% heat if you compare to Whiplash.

So no hidden peak advantage, and, if you consider that these parts could be unlocked on different science nodes, a smoother progression in jet propulsion power for science and career modes. No interest for sandbox, I agree.

There's also some complicated math thats gone into the pressure/thrust curves, and Im worried that something thats already a touchy thing to feel through.

That a very good point, and one I am considering actually. But, with all the new parts and evolution from 1.0.5 release, I think I'll first play a bit - heh - then again have a look at .cfg files, and probably start a new topic to present my ideas. I probably should try to hack a mod for testing, but I lack experience in KSP modding (that could be corrected) and time to do it (will get better at beginning of December).

Edited by Kordolius
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Capt Snuggler

Capt Snuggler

Posted
Posted (edited)
Hi Folks,

Trying to be constructive, I gave some thoughts at how the system I proposed page 1 could be implemented. You'll find hereafter a few tables I made by parsing though .cfg files.

The initial idea is to replace the current system (intakes + jet engines with masked compressor/turbine/whatyacallit) with a Three part system : Intakes ==> Engine ==> Nozzles

First, actual Intakes :

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Intakes

[/TD]

[TD]Size

[/TD]

[TD]Uses

[/TD]

[TD]area

[/TD]

[TD]produces

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Structural

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]Atm press[/TD]

[TD]0.006[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]0.6[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Circular

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]Atm press[/TD]

[TD]0.0085[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]0.85[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Shock cone

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]Atm press[/TD]

[TD]0.009[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]0.9[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Ramjet

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]Atm press[/TD]

[TD]0.006[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]0.6[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

And... I wouldn't change them a bit.

Now, Actual Jet engines :

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Jet Engines

[/TD]

[TD]Size

[/TD]

[TD]uses

[/TD]

[TD]ratio

[/TD]

[TD]uses

[/TD]

[TD]ratio

[/TD]

[TD]produces

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]produces

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]mass

[/TD]

[TD]Gimbal Rge

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Basic (Wheesley)

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]11[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]80[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]40[/TD]

[TD]1.5 t[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Turbo (Whiplash)

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]7[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]130[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]75[/TD]

[TD]1.8 t[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]RAPIER (Airbreathing)

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]6[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]105[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]60[/TD]

[TD]2 t[/TD]

[TD]3[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]RAPIER (Closed)

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]0.9[/TD]

[TD]Oxydizer[/TD]

[TD]1.1[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]180[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]133[/TD]

[TD]2 t[/TD]

[TD]3[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

My input is to create and intermediary system, which I will call here "Engine", that uses Air (or oxydizer) and LF to produce a new "Exhaust" Ressource (Puns possible and intended ^^)

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Engine

[/TD]

[TD]Size

[/TD]

[TD]uses

[/TD]

[TD]ratio

[/TD]

[TD]uses

[/TD]

[TD]ratio

[/TD]

[TD]produces

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]produces

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]mass

[/TD]

[TD]Notes

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]basic standard

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]11[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]80[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]15[/TD]

[TD]1.0 t[/TD]

[TD]size ref : 1.25 structural fuselage

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]advanced standard

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]7[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]118[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]25[/TD]

[TD]1.3 t[/TD]

[TD]size ref : 1.25 structural fuselage

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Dual-cycle Airbreathing

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]6[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]95[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]20[/TD]

[TD]1.4 t[/TD]

[TD]size ref : 1.25 structural fuselage

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Dual-cycle ClosedCycle

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]0.9[/TD]

[TD]Oxydizer[/TD]

[TD]1.1[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]160[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]60[/TD]

[TD]1.4 t[/TD]

[TD]size ref : 1.25 structural fuselage

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

and complete with Nozzle Parts :

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Nozzles

[/TD]

[TD]size

[/TD]

[TD]uses

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]produces[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]produces[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]gimbal rge

[/TD]

[TD]mass

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Basic

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]0.3[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]0.5 t[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Advanced

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]1.1[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]0.4[/TD]

[TD]3[/TD]

[TD]0.5 t[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

So, if we combine :

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Engine

[/TD]

[TD]Nozzle

[/TD]

[TD]LF used

[/TD]

[TD]Intake used

[/TD]

[TD]Thrust

[/TD]

[TD]Heat

[/TD]

[TD]Notes

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]basic

[/TD]

[TD]Basic

[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]11[/TD]

[TD]=80*1/1

80

[/TD]

[TD]=15+0.3x80

39

[/TD]

[TD]which is equivalent to the Wheesley engine

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]advanced

[/TD]

[TD]advanced

[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]7[/TD]

[TD]=118*1.1/1

130

[/TD]

[TD=align: center]=25+0.4*118

72[/TD]

[TD]which is equivalent to the Whiplash engine[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]dual cycle airbreathing

[/TD]

[TD]advanced

[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]6[/TD]

[TD]=95*1.1/1

104

[/TD]

[TD=align: center]=20+0.4*95

58[/TD]

[TD]which is equivalent to the RAPIER engine in airbreathing mode[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

And then, you get a lot more flexibilty with all the combinations, and the possibility for career mode to unlock the new parts on different science nodes.

And, we can extrapolate new parts, for instance :

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Engine

[/TD]

[TD]Size

[/TD]

[TD]uses

[/TD]

[TD]ratio

[/TD]

[TD]uses

[/TD]

[TD]ratio

[/TD]

[TD]produces

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]produces

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]mass

[/TD]

[TD]Notes

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Radial .625 engine

[/TD]

[TD]Radial[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]TDB[/TD]

[TD]Atm Press[/TD]

[TD]TBD[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]TBD[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]TBD[/TD]

[TD]TDB[/TD]

[TD]There you have the new 1.0.5 .625 engine[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]High Efficiency, large

[/TD]

[TD]2.5[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]12[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]240[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]15[/TD]

[TD]3.5 t[/TD]

[TD]Think about an airliner engine ?[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

with new intakes for 2.5 m size ?

Or these :

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Nozzles

[/TD]

[TD]size

[/TD]

[TD]uses

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]produces[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]produces[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]gimbal rge

[/TD]

[TD]mass

[/TD]

[TD]Notes

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Radial

[/TD]

[TD]radial[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]0.3[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]0.4 t[/TD]

[TD]radial mounted, for VTOL

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Turboprop[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]0.9[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]0.25[/TD]

[TD]0[/TD]

[TD]0.5 t[/TD]

[TD]hey, why not ?[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Vectored

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]1.1

[/TD]

[TD]Heat

[/TD]

[TD]0.45[/TD]

[TD]10[/TD]

[TD]0.6 t[/TD]

[TD]large gimbal

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Generator

[/TD]

[TD]1.25

[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust

[/TD]

[TD]1

[/TD]

[TD]Electricity

[/TD]

[TD]TBD

[/TD]

[TD]Heat

[/TD]

[TD]0.3

[/TD]

[TD]0

[/TD]

[TD]0.4 t

[/TD]

[TD]Idea from Stoney3K a few posts ago

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

and so on... I'm sure there are more possibilities I overlooked.

Best to ya all,

Kord

this is great.

very modular with lots of possibilities.

especially the last part about turboprops. though I think the turboprops should instead be electrically powered (discreetly? just hear me out).

the turbine generates electricity anyway, so the prop would still function as expected when the turbine is present, BUT being electrically powered you could then also use the props in non-oxygen atmospheres with another source of EC. (the props should be variable pitch and very efficient at low altitudes)

also the point about powering "puff thrusters"(RCS) from the jet engine is great. why burn monoprop when you have a turbine producing high pressure air. (this is a big + for VTOLs)

The turbine can function on its own as a simple gas turbine consuming liquid Fuel to produce lots of electric charge. great for running rovers and ore processors through the night.

obviously the balance will be tricky. putting extra turbines on a single nozzle (or visa-versa) will need to have appropriate consequences (excess heat or damage or limited thrust). then you have to adjust for altitude etc.

But the thrust curves currently in place could be replicated with a 3 part system.

*edit.

also obviously the part mass would be adjusted. nozzles lighter. intakes much lighter. turbines suitably heavy. so a 3 part engine (intake/turbine/nozzle) weighs the same as an equivalent 2 part (intake/nozzle) system.

**edit

no need to point out the incorrect compressor/turbine terminology. I of coarse mean the spinny-blade-cylinder-mjigger with the fire in it.

Edited by Capt Snuggler
Link to comment
Share on other sites
panzer1b

panzer1b

Posted
Posted

So how many are using teh turbines now that 1.0.5 has them included?

Myself ive given them a try (since i have no VTOLs in the works), and i have them enabled now, and i have to say its cool, but extremely limited. I do like the looks of the turbine, and it does make it easier to visualize CoG. It actually looks amazing on the new MK1 structural, where the turbine is visible inside.

As i suspected, you never see the turbine in anything but redneck planes (that said, redneck planes do look cool with the exposed engine turbine things). But i feel it should be an option somewhere outside of the .cfgs liek a right click tweakeable, i think it should be on by default, and let people disable it (in the same way you can disable fairings on engines now).

that would really be the best of both worlds, let those that want to see the realistic CoG of their engines have them, but allow those VTOL designs, or even something as simplke as engine mounted on a nose cone, disable it if desired.

Everyone will be happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
GDJ

GDJ

Posted
Posted
Well, for me the extra turbines do add a bit of realism to my builds. Between that and the hollow structural fuselage (hollow inside) I can now build a jet engine that has a hollow engine mount, the turbine slips in, then bolt on the intake.....just like the real engines. Of course that means that I have to get fuel into the engine and place the fuel tanks at the COM, but that's pretty much how it is in real life.

I'm all for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...
RandomKerbal

RandomKerbal

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Blasty McBlastblast said:

@RandomKerbal holy necro! 

if you are looking for cool aircraft parts i recommend the excellent mod Airplane Plus

 

Nope, I am actually looking for something like Restock, but only revamp these jet engines(especially panther, whiplash and whitney), not all the parts.

Edited by RandomKerbal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
  • 1 month later...
AtomicTech

AtomicTech

Posted
Posted
On 11/4/2015 at 7:35 AM, Red Iron Crown said:

Per Kasper's suggestion, I've started a thread here to discuss the pros and cons of the new jet engine models with the long turbine that extends into the part to which they're attached. A picture is worth a thousand words, so:

JXBbVK6.gif

Share your opinions, good idea or bad?

Are these models still available?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...