"Goliath" is too big.

[Vegatoxi]

It's almost same size as Mk3 part, and looks stupid.

Pls, scale it down at least to 75% from current size.

[Alshain]

I sort of agree, but they did that on purpose so they could do this:

More than the engine size itself, that pylon is WAY too big, it doesn't even fit on the FAT 455 wings. I think the engines would look ok if the Pylon didn't stick out of everywhere. As it is now, I can't see myself ever using it. When I build a plane I like it to look good, and that thing just... won't.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Alshain

[Guest]

I think it looks fantastic, very detailed, just the right size.

[Alshain]

Actually, looking at it again, I completely agree. The engine itself is also too big, at least too big to be put under wing, and that's kinda what it was designed for.

EDIT: Well, Ok I'm kinda back and forth on it. Looking at a picture of a Boeing 777, it actually might be ok. Those engines are a lot further forward mounted under the wing than I thought.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Alshain

[ferram4]

That's exactly how big jet engines are mounted; fully forward of the wing. Prevents the engine cowling being in close proximity to the wing (squeezes air tight, increases airspeed there, increasing drag). Keeps the intake well clear of any boundary layers from the rest of the aircraft (increases thrust and efficiency). Lets the engine be mounted higher so a larger-diameter engine can be fitted with the same landing gear. Engine is in good position for quick inspection from inside the aircraft (if needed to see if something really has gone terribly wrong with it). So if you're swayed by real-life arguments, the engine is about as perfect as you could ask for, and it does it all in the stock-alike aesthetic.

Honestly, seeing where the engines for the 737-100 models were mounted (where it was directly under the wing) looks wrong, compared to its 707 contemporaries. I mean, look: 737-100 and 707. That much forward-mounting on the pylon is necessary to make it look right.

Edited November 10, 2015 by ferram4
changed pics to flights of Boeing test flights

[Alshain]

I tried building plane with it like that though and it felt near impossible. I couldn't get the drag behind the center of mass and it wouldn't fly stable.

[Kamenjar]

I built a goliath plane (though I am still asking myself why) a bit ago:

• No crew. About 50+t in weight with MK3 as base. One medium bay in the middle with ISRU etc., followed by a loading dock in the back.
• 2 Goliaths under the big-S wings. 1 Goliath above the cargo bay, all the way in the back.
• 2 horizontal "pylons" of MK2 fuel components on each side of the loading ramp, to balance fuel consumption and provide a tad of lift.
• Large landing gear to offset goliath engines.
• Perfect dry and wet mass balance. Turns on a dime and doesn't fall apart with high G forces.
• ... should proly find the time to post a pic when I get home :/

I thought that I could use reverse thrust for short landing on a big plane, but it was too slow to kick in and cumbesome to use. Then I replaced the design with 4 whiplashes and never went back. That thing supercruises 1.2km/s. Still can't find any real use for goliaths.

Edit: Just realized I revived an old thread while searching for an answer - what's the point of Goliath

Edited March 9, 2016 by Kamenjar

[Dobelong]

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2015 at 2:53 AM, Alshain said:

Actually, looking at it again, I completely agree. The engine itself is also too big, at least too big to be put under wing, and that's kinda what it was designed for.

EDIT: Well, Ok I'm kinda back and forth on it. Looking at a picture of a Boeing 777, it actually might be ok. Those engines are a lot further forward mounted under the wing than I thought.

Besides, the 777 has 3.4 meter engines. (Seriously though, I could use one of those on my asteroid lifter.)

[AbacusWizard]

Sure it's too big; that's why the call it Goliath.

[Starwaster]

It's fine the way it is

[mikegarrison]

On 11/10/2015 at 0:24 AM, ferram4 said:

That's exactly how big jet engines are mounted; fully forward of the wing. Prevents the engine cowling being in close proximity to the wing (squeezes air tight, increases airspeed there, increasing drag). Keeps the intake well clear of any boundary layers from the rest of the aircraft (increases thrust and efficiency). Lets the engine be mounted higher so a larger-diameter engine can be fitted with the same landing gear. Engine is in good position for quick inspection from inside the aircraft (if needed to see if something really has gone terribly wrong with it). So if you're swayed by real-life arguments, the engine is about as perfect as you could ask for, and it does it all in the stock-alike aesthetic.

Honestly, seeing where the engines for the 737-100 models were mounted (where it was directly under the wing) looks wrong, compared to its 707 contemporaries. I mean, look: 737-100 and 707. That much forward-mounting on the pylon is necessary to make it look right.

Contrast with were the engines were mounted on the Comet.

[GoSlash27]

The Goliath is actually sized just fine for it's intended purpose.

The problem (as I see it) is that the Goliath's intended purpose as an engine for a large jet transport serves no useful function in a KSP career game.

If you play on standard difficulty, you have no need for airplanes at all. If you play hard mode, a small Juno powered plane is sufficient to collect the required science. In either case, by the time you've unlocked the Goliath, science payout on Kerbin is so trivial that it's no longer worth collecting.

Major game balance issue.

Best,
-Slashy

Edited March 11, 2016 by GoSlash27

[Kamenjar]

3 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

The Goliath is actually sized just fine for it's intended purpose...

Well not really - that's a 50-tonner that can be powered by 3 whiplashes. Why get there in an hour, when you can get there in 15 minutes? IMO Whiplash does everything a lot better except reverse thrust and efficiency, which is really not an issue.

Who cares about efficiency when you've got an ISRU and can still go around the globe at 1.1km/s without refueling

Edited March 11, 2016 by Kamenjar

[GoSlash27]

5 hours ago, Kamenjar said:

Well not really - that's a 50-tonner that can be powered by 3 whiplashes. Why get there in an hour, when you can get there in 15 minutes? IMO Whiplash does everything a lot better except reverse thrust and efficiency, which is really not an issue.

Who cares about efficiency when you've got an ISRU and can still go around the globe at 1.1km/s without refueling

Kamenjar,

 I'm afraid you're mistaking your personal preference for objective fact. The question isn't whether you like using a different engine instead of the Goliath, the question is whether the Goliath is sized properly for it's intended purpose.

Best,
-Slashy

[Octa]

 

9 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

The Goliath is actually sized just fine for it's intended purpose.

The problem (as I see it) is that the Goliath's intended purpose as an engine for a large jet transport serves no useful function in a KSP career game.

If you play on standard difficulty, you have no need for airplanes at all. If you play hard mode, a small Juno powered plane is sufficient to collect the required science. In either case, by the time you've unlocked the Goliath, science payout on Kerbin is so trivial that it's no longer worth collecting.

Major game balance issue.

Best,
-Slashy

Then again, there's sandbox mode for messing around and here i enjoy those parts, as they look pretty good on a Mk.3-plane. I guess most jet parts/engines are kinda "useless" in KSP in terms of space related gameplay (normal Rockets and HTOL SSTOs). I have barely seen any spaceplanes in space exchange without rapiers for jet propulsion since the last few updates.

You could easily scrap any jets besides the juno and the rapier, because 99% of the problems can be solved with these 2.

 

6 hours ago, Kamenjar said:

Well not really - that's a 50-tonner that can be powered by 3 whiplashes. Why get there in an hour, when you can get there in 15 minutes? IMO Whiplash does everything a lot better except reverse thrust and efficiency, which is really not an issue.

Who cares about efficiency when you've got an ISRU and can still go around the globe at 1.1km/s without refueling

i don't care if that thing could be powered by 3 whiplashes or an huge juno-array (if that'd be efficient enough to be considered) when playing around with the goliath or planes in general. This engine and planes in general are mostly for aesthetics.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Octa
Removed double quote

[KerikBalm]

1 hour ago, Octa said:

I have barely seen any spaceplanes in space exchange without rapiers for jet propulsion since the last few updates.

You could easily scrap any jets besides the juno and the rapier, because 99% of the problems can be solved with these 2.

 

i don't care if that thing could be powered by 3 whiplashes or an huge juno-array (if that'd be efficient enough to be considered) when playing around with the goliath or planes in general. This engine and planes in general are mostly for aesthetics.

Well, for a SSTO spaceplane, the Rapier is the premier engine... highest airbreathing ceiling and maximum speed, built in rocket engine so you can keep drag low... that is sort of its point, its the engine to get you to space when you have O2.

I make "space" planes without rapiers that are Juno powered... the are payload, and intended for use on laythe. Not for science collection or anything like that, but for "sandbox" fun.

Likewise, the panthers also have a purpose: they have the best static TWR of any jet engine (granted, a whiplash has equal static thrust, its more massive, and its thrust: atmospheric scaling isn't as good as the panther's for the air density of laythe). Thus they are great for VTOL and short takeoff craft, and after the part of the flight requiring high thrust is over, you can switch over to a 9,000 Isp mode.

Panthers have a unique niche.

Junos have a unique niche just on their size (but a scaled up juno would kind of suck compared to the wheesely or panther)

The whiplash is sort of stuck in the middle between the panther and the rapier now... its niche is rather small, aside from just being something you unlock before the rapier. I use them on: vertical launch SSTO craft that basically do a slightly flatter gravity turn. High speed suborbital craft (for fun on kerbin or laythe).. where it beats out the rapier because of better TWR, 25% better fuel efficiency, and electric generation - also on some craft I don't want the rapier's speed anyway because of heating concerns.

The wheesely is also quite nice because of the thrust reverse function. The ability to have my craft able to backup is wonderful. Engines on one side thrusting forward, and the other side thrusting backward allow my craft to turn on the ground much better. It also allows for much quicker stopping... again, aiding in STOL operations, which are great for a spaceplane that won't be using runways (ie, my spaceplanes on laythe)... I get a bit exploity with them though... as they compete with nodes with rapiers and panthers on my laythe craft, but I don't need all those forward nodes for air intakes (as 1 intake per two engines is plenty, and you can do even better with precoolers/inline intakes), I have them mounted on the front, and their thrust reversers on... two engines thrusting from a single stack.. I'm just not sure how much exta drag the backwards engine makes vs two stacks with tailcones or shock cones.

The goliath: it uh... gets slightly better fuel economy than the wheesely, and reduces part count. I should figure out how much drag it makes, I have a feeling the equivalent number of wheesleys with shock cones will be lower drag than the goliath with nothing capping its front node (keeping in mind that the intake doesn't work if you cap the front node... even if you stick a 0.625m tank in front of it)

I had a 2x goliath design

But in the end, it worked just fine with 4x wheeselys

 

Also... as a 2.5m part, one could mount a quad adaptor and stick on 4x wheeselys instead of 1x goliath. The goliath only has the thrust of 3x wheeselys (but the TWR is the same, as it only has the mass of 3x wheeselys).

I don't know if this is a problem or not... as its basically meant for subsonic flight anyway, and so far I haven't found my craft to be lacking in thrust with it.

[Capt Snuggler]

Don't think they're too big but they are kinda useless. BUT also fun.

I think the whole Jet engine system is a little off and needs a redesign. Don't get me wrong, they should 100% be in the game. Personally I would have jet engines split into 3 parts.

"INTAKE" - provides a varying amount of INTAKE AIR depending on size, shape, air speed, altitude and orientation.

"ENGINE" - This is where LF and INTAKE AIR are combined to produce "POWER" and electric charge.

"NOZZLE" - Converts "POWER" in to "THRUST" with varying efficiency depending on altitude. Also provides vectoring and afterburner functions where applicable.

 

Three new parts required:

1.25m and 0.65m Gas Turbine Power Plant (Engine) - Converts INTAKE AIR and LF in to "POWER".

2.5m Turbo Fan (intake) - Big Fan and cowling from the front of the current Goliath engine. Its a unique INTAKE part that converts POWER in to THRUST as well as providing intake air to the engine. limited to medium altitudes and speed.

 

And one extra part adds lots of possibilities:

0.65m Alternator or Dynamo - attach inline to an "ENGINE" part. converts "POWER" in to large amounts of electric charge. Could also convert EC to power a Turbo Fan on its own.

 

but its probably a bit late to be making these kind of changes to the game...

Edited March 17, 2016 by Capt Snuggler

[KerbonautInTraining]

3 hours ago, Capt Snuggler said:

but its probably a bit late to be making these kind of changes to the game...

I think that would make for an amazing mod

[John FX]

For me this is just another data point that says "Unbalanced tech tree" because as has been said, by the time you get good plane parts, you have absolutely no need for them.

EVERY part should have a realistic and useful function after it is unlocked in a career game, if it does not then it needs unlocking earlier.

Of course that would lead us to having plane parts first, then unmanned space parts, then manned space parts which is FAR too logical for Squad to ever consider doing...

 

EDIT : But back on topic, I think the engine is about the right size for the planes it is supposed to be fixed to.

Also I love the ideas in the post from Capt Snuggler

Edited March 11, 2016 by John FX

[mikegarrison]

Basically, all dedicated plane parts are unnecessary in career mode. The only things that are really useful for rockets is the cabins (especially the two-person Mk1 cabin) to haul tourists in and the steering fins for aerodynamic control. When they were first introduced, the airbrakes were massively overpowered and very useful for re-entry, but playing around with them now they seem pretty fragile and prone to burning up.

Using spaceplanes (or especially atmospheric planes) is simply an aesthetic choice.

[GoSlash27]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

Basically, all dedicated plane parts are unnecessary in career mode. The only things that are really useful for rockets is the cabins (especially the two-person Mk1 cabin) to haul tourists in and the steering fins for aerodynamic control.

I use the early plane parts to build a *Dundadadaaaa* Jet Powered Cart of Science! It's great for hoovering up science in and around KSC. I may also need to fly out to a few close biomes depending on difficulty level. Beyond that, yeah... purely atmospheric plane parts are useless in career.

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

Using spaceplanes (or especially atmospheric planes) is simply an aesthetic choice.

Actually, spaceplanes are a pretty excellent economic choice once you have the tech to support orbital assembly and a space station. But of course, that has nothing to do with the Goliath.

Best,
-Slashy

[ZooNamedGames]

I don't see the problem, works for my Kerbals.

[Kamenjar]

17 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Kamenjar,

 I'm afraid you're mistaking your personal preference for objective fact. The question isn't whether you like using a different engine instead of the Goliath, the question is whether the Goliath is sized properly for it's intended purpose.

Best,
-Slashy

It's not about my preference. My preference is for myself, and for the forums is a question that I asked (trolled the thread) --- what is the point (of existence) of Goliath (in the game), as it appears to me that alternatives are always objectively better when trade-offs are considered.

Goliath trades the best ISP and highest thrust for jet engines for enormous size, at least half TWR and lowest speed at peak thrust when compared to most alternatives.

Given those characteristics, my speculation is (and most likely an objective fact) that Goliath's intended for low speed, long range, heavy lifting. The problem that I have with that is: what goals/missions/ideas in the game would there be, that would would be useful for those traits or which specific, useful or fun designs (VTOL?) would be more suitable at low speed than at high speeds with slightly lower ISPs... And please avoid personal preferences or joy-rides like in your your own example (to haul 100 kerbals to the nearest island)

As John stated, by the time you get those engines you probably don't even need those engines any more. The only purpose I saw was a air-only heavy ISRU plane with a rover to do some remaining science on Kerbin, or do some missions on Kerbin to collect data And for that I didn't see why I would use a Goliath over a faster engine - whiplash specifically, just to be able to get there faster.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Kamenjar

[Nich]

Same could be said for the reliant, swivel, i beams, largest landing gear, big s tail fins, stayputnic, fat airplane parts, and many others.  When having a lego set more options are always better.

[Kamenjar]

18 minutes ago, Nich said:

Same could be said for the reliant, swivel, i beams, largest landing gear, big s tail fins, stayputnic, fat airplane parts, and many others.  When having a lego set more options are always better.

Not really in all cases, or maybe not as obvious as Goliaths.

• Reliant has better ASL than swivel, so it is useful as a first stage where gimbal is not needed, until you get aerospikes or bigger solid fuel boosters in career.  
• When you get Stayputnik, there are no other probe cores available, so it is used.
• Swivel I use a lot for smaller craft. There's no other efficient small gimballed engine to replace it. 
• largest landing gear I use sometimes (large landing gear on that plane I posted above to get better clearance and shock absorbing for uneven terrain)
• Big S tail fins are neat and folks use them a log - easy to place and they stay far back.
• You could argue that fat airplane parts are a bridge part till Big-S wings become available.
• I've seen folks use i-beams to hang two rovers on them and put them on Mun/Minmus, though they are way too heavy for any other use I could think of.

I guess that issue is that engines are a big piece of this game and especially with planes as you tend to build planes around engines, rather than the other way around, and Squad had something in mind with Goliaths, but seems they missed on it. I wish I had a bigger supersonic jet engine, that would make heavy spaceplanes easier to make. But a big slow engine? Beats me...

Edited March 12, 2016 by Kamenjar