Battle of the jets

[322997am]

Ignore the poll I hit enter on accident.So in the old version you had every reason to choose the wheesley. But now there are new engines which are a choice. So now I ask which jets are the best on average and which are best for specific scenarios.

 

 

Engine	pros	Cons
Wheesley	Low intake needs high efficiency	Low thrust low altitude peak
Juno	Small	Weak cutout at 20km
Panther	High thrust in low air	Ineffieient
Goliath	High thrust at low altitudes  readymade intake	Thrust drops after Mach 1 thrust drops at high altitudes
Whiplash(it gud)	High thrust at high altitudes high flameout height	High intake needs high fuel needs
Rapier	2 in 1	Very low stationary thrust takes ages to warm up

 

Edited December 6, 2015 by 322997am
Table

[322997am]

So I spent 20 minutes writing this and no one says anything?

[Dfthu]

maybe use a table for the pros and cons.  ike that

JUNO pro con

 

Edited December 6, 2015 by Dfthu

[322997am]

So what is your opinion on the jets.

[GoSlash27]

322997am,

 I'm personally a fan of the Panther. It can cruise at high altitude and high speed very economically, making it probably the best choice for a science gathering plane. Although by the time you've unlocked it, you probably don't need to collect science from Kerbin anymore.

It can also be used as the air breathing engine of a practical tech level 6 spaceplane.

If I had to pick just one jet engine for career mode, this would be it.

Best,

-Slashy

 

[Kaezan]

Jets are funny, but if you go thru the plane tech-branch early game you'll spend precious points that can be used for moon exploration which is way more rewarding. Not saying its not a valid route but one Kerbin biome fully grinded gives you about half of a mimnus biome doing one time experiments.

[322997am]

My choice is the Goliath because of it's user friendliness.

[panzer1b]

Personally i am a big fan of the rapier (ever since 1.0) because i like SSTOs and primarily focus on space, and thus the rapier's best high speed performance and workable high thrust rocket mode (for quick bursts to orbit) is very useful for SSTOs.  Its not the most efficient, but if you are focused on space and not hanging around in atmo for extended periods of time, then the rapier's higher ejection speed and overall useability at high altitude gives the most efficient ascent to orbit even if you dont actually use the rapier's rocket mode at all.

For non-space, i seem to like the panther the best.  Its normal mode is fairly efficient and it has the ability to go afterburner if you want speed/higher altitude.  Its even somewhat workable as a SSTO engine, although way inferior to the whiplash and rapier, it lets you get to ~800m/s and 15km altitude which isnt too bad before you need to kick in the rockets.  And it looks super cool imo too (thats subjective i know, but panther looks so much cooler then alternatives since it has that cool animation, epic fire plume, and well, i like its color scheme, not a major fan of white everything).

Those are really the only 2 engines i use seriously.  the whiplash is essentially a crossover between the panther and rapier, which makes it (for me) somewhat mediocre and neither the best within an atmo, nor very good for SSTOs.  The wheesley (minus VTOLs which i dont build much anymore) has pretty much no real useage for me as i dont exactly enjoy low speed flight, and you cant use it when boosting to space.  The only use for it (which ive done on occasion) is WW2 propeller plane replicas since the thrust reverser allows you to place it on the nose, and the reversed thrust actually resembles a propeller engine (or as much as you can get stock).  The goliath is just not my thing, never liked replicating modern planes, let alone civilian airliners, and ive yet to find a use for it on anything sci-fi (and like the wheesley, worthless in space).  the juno has the same story, although i have experimented with wing suits and used them to make me-262 replica since they look very close to the jumo-004 (whoever named them the juno mustve hit the N instead of the M since its OBVIOUSLY a jumo-004 replica or something inspired by that).

but again, there is no engine i never use (minus the goliath as i just cant find a single use for it with my space program, tried it once, didnt bolther again, too low top speed, and just too big for the sort of scale i like to work with with airplane style builds).  All of them, even if very rarely used (or with very niche roles) ive at least given a solid try out and used em in at least 1-2 designs.  That said, rapier followed by panther, are my 2 favorites (and the ones i use alot).

Edited December 7, 2015 by panzer1b

[Dispatcher]

They all have their uses.  However, for a specific test I ran, the Whiplash performed best.  I periodically (re)make an engine comparison chart.  One test involves flying a small probe core fitted with a shock intake, Oscar B fuel tank (smallest tank, oxidizer drained out for jets), (jet) engine and 3 AVR8 winglets.  Minimal mass of course.  I consider this an efficiency test, literally seeing how far these fly on the limited fuel, full throttle from the rocket launch pad, SAS on.  My results (yours may vary); you may find these interesting:

Whiplash:  71,731 meters max altitude (plus it has the coolest part animations and thrust particle effects)

Panther dry:  31,102

Panther wet:  22,975

Wheezley:  18,877

Goliath:  18,698

Goliath reverse:  15,023

Juno:  13,131

Goliath radial (3 engines):  11,518

Rapier Air mode:  11,377

Rapier Mix mode (auto mode switch):  10,908

Goliath radial (2 engines):  7,679

Goliath radial (3) reverse:  5,400

Goliath radial (2) reverse:  3,600

Wheezley reverse:  2,277

Rapier Vac mode:  1,528

Note:  The Goliaths had no shock intake as they have their own built in air intakes, but did have a plain nose cone.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Dispatcher

[KerikBalm]

You didn't get any responses, because the premise is weak.

Each engine has their strengths and weaknesses, there is no "best" engine... only a best engine for a particular purpose.

Although, IMO, there isn't much difference between the wheesely, goliath, and Juno aside from size.. and the Juno has a lot of drawbacks to get the small size (much less Isp than the goliath/wheesely, no thrust reverse).

The Juno is nice for making small and low mass things.. which is nice if you want to send a payload to laythe... I just finished designing little 0.625m juno powered planes for exploring laythe.

The panther seems nice, because of versatility - you can get decent speed or cruise economically, and it has the best static TWR. Despite all this, I barely use it in career (I probably would have used it if I started career over in 1.05, since it comes before turboramjets)... its only advantage that I'm interested in is the nice static TWR in afterburning mode. I use it (in combination with rapiers) on a VTOL tailsitter spaceplane.

The rapier is nice, because of versatility, you can use it in space or in the atmosphere, and it has the highest velocity and altitude limits of any jet... best spaceplane engine IMO

The whiplash is nice for high speed travel in an atmosphere... just as efficient as an afterburning panther, gets you nearly as fast as a rapier... with the added bonus of an alternator, and much better static thrust... great for suborbital flights to the other side of Kerbin/Laythe... it is also a decent spaceplane engine

The wheesely and goliath... they are nice if you don't want to go to space, or go on supersonic suboribtial trajectories... thrust reverser is nice but mostly not needed when I can just deploy (drogue) chutes (as I do for my 6 kerbal laythe SSTO, which is rapier powered, to shuttle crew to and from the surface of laythe).

I've considered sending a wheesely powered plane to laythe... but then I always decide not too, given how hard it will be too get to laythe, and the minimal advantages over the panther (thrust reverser, and a bit better TWR and Isp relative to the "dry" mode).

The goliath is a no-go for me for sending to laythe... other than for sheer fun and challenge... I kind of want a mk3 cargobay+ ramp + goliaht powered spaceplane for transporting stuff on laythe (though you can't realy secure things in the cargobay unless mods or the payload is designed before to be compatible... otherwise no time warp and they bounce around in the bay)... purely for fun, and not practical purposes.

In short, in my spaceprogram, I use everything except the turbofans. If there was a single best engine, I'd just use one engine.

[Temstar]

Is Whiplash good for SSTO? I was thinking a SSTO that relies on nuke engines to get into orbit could benefit from using Whiplash as its jet engine stage to get to the upper atmosphere, seen as you don't need the more complex and heavier Rapier with it's closed cycle mode. Yet from recommendations I see from others even if you are only using Rapier for air-breathing mode it is still better than Whiplash for SSTO spaceplanes.

[eddiew]

1 hour ago, Temstar said:

Is Whiplash good for SSTO? I was thinking a SSTO that relies on nuke engines to get into orbit could benefit from using Whiplash as its jet engine stage to get to the upper atmosphere, seen as you don't need the more complex and heavier Rapier with it's closed cycle mode. Yet from recommendations I see from others even if you are only using Rapier for air-breathing mode it is still better than Whiplash for SSTO spaceplanes.

Your problem there will be TWR. Whiplashes run out of grunt around 1100-1200m/s and 18km, and nukes don't have a lot of thrust with which to then propel you to orbital velocity and altitude. I won't say it can't be done, but it will be hard.

Rapiers however will take you up to 1400m/s or higher, run better at altitude, and can give your nuclear engines a much better head start with an AP further ahead of them. That extra speed in the atmosphere more than makes up for the weight   (Though my 2p is to carry a small tank of LFO to let the rapiers get you suborbital, so that all the nervas do is circularise.)

*edit* On the other hand - whiplash and 45s work a charm, because the 45s have enough push to finish the ascent. Won't go long range, but will work as a viable pre-rapier lifter for small loads.

Edited December 7, 2015 by eddiew

[SpaceplaneAddict]

I is chooz le Panther and ke Whiplash and le sword named engine.

[Madrias]

I tend to find myself using the Juno 0.625m engine a lot.  It's nice and small, and does well enough to make little planes.

Anything much bigger, and I find myself using the Panther because of the huge vectoring angle as well as the afterburner.

When I'm playing with big airplanes, I use the Goliath.  The massive amount of thrust and the reverse-thrust functionality make it perfect for big planes.

 

As for the Rapier, I've taken to using it a lot more than I used to.  Jack of All Trades, Master of None.  Not efficient, incredibly heavy, not as good as some jets and not as good as some rockets, but it does the job well enough.

[Wjolcz]

I voted for Juno only because it's cute kekkekek

Edited December 7, 2015 by Veeltch

[322997am]

I'm a fan of the use whiplashes idea for sstos

 

[GoSlash27]

The thing about Whiplashes and RAPIERs in career mode is this: Once they're unlocked, you have to ask yourself whether they save enough money/ flight time to justify designing and developing an entirely new SSTO that uses them.

Yeah, they're better than the Panther... but are they *enough* better to make the R&D hassle and expense worth it?

 For small crew shuttles, probably not. For fuel tankers, probably so.

 I love the ultra high tech engines in sandbox, but I don't use them very often in career.

Best,

-Slashy

[Temstar]

You just import your late tech design from sandbox into your career. You don't even have to wait till end of tech tree to do this, you can just copy them over right at the start and when you load them up in VAB/SPH it will tell you you can't launch them because the design use parts that are locked.

[GoSlash27]

2 minutes ago, Temstar said:

You just import your late tech design from sandbox into your career. You don't even have to wait till end of tech tree to do this, you can just copy them over right at the start and when you load them up in VAB/SPH it will tell you you can't launch them because the design use parts that are locked.

 True, but the dilemma still remains. It's one thing to already have a handy design already standing by, waiting to be used. It's quite another if you don't.

 Me *personally*, I love designing SSTOs so I already have working designs, but even then... I won't necessarily bother with moving files around just to save like $15 per passenger. Tankers, though... the less flights I have to make to fill up my orbital station, the better. Especially if it's cheaper. RAPIERS are really good for large spaceplanes.

Best,

-Slashy

[WillThe84th]

I voted for the Panther, but I think that the Whiplash is pretty good too. If I'm making a plane that's just going to fly around Kerbin, collecting science, I would definitely use the Panther. Although it's not the most efficient, (but more efficient than the Whiplash) it's pretty fast, and I can't stand waiting a long time for my plane to fly to the other side of Kerbin if I'm going slow. However, if i'm building a space plane, I would use the Whiplash because it works the best at high speeds and altitudes.

[KerikBalm]

On 12/7/2015, 9:53:22, Temstar said:

Is Whiplash good for SSTO? I was thinking a SSTO that relies on nuke engines to get into orbit could benefit from using Whiplash as its jet engine stage to get to the upper atmosphere, seen as you don't need the more complex and heavier Rapier with it's closed cycle mode. Yet from recommendations I see from others even if you are only using Rapier for air-breathing mode it is still better than Whiplash for SSTO spaceplanes.

This is why the rapier is used over the whiplash most of the time for spaceplanes:

This graph shows that the whiplash loses more thrust at really high altitude (0.2-0.0 atmospheres, roughly, given that graph doesn't use the specified tangents) relative ot the rapier (note that both the rapier and whiplash do significantly better than the other jets from 0.3 atms and higher altitudes. Also Note that you reach 0.1 atmospheres between 10-15 km) The afterburning panther, and even the Juno, both do pretty well in comparison until 0.4-0.3 atmospheres... Note that in this graph, a flat line at "1" would indicate that the engine produces 0.5x thrust at 0.5 atmospheres, 0.75x thrust at 0.75 atmospheres, 0.1x thrust at 0.1 atmospheres -> while an engine that produces 0.6x thrust at 0.3 atmospheres would get a value of "2"... basically, the higher the value, the less thrust it loses due to decreased atmospheric pressure.

This one shows the maximum theoretical TWR of the engines. If you combine a better % of sea level thrust at high altitude, with the better TWR at high speeds (you won't reach those high speeds until you are at high altitude).. the rapier may be heavier than the whiplash, but it also produces more thrust... its TWR in the all important regime between 800-1,500 m/s and 10-28km is much better than the turboramjet's for most of that regime. It will get you higher and faster than the turboramjet, making you need less rocket thrust to get to orbit.

That superior airbreathing speed and altitude will save you a lot of rocket fuel, and make up for the increase liquid fuel consumption due to 3200 Isp instead of 4000 Isp.

That said, its static TWR is the worst in the game, and it generall won't start outperforming the turboramjet until ~1,100 m/s. I sometimes use turboramjets for an easy but not so efficient airbreathing ascent... climbing steeper than optimal, getting my apoapsis in space, but speed at

Edited December 8, 2015 by KerikBalm

[KerikBalm]

9 hours ago, WillThe84th said:

I would definitely use the Panther. Although it's not the most efficient, (but more efficient than the Whiplash) it's pretty fast.

Not in afterburning mode.

They both get 4000 Isp if you are actually using them for high speed travel

If you aren't talking afterburning mode... then they aren't even comparable... and its efficiency is very good and close to the wheesely, and much much much better than the juno/whiplash/rapier

Edited December 8, 2015 by KerikBalm

[Rocket In My Pocket]

My vote is the Wheesley, not for any technical or game play reason...but based on pure nostalgia.

I'm one of those people who tends to start campaign mode over and over, so 90% of my planes have been designed around the humble Wheesley back when there was no such thing as the Juno. I've even got a 255 part monster that has 16 Wheesleys, as well as a heavy VTOL with 6 Wheesleys as lifters and 6 more for forward thrust! Lol.

I guess you could say that I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for what I consider to be the classic "Workhorse" engine of KSP.

[ment18]

I've done a little testing and found that the Panther vastly out performs the wheesly.  It spools up faster, has afterburner (which is instant) and has gimbal.  Intakes work weirdly at low speeds not though.  At about 0m/s they produce max air and the engines are 100% fuel supplied but them when one gets to about 7-8m/s it suddenly drops to about 75% abd raises again one you reach 15m/s.  The panther is a lot less affected than the wheesly by this.  The Panther has the instant after burner making VTOL much easier as you can set a t/w of .95 and then use after burner to gain altitude.  The only pro of the wheesly is the reverse thrust and the fact its exhaust is very cool, It could land VTOL on my steel plate aircraft carrier while the panther vaporized the deck in either mode.

 

Rapier is also the best space-plane engine because it goes faster.

Edited December 8, 2015 by ment18

[Choctofliatrio2.0]

I rarely build planes, but I like the Wheesley. I'm not an SSTO person, so I like leisurely flying my science jet around Kerbin, taking in the scenery. Just my thoughts, though.