1.0.5, has it killed off the wheesley?

[paul23]

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

Putting the engines further from the fuselage increases obviously stability: increase/decrease in yaw with engines is one the things that can be done in real life aircraft too. I know of a near accident where the protective cap on the tail was still placed after lifting off. - So the pilot couldn't use the rudder and had no real yaw control, furthermore the ailerons failed so his rolling control was also gone. Then he used a difference in thrust between the left and right engine to create a yawing moment, and the fuel pumps to change the center of mass and create a rolling moment.

The game is even better than a person at this with 'sas'.

But it's the structural integrity that keeps people adding engines close to the fuselage, quite often you see the engine exactly at the point where the wing sweep angle/taper ratio is increased. Up to that point an extra strong wingbox/beam is used (often made of titanium instead of aluminium). For stability we would always put the engines as far away as possible.

In ksp there's only a single thing that might cause problems here: over correction due to the fact the center of mass is not aligned with the control point.

[Val]

...

But it's the structural integrity that keeps people adding engines close to the fuselage, quite often you see the engine exactly at the point where the wing sweep angle/taper ratio is increased. Up to that point an extra strong wingbox/beam is used (often made of titanium instead of aluminium). For stability we would always put the engines as far away as possible.

...

I imagine engine failure is also a good reason to keep the engines close to the fuselage.

Would hate to have engine failure at lift-off, with my only remaining engine all the way out on the wing tip, not being able to throttle down, because I need to clear a line of trees or other obstacles, beyond the airfield.

[LaytheDragon]

Jet packs made with a Juno are not just for fooling around. In my .90 career save, I started toying around with a rocket pack. But I didn't stop there. I turned it into a 5-ton rover that, when staged, turned into a rocket pack with extra fuel. Then, after being staged again, it would become a very small rocket pack. Since .90 didn't calculate thrust levels at different atmospheric pressures, it could just barely make it to LKO on it's own. But I didn't leave there. I docked one to my Sushimi ITS, which had just returned from dropping off The Serenity of Laythe space station at Laythe, and I brought it to Dres, where it worked perfectly, giving me science from multiple biomes.

I imagine the same could be done with a jet pack at Laythe, using the Juno. In fact, in my new testing sandbox save, I just made a jet pack with a Juno and a Dawn, which I will eventually try to optimize so it can make orbit.

[More Boosters]

Putting the engines further from the fuselage increases obviously stability: increase/decrease in yaw with engines is one the things that can be done in real life aircraft too. I know of a near accident where the protective cap on the tail was still placed after lifting off. - So the pilot couldn't use the rudder and had no real yaw control, furthermore the ailerons failed so his rolling control was also gone. Then he used a difference in thrust between the left and right engine to create a yawing moment, and the fuel pumps to change the center of mass and create a rolling moment.

The game is even better than a person at this with 'sas'.

But it's the structural integrity that keeps people adding engines close to the fuselage, quite often you see the engine exactly at the point where the wing sweep angle/taper ratio is increased. Up to that point an extra strong wingbox/beam is used (often made of titanium instead of aluminium). For stability we would always put the engines as far away as possible.

In ksp there's only a single thing that might cause problems here: over correction due to the fact the center of mass is not aligned with the control point.

It may have been an urban legend but I recall reading somewhere that at the Pacific theater during World War II, P-38 Lightning pilots would often use this method to turn more quickly when confronted with the more agile Zeros the Japanese had.

[Franklin]

Jet packs made with a Juno

dang. there goes my evening

[BlueCanary]

It may have been an urban legend but I recall reading somewhere that at the Pacific theater during World War II, P-38 Lightning pilots would often use this method to turn more quickly when confronted with the more agile Zeros the Japanese had.

Yeah, I've heard that. Apparently the P-38 had incredible turning ability by differential thrust, I remember reading that it was pretty much the most maneuverable fighter the US had for most of the war. The technique works really well in Combat Flight Simulator 3 too, so it definitely doesn't seem a complete urban legend.

[RocketBlam]

I don't get the thrust of this question. The Wheesley's always sucked. I mean, I'm not complaining, but they were never good for anything except low altitude flying.

[Vanamonde]

... never good for anything except low altitude flying.

That's ts purpose.

[KerikBalm]

Pft, that big engine is half an aircraft already!

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/663/22912649232_830d0ac481_c.jpg

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

I was about to ask how you were even supplying that thing with air, then I noticed the structural intakes.

It seems silly that adding a 1.25m part to the front of a 2.5m part completely occludes airflow...

Yet you can add whatever you want to the front of a precooler or engine nacelle with no reduction in intake air.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/138986-Intake-occlusion-needs-some-work

[Van Disaster]

Yes, that amused me when I found it didn't work either - there's nothing really to stop you building a craft like that, I'm fairly sure I remember a german design at least ( there's a number like the Snecma Coliopteré which are superficially similar but not actually. Searching for examples pulled up some really wild planes though.

[eddiew]

Has its altitude improved any? I have a memory of many surveys wanting to be over 17,000m while only having a 10km service ceiling :/

[Van Disaster]

12kN thrust at 15km, don't have the right sort of plane to try any higher atm.

[Dobelong]

Along with the fact that the wheesely has higher stationary thrust (IDK what that means though), The panther can't be mounted twice on a one fuselage aircraft.

Spoiler

You'll see what I mean...

 

 

 

[cantab]

If your flight requirements can be met by the Wheesley, it's probably the engine to choose with its high efficiency and OK TWR. Of course how often your requirements can be met by the Wheesley is another matter, but the same criticism could be levelled at the ion engine.

IMHO there's a case for improving its high-altitude performance though. There's obviously the demand from contracts to reach high altitudes at not necessarily high speeds. It also doesn't seem unreasonable considering some business jets fly over 15 km and the U-2 went above 21 km, all at subsonic speeds, though granted Kerbin's atmosphere decays quicker with height than Earth's.

[GoSlash27]

After having made a bunch of passes through career, my opinion is that the Wheesley is dead in 1.05. Not because other engines are better, but because pure airplanes are pointless.

 On hard and modified careers where you are forced to build a plane, the Juno is adequate. For later career SSTO spaceplanes, the Wheesley is useless.

 It might be able to see some action in science mode, but I have yet to break the seal on it in sandbox.

It would be nice if we had a reason to build bigger planes, but as of now we don't. *shrug*

Best,

-Slashy

[Hysterrics]

Just because a engine is some sort of magical all powerful high thrust engine doesn't mean it's the best choice. All the engines are good, depending on the build. You wouldn't want a Goliath on a small passenger jet, but you also don't want a tiny Juno on a jumbo jet. Ya see?

[Columbia]

4 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

After having made a bunch of passes through career, my opinion is that the Wheesley is dead in 1.05. Not because other engines are better, but because pure airplanes are pointless.

 On hard and modified careers where you are forced to build a plane, the Juno is adequate. For later career SSTO spaceplanes, the Wheesley is useless.

 It might be able to see some action in science mode, but I have yet to break the seal on it in sandbox.

It would be nice if we had a reason to build bigger planes, but as of now we don't. *shrug*

Best,

-Slashy

I still build planes for fun.

It would probably be nice if there were tourist contracts with many passengers on Kerbin. That would probably give airliners a use for Career.

I'd probably be fine with the Wheesley if it didn't need so much damned intake air, a precooler's worth -- In my opinion, a standard intake should be enough. I mean, I get it's a high bypass engine, but..

[GoSlash27]

1 minute ago, Columbia said:

I still build planes for fun.

It would probably be nice if there were tourist contracts with many passengers on Kerbin. That would probably give airliners a use for Career.

I'd probably be fine with the Wheesley if it didn't need so much damned intake air, a precooler's worth -- In my opinion, a standard intake should be enough. I mean, I get it's a high bypass engine, but..

Columbia,

 It wouldn't hurt, but contracts aren't much use in early career. In later career you have satellites, rescues, and space stations. They are all more lucrative, easier, and quicker than tourist contracts.

 As much as I love planes, I don't picture them having much of a role in career without a major rebalancing.

 Not griping, just sayin'...

Happy New Year!

-Slashy

[cantab]

Kerbin survey contracts are a good use for planes and they give decent rewards at least in early career, though I'll admit they do take a bit of time. Leaving the plane landed out means it can be better placed for the next survey, which may benefit the Wheesley vs the more fuel-hungry Juno. Planes also useful for some part testing, though check the conditions are within your flight envelope - but then again said envelope gets expanded with the Panther or Whiplash so is not so great for the slower engines.

[GoSlash27]

14 minutes ago, cantab said:

Kerbin survey contracts are a good use for planes and they give decent rewards at least in early career, though I'll admit they do take a bit of time. Leaving the plane landed out means it can be better placed for the next survey, which may benefit the Wheesley vs the more fuel-hungry Juno. Planes also useful for some part testing, though check the conditions are within your flight envelope - but then again said envelope gets expanded with the Panther or Whiplash so is not so great for the slower engines.

cantab,

 Aye, but as I said... early contracts are pretty useless in the current game. You can develop the early portion of the game without ever taking a survey or part testing contract just by collecting science and hitting the "world's first" benchmarks. You can pad out the tech tree to full tier 1 and have a half a million dollars in the bank without ever taking a contract.

 Once you get to the point where contracts are necessary (facility upgrades and expanding the roster), there are much better contracts available.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited December 31, 2015 by GoSlash27

[GDJ]

On November 10, 2015 at 8:34 PM, pandoras kitten said:

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.

I've built small single Wheesley powered planes that break Mach easily. It's a great engine, especially with it's high ISP rating. Four Wheesleys can move a 2M 30 tonne plane into high Transonic speeds easily and fairly efficiently, plus they don't overheat like a MOFO like the Goliath Engines.

[322997am]

On November 10, 2015 at 3:27 AM, T-Bouw said:

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.

The Juno is now most efficient,

[RocketSquid]

I assure you, the Wheesley is still more powerful and more efficient than the Juno. It is no longer the most efficient, that title lies with the Goliath, but it is the most efficient for any practical use. Also, its thrust reverser makes it awesome for bizarre VTOL designs, quick braking, or for planes with tails. In science and career mode I find Junos rather infuriating, actually, since I end up being stuck with them for a couple of days IRL.

[GDJ]

3 hours ago, 322997am said:

The Juno is now most efficient,

Well, it uses less fuel because it's small, but for units of fuel burnt per kN of thrust, the Wheesleys still rock the house.

The Goliaths are the most efficient unit of fuel / kN thrust, but the Wheesleys are still very respectable.

Edited January 6, 2016 by GDJ