More .625 jet engines that aren't underpowered like the only stock one we have now?

[SpaceToad]

On 12/9/2016 at 6:22 PM, Veeltch said:

Juno is way OP. We don't need any more atmospheric engines except for maybe one: electric propeller.

I can agree with this.

[Sharpy]

Goddammit, stock electric prop engine, yes.

.625 oxygen atmosphere jet is such a niche you really don't need more than Juno if you play stock. And there's a plenty of small jets that fit that form factor in mods.

I'd rather see some stock .625m SRBs and something with more kick (even at cost of ISp) than Spark. I hate having to use Kickbacks or the likes if my payload is under half a ton and well under 0.625 form factor.

Below: Equipment delivery to Minmus for upgrading the scientific rover. Stage one: BACC Thumper. stage two "Pixie" Electric Solid Propellant booster. Transfer and Landing - 2x Spider, 2x Oscar B. Payload: 2x Negative Gravioli Detector.

 

 

[KerikBalm]

Remind me again how the Juno is underpowered?

Sure, its Isp isn't great compared to the turbofans.... but the other stats don't lie:

Its got the same static TWR as the goliath and wheesley. Its TWR from mach 0.5 to 1.0 is better, I suspect its better at mach 1.5 (since this graph doesn't include the tangent data, and it handily beats the Wheesley and goliath at mach 2. Past mach 1 at sea level the panther beats it in every aspect (thrust vectoring, better Isp, better TWR, higher top speed), but the panther in dry mode starts off with a signifcantly lower static TWR.

But wait, there's more!

The Juno does significantly better than the panther dry/goliath/wheesley at high altitude (altitudes where atmospheric pressure is 0.5 or lower).

For speed and altitude, its the best engine until you get the panther/whiplash/rapier.

Also, its good for sending small jets to laythe.

Also, you can make a 0.625m ssto spaceplane with it, but the payload capacity is minimal: 

[Tex_NL]

8 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Remind me again how the Juno is underpowered?

Sure, its Isp isn't great compared to the turbofans.... but the other stats don't lie:

[PicSnip]

Its got the same static TWR as the goliath and wheesley. Its TWR from mach 0.5 to 1.0 is better, I suspect its better at mach 1.5 (since this graph doesn't include the tangent data, and it handily beats the Wheesley and goliath at mach 2. Past mach 1 at sea level the panther beats it in every aspect (thrust vectoring, better Isp, better TWR, higher top speed), but the panther in dry mode starts off with a signifcantly lower static TWR.

But wait, there's more!

[PicSnip]

The Juno does significantly better than the panther dry/goliath/wheesley at high altitude (altitudes where atmospheric pressure is 0.5 or lower).

For speed and altitude, its the best engine until you get the panther/whiplash/rapier.

Also, its good for sending small jets to laythe.

[PicSnip]

Also, you can make a 0.625m ssto spaceplane with it, but the payload capacity is minimal:

[PicSnip]

Absolutely. For its size it is an incredibly good engine.
But people are expecting their planes to go unrealistically fast. With the extremely meagre thrust from the Juno this is hard to achieve without spamming. As a result people call it crap.

[Jarin]

1 hour ago, Tex_NL said:

Absolutely. For its size it is an incredibly good engine.
But people are expecting their planes to go unrealistically fast. With the extremely meagre thrust from the Juno this is hard to achieve without spamming. As a result people call it crap.

I suspect it's the comparison to the Wheesley, which easily sends a Mk1 plane supersonic. The problem with that comparison though isn't the lack of power in the Juno, it's the lack of other 0.625m parts to make proper ultralight craft with.

[KerikBalm]

yea... making a 0.625m ssto is difficult because there aren't good wings that small, there aren't good control surfaces for something that small. The probe cores don't even fit right, an external command seat is dragy... and oh so kerbal. The only 0.625m intake has a low heat tolerance so that one is forced to use that radial supersonic intake I used in the above picture (alternately, one can try clipping exploits).

Oh, and the 0.625m LFO engines kind of suck too... although... the spark did recently get buffed from 300 Isp to 320 Isp... so it should work a lot better now... should easily give that same SSTO ~130m/s more dV left in orbit

[tseitsei89]

On 12/12/2016 at 0:55 AM, panzer1b said:

  As for the mini-rapier, who can deny how useful a 1t SSTO would be...  

There you go  A fully recoverable 836kg SSTO spaceplane. I have only been able to land it in the ocean tough...

Edited December 21, 2016 by tseitsei89