Tweeker Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 I have noticed that I rarely use the poodle, I hadn't really given this much thought until ARM came out. Then I started a new career mode, and noticed that the LFB KR-1x2 effectively eclipses the mainsail. This discussion seems to be well under way on it's own. While thinking about this I got sidetracked thinking about the poodle. The poodle's real problem is it's low TWR. It is currently in the bottom 1/4 @ a TWR of 9.0 In most any application any other engine is a better choice. 2 Mk 55's make an excellent substitute having better thrust, & lower weight. The problem is made worse by being right in the middle of the 200-250KN pack. to really set the poodle apart it needs to be buffed to:550Kn and 3.5 tons. This puts it right in the middle of the pack as far as TWR @ 16.01, and the thrust is in between 2 & 3 LVT-30 or LVT-45I think this would put it far too close to the skipper's envelope, however, so the Skipper would need an adjustment to:900KN and 5.5 tons. this would keep the skipper's TWR the same, and place it in between the new poodle & mainsail. Or you could adjust the skipper to:1000 KN and 5.25 tons.This would have the same benefit of moving it's envelope away from the poodle, and also place it's TWR in between the new poodle and mainsail. Giving a nice ramp up as far as the 2.5M rockomax engines are concerned. poodle 16.01skipper 19.41mainsail 25.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jouni Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 The Poodle is supposed to be an efficient low-tech vacuum engine, filling the niche where you need more thrust than the LV-909 provides, with a better efficiency than the LV-T30 and the LV-T45. Its main problem is its low TWR, which makes it worse than any of its competitors.To fix the situation, we need two changes. First, reduce the mass of the Poodle to 2 tonnes, making it a bit better than a cluster of four LV-909s. When big engines are available, they should be a better choice than a cluster of smaller engines from the same class. Then, reduce the Isp of the LV-T30 and the LV-T45 to 300/350 seconds (to match the Skipper). Those engines are supposed to be powerful first-stage engines, not efficient vacuum engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 From now on folks, please add discussions of engine balance to one of the many existing threads on the subject: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74439-The-Grand-0-23-5-Discussion-Threadhttp://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75696-Theory-vs-Practice-The-ARM-partshttp://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75013-I-m-sorry-I-I-just-don-t-like-ARM-%28http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75683-ARM-Parts-Pollhttp://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75661-The-7-Balance-Points-of-engines-in-a-Full-Career-Modehttp://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75332-Can-both-Career-Mode-and-Sandbox-Mode-be-balanced-simultaneouslyhttp://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75094-Would-you-like-reducing-the-thrust-of-the-new-engineshttp://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75738-ARM-SLS-Parts-and-the-Start-of-The-Career-mode-agehttp://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75090-the-ion-engine-is-way-too-OPhttp://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74603-Engine-balancing-issues-in-ARM This helps reduce repetition and keeps the relevant information from getting scattered all over the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts