1.0.5, has it killed off the wheesley?

[panzer1b]

Well, as the thread says, i feel the new jet has made the wheesley 100% obsolete in every design that isnt extremely reliant on ISP or ultra specialized. I mean look at it, in dry mode, it gets 9000, not worse then the wheesley's 10500, it gets WAY better thrust especially if you are using the wet mode (that btw is still not bad ISP, its comparable to the whiplash).

Really the only place the wheesley is arguably better is VTOLS, but its actually heavier (and thus less TWR then wet mode on panther, and usually VTOLs arent going to be flying around on VTOL engines for extended periods of time that the ISP difference matters).

So, is there any reason for the wheesley now that i cant seem to notice? Panther is lighter, better TWR, comparable isp in dry mode, better thrust in wet mode, and you get some useable gimballing range that can be very useful on some builds. Sure the wheesley was useless before, and its a hair better now, but it still feels pointless compared to alternatives (if you absolutely need thrust take the big jet, if you are small take the jumo jet, and for mid range craft the panther just seems better in almost every way.

[luizopiloto]

wheesley is good for simple/long range designs... Panther is good for fast and agile jets... all depends of the goal...

[Red Iron Crown]

Wheesley's got a thrust reverser, which makes possible some designs that regular jets can't do. You can nose mount it for horizontal flight, or top mount it for VTOLs.

[Garbonzo]

Today I made a fun little sea plane for 6 people. The Wheesley was the only engine that could suit it's needs. Not trying to zip across the sky at 300 m/s with a Panther.

[Goddess Bhavani]

Don't underestimate the wheesley! Stick two of those on a low part count, low transonic drag jet and you could build a range of low tech (decently) high performance transonic aircraft. Single wheesley - how about a MiG-15? Enough performance for jet training and light survey, capable of supersonic dives. 20+ parts on a single wheesley makes for a quick little plane.

For VTOLs - it depends. I haven't had the change to try 1.0.5 yet but using wheesleys to try and VTOL a Mark 3 cargo transport was not very efficient due to the number of engines required... I would like to replace them with Panthers once I get my paws on 1.0.5 later.

[GoSlash27]

The Wheesley is a bit underwhelming now... except for how the tech tree is structured.

It may have some application during career progression, but really there's only so much science you can collect with low speed jets.

Best,

-Slashy

[sal_vager]

Two Wheeselys lift a Mallard into the air, so it's not as feeble as you think

[T-Bouw]

I haven't looked at the engine-stats that carefully, but I believe the Wheesely has better fuel-efficiency than the other jet engines.

This was the case in 1.0.4 anyway.

That has helped some designs of mine were fuel payload was limited.

[Frozen_Heart]

I've noticed the basic jet is a lot more powerful than it was. My designs are getting mach effects when using it. Also its cheaper and has better ISP.

[Van Disaster]

The difference in static thrust does matter ( without using the AB anyway ), although you'll probably struggle to get 120kN out of the Wheesley stationary without spamming intakes.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Van Disaster

[Temeter]

If you want to go for few engines (=less weight/parts), efficiency and sub mach 1.4 flights, then the wheesley is actually quite nice. Reverse thrust can be incredibly usefull in certain situations. Gotten quite powerfull, that little engine.

Otherwise it's better to go for a panther in most cases, tho. That's just the nature of KSP, there just isn't that much room for subsonic engines. Ofc outside boats, in which case these engines and reverse thrust can be incredibly usefull.

[Franklin]

Wheesley's got a thrust reverser, which makes possible some designs that regular jets can't do.

Wait, what?

- - - Updated - - -

is its thrust reverser new to 1.0.5 or have i completely overlooked this function every time i've used this thing

[Red Iron Crown]

New in 1.0.5.

[Franklin]

New in 1.0.5.

good christ. does it have a part animation? something like:

i'm sorry, i've only briefly played with 1.0.5

[Red Iron Crown]

Yes, but it's more like a sleeve that slides back. Goliath has it, too.

[Alshain]

I think the Wheesley has more use than the Goliath. Let's face it, other than just the fun of building planes (which is a very good reason), the Goliath is pointless. You don't need an airliner to gather science and crew reports.

[More Boosters]

I think the Wheesley has more use than the Goliath. Let's face it, other than just the fun of building planes (which is a very good reason), the Goliath is pointless. You don't need an airliner to gather science and crew reports.

Well if we're talking about pure efficiency, off-world contracts are much better with science anyway so might as well enjoy what you've got

[Temeter]

Btw, sometimes it's also easier to reach mach speed with a wheesley than with a panther.

I think the Wheesley has more use than the Goliath. Let's face it, other than just the fun of building planes (which is a very good reason), the Goliath is pointless. You don't need an airliner to gather science and crew reports.

Boats!

That thing - and especially reverse thrust - is incredidbly usefull for stuff like mobile platforms, transports or carriers.

[panzer1b]

I think the Wheesley has more use than the Goliath. Let's face it, other than just the fun of building planes (which is a very good reason), the Goliath is pointless. You don't need an airliner to gather science and crew reports.

I feel the same way bout that massive jet, aside from perhaps some very oddballed and or massive aircraft/VTOLS, i have no use for it. Given that im not a fan of copying reality (if i want reality i can always drive 10 minutes to the closest airport ), in terms of sci-fi builds, 95% of which are at least somewhat capable of use in space, there is 0 use for subsonic jets in the 1st place.

The panther is still a little weakish for my tastes (almost all SSTO or spaceplanes use either whiplashes or rapiers) as its a hair weak for heavy vessels, but it does achieve some impressive altitude and it has incredible vectoring capability, and even some of my niche designs taht are say developed for laythe have one or more onboard.

Also, what do you guys think of the jumo engine? Aside from WW2 jet replicas (my me262 replica looks fantastic with properly sized engines and even gets somewhat realistic performance), or screwing around with jet propelled flying exposed kerbals, what have you guys actually used it for?

[Franklin]

Also, what do you guys think of the jumo engine? Aside from WW2 jet replicas (my me262 replica looks fantastic with properly sized engines and even gets somewhat realistic performance), or screwing around with jet propelled flying exposed kerbals, what have you guys actually used it for?

I like it, but those would be my uses for it, yeah.

Right now I've got a concept ultra-light science/survey drone carrier meant for planets with atmos. this wasn't really possible before with air-breathers without the carrier needing to be massive, and we still don't have a 0 size class kerbal cockpit, but maybe in time.

I've also strapped them behind larger bodies and they're not terrible, and might as well come with unlimited fuel given how efficient air breathers in KSP are right now.

[Van Disaster]

Pft, that big engine is half an aircraft already!

But I'm not sure I'd use it vs a pair of the little turbofans if I was going full stock.

[Alshain]

Also, what do you guys think of the jumo engine? Aside from WW2 jet replicas (my me262 replica looks fantastic with properly sized engines and even gets somewhat realistic performance), or screwing around with jet propelled flying exposed kerbals, what have you guys actually used it for?

I don't know how "real world" or practical this is, but I couldn't resist, it just looks so cool with the exhaust and everything. (It kinda looks like a C-21/Learjet 35, except those weren't engines on the wingtips just fuel tanks)

Edited November 10, 2015 by Alshain

[paul23]

There isn't a real world application because one "kind of" important thing is ignored in the KSP world:

Structural integrity.

Those engines at the edge of the wing would create a huge internal bending moment in those wings. Resulting in very very thick metal near the root of such a wing. I've tried a similar thing in the past, for a project where I had to create a long-range distance aircraft for my studies (aerospace engineering).

It turned out in the end (detailed structural calculations were done during the last step), I had to use a 24 mm thick metal leading and trailing sheet at the root, for the wingbox. 2.4 cm thick metal - that's a lot of weight. So this invalidated the original assumptions for structural weight I made when starting off, grossly (to decide the size of engine/wings etc). If it was a company I would have to start of at page 1 and redo all calculations. (Luckily at university they judge not for having the best performing solution but to provide a well thought out process and reflection).

Moral of the story: in real life don't try to be too innovative - The ball might swing back at the same speed your idea was launched.

[Captain Vlad]

Also, what do you guys think of the jumo engine? Aside from WW2 jet replicas (my me262 replica looks fantastic with properly sized engines and even gets somewhat realistic performance), or screwing around with jet propelled flying exposed kerbals, what have you guys actually used it for?

1. Microjets. Built one last night.

2. Mounted radially, two of them are a good alternative to a Wheesley when you wanna save the centerline hardpoint for something else. I did this with a shuttle and it worked quite well. But other than engines, you can use wing or radial mounts to have a fuselage with passengers, a tail, etc.

3. Haven't tried it yet, but intend to try one for a heavier rover; Jet assistance can make tough hills more manageable, but the Wheesley weighs a bit much to be ideal.

4. Got plans for a VTOL using Junos. Way less space than the Wheesley.

5. Boat or amphibious rover propulsion.

[Alshain]

There isn't a real world application because one "kind of" important thing is ignored in the KSP world:

Structural integrity.

Those engines at the edge of the wing would create a huge internal bending moment in those wings. Resulting in very very thick metal near the root of such a wing. I've tried a similar thing in the past, for a project where I had to create a long-range distance aircraft for my studies (aerospace engineering).

It turned out in the end (detailed structural calculations were done during the last step), I had to use a 24 mm thick metal leading and trailing sheet at the root, for the wingbox. 2.4 cm thick metal - that's a lot of weight. So this invalidated the original assumptions for structural weight I made when starting off, grossly (to decide the size of engine/wings etc). If it was a company I would have to start of at page 1 and redo all calculations. (Luckily at university they judge not for having the best performing solution but to provide a well thought out process and reflection).

Moral of the story: in real life don't try to be too innovative - The ball might swing back at the same speed your idea was launched.

Surprisingly in the game it is incredibly stable. I actually tried to make it flat spin and it always regained control rather quickly.