Poodle vs Lv30/45

[Jodo42]

Not sure if this should go in discussion, or questions. Sorry if it's in the wrong place.

Just a question: do you guys prefer the Rockomax Poodle, or the LV-T30/45? They're very similar engines.

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Rockomax_%22Poodle%22_Liquid_Engine

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/LV-T30_Liquid_Fuel_Engine

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/LV-T45_Liquid_Fuel_Engine

[manskal]

And now for something completely different..

I prefer LV 909s and use them over the other engines whenever I can. Instead of poodles, I just cluster LV 909s together and they can be more versatile. However, if I have to use it in an atmosphere or need a substantial TWR, I use the LV T45.

[magnemoe]

Different uses, the poodle is an lander engine or upper stage for 2.5 meter parts, downside is that its very heavy so it only makes sense for larger landers where you might be better off puting two t45 on the sides

[UmbralRaptor]

If the craft in question is below about 50 tonnes, the LV-T30 is better than the Poodle. Higher TWR, more ÃŽâ€V, and it still fits under the LT-2 landing struts.

[CalculusWarrior]

T30's don't get enough love in my opinion. I particularly love them in clusters; higher efficiency and more thrust than a Skipper! However, the lack of gimbal limits their usage to lower atmospheric stages combined with winglets and smaller craft. I've never really found a use for the Poodle; its weight has always been too high for my liking. LV-909s are what I go by instead, like manskal above.

[Pbhead]

there is no case where poodle should ever be used ever.

[allmhuran]

Yeah, the poodle just isn't good for anything. Its only positive is that it is short, and therefore makes is easier to get ground clearance on landers. But with the squishy suspension of 0.22 landing legs, even this advantage goes away.

LVT-30s are fantastic. Lighter than 45s and with more thrust. The lack of thrust vectoring is easily overcome by command pod torque.

[Kabloosh]

I've always found thrust vectoring kind of pointless. I tend to throw on SAS or those torque modules if a craft has difficulty turning. Otherwise I think the T30 is quite possibly the most useful engine there is when it comes to smaller rocket designs. I have never used the T45. I don't think the thrust vectoring is really that useful.

I use the LV909s until I unlock nuclear engines.

[Madrias]

T45's for me. Thrust Vectoring allows me to maintain some control when mixed throughout a cluster of T30's. My general rule is that for every 4 T30's, you should have at least one T45. The LV-909 is awesome as a landing stage.

Small ships, I want an LV-T30. Tons of power, ship small enough to steer by capsule torque.

But until I unlock decent control surfaces, the T45 is my go-to engine.

[badpandabear]

I only use the T45/T30's as lower stage engines on smaller rockets. For upper stages/landers I prefer the higher ISPs of the poodle. But of course the LV-909 is a better option. The only time I use the Poodle is for my Saturn V- like rocket; where the 3rd stage and service module each should only have one engine.

[Killerdude8]

I usually use Poodles in the transfer stage of my 2.5m ships, I only usually the T30/45 in the lifter stage of my smaller 1m craft.

[FlamedSteak]

I disagree, once you're out of atmo influence the poodle is a great engine for a second stage booster to get you circularised.

[Karriz]

I like to use 2m engines on 2m tanks, I don't really pay much attention to what is the most efficient choice. Usually I put poodle on my landers and transfer stages, and sometimes it can work as a second stage for light-weight probes.

To be honest, I'm only using Lv30 and Lv40 because I finally had to build 1m launchers in the career mode.

[Psycix]

Only radial engines manage to deliver a performance worse than the poodle.

Although it's specific impulse is high, it's thrust to weight is terrible and a cluster of 909's is a lot better.

It's sad. All my designs have to work around it and actively avoid poodles, even in a 2.5m stack.

[Superfluous J]

Yeah I used Poodles in an upcoming mission in my LP series and I'm feeling like a total fool for doing so. I was just so excited to have a 2.5m engine I got carried away.

[Commissioner Tadpole]

...now that I check the replies, I feel bad for liking the Poodle.

[Ravenchant]

I use the poodle if, and only if, I need an insertion stage for 2.5m launchers and am too lazy to design a radial support for 1.5m engines.

In all other situations, clustered Lv-909s or even Lv-30s look and work better.

[Landwalker]

I confess to using the Poodle, principally because I don't know how to make engine clusters, let alone engine clusters in upper stages... >_>

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Someone did a "Break-even"-Chart for the LVN and the 909 Engine compared to the take-off mass of the vessel. Someone should do that for all the Engines and implement it on the Wiki.

[Psycix]

Someone did a "Break-even"-Chart for the LVN and the 909 Engine compared to the take-off mass of the vessel. Someone should do that for all the Engines and implement it on the Wiki.

http://imgur.com/a/cbbjG

http://imgur.com/a/yuUH4

http://imgur.com/a/x4dIn

(I am not the author of this)

Edited November 24, 2013 by Psycix

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

http://imgur.com/a/yuUH4

http://imgur.com/a/x4dIn

(I am not the author of this)

Thx for digging this up Psycix

[Psycix]

You're welcome

Note how the poodle isn't even included with the charts. The 909 outperforms it on every single aspect with the only downsides being that they are not 2.5m and part count.

[KSK]

I disagree, once you're out of atmo influence the poodle is a great engine for a second stage booster to get you circularised.

This. I don't think I'd use a Poodle on a transfer stage but I find it gives me a very nice ascent profile for the last 5-10km of atmosphere and then up to whichever Kerbin orbit I need. Good ISP, fits inline into a 2.5m stack - it's a nice easy if not necessarily the most efficient option. I almost always use a Poodle on my workhorse 2.5m boosters for lobbing 3-kerbal orbital taxis or space station components into LKO.

Also it's cheaper than an LV-909, although admittedly that doesn't mean a great deal at the moment and may well be rebalanced in future. I have a sneaking suspicion that it might not be though - the low cost would offset it's weight and lowish performance nicely.

One line summary - I like the Poodle.

[zekes]

My personal favorite engine is the Mainsail. Go bold or go Home.

[UmbralRaptor]

Someone did a "Break-even"-Chart for the LVN and the 909 Engine compared to the take-off mass of the vessel. Someone should do that for all the Engines and implement it on the Wiki.

*goes digging through some of his old tables*

LV-T30 vs Poodle:

Payload masses above the breakpoint favor the Poodle, masses below that the LV-T30.

[table=width: 800, class: grid]

[tr]

[td]Propellant (L)[/td]

[td]200[/td]

[td]400[/td]

[td]600[/td]

[td]800[/td]

[td]1,600[/td]

[td]3,200[/td]

[td]6,400[/td]

[td]12,800[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Payload (t)[/td]

[td]21.26[/td]

[td]20.66[/td]

[td]20.07[/td]

[td]19.49[/td]

[td]17.32[/td]

[td]13.59[/td]

[td]7.98[/td]

[td]0.52[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

(Payload would be instruments, landing legs, probe bodies, mapping equipment, kittens, RCS, or whatever non-fuel, non-engine parts your craft has. TWR breakeven is when the non-engine parts of the craft are 52.5 tonnes. (TWR of ~0.41)