Poodle Vs LV-T30

[Firedtm]

Ok i got no screenies for you people to see

So heres how i built my ship

3 Man Mk 1-2 pod, docking port on top. 3 radial mounted parachutes on the Pod, 1 De-coupler, 2 1x6 solar panels 2 z-400 batterys

1 large SAS, 2 Roundifed Mono tanks, 1 X200-16 Fuel Tank, 4 RV-105 RCS units on or near COM

Wight of the ship should be 14.965

now the engine's

Rockomax Adapter #02 with the LV-T30. (Wight 1.33 - Max Thrust 215 - Engine isp 370 (vac))

Dv is 2450.79

VS

a Rockomax "Poodle" liquid engine. (Wight 2.5 - Max Thrust 220 - Engine isp 390 (vac))

Dv is 2343.74

-----------------------

using this and the numbers i have found out the poodle engine is useless for the most part onless your going to do a landing with a ship like that

am i the only one who thinks the poodle needs some love?

[timsfitz]

Yeah I agree the poodle needs a slight efficiency increase to be worthwhile. It's ashamed because I like the size of it.

[Pecan]

Poodles possibly make nice pets but they're useless at pushing rockets ^^. Like the Mk55, Skipper and Mainsail it's an engine to avoid.

T30s are great engines all-around but are usually overlooked in career mode especially because they are available right from the start and people assume later engines must be better.

[The Jedi Master]

The Poodle is one of my favorite engines, perfect for transfer burns in the Kerbin system. Plus, it really looks nice.

[PlonioFludrasco]

I prefer T30s.

They have less Isp, ok, but they have far better TWR. At the end, you have the same DV but with less mass to put into orbit.

The only point is that they doesn't fit well into the large stack...

[Jouni]

The Poodle is a bad engine, if you're only interested in performance. On the other hand, if you want an engine that fits nicely in a rocket stack, it has a lot of potential as an upper stage and vacuum engine.

The real issue here is the high efficiency of the LV-T30 (and the LV-T45), when compared to other lower stage engines. It doesn't make any sense that small engines are more efficient than large engines for the same task, unless the goal is to annoy players with older computers.

[Vanamonde]

The oft-mooted topic of relative engine performance belongs in Suggestions & Development, and therefore has been moved there.

[cantab]

I agree that the Poodle is one of the weaker engines. You need to be running something silly like 7000 m/s in a single stage for the Poodle to perform better than the LV-T30, and if you need that much delta-V you're better with nuclear engines anyway. LV-909 clusters also offer equal Isp and better TWR than a Poodle.

Really the only thing going for the Poodle is the form factor (a 1.25 m engine in a 2.5 m stack looks ugly) and the gimbal range.

The real Poodle was a Radioisotope rocket, akin to a mini-NERVA. It might be nice to see an engine like that in KSP.

[Barney]

Did someone say LV-T30?

MER-100, 100t to 100x100 orbit... One of my MER family rockets using only LV-T30's.

[Sky_walker]

Poddle got 2.5 degree thrust vectoring.

It's one of the highest values in a game.

That's a reason why sometimes you might want to use it instead of T-30 which doesn't have ANY vectoring at all.

[Firedtm]

The Poodle is a bad engine, if you're only interested in performance. On the other hand, if you want an engine that fits nicely in a rocket stack, it has a lot of potential as an upper stage and vacuum engine.

The real issue here is the high efficiency of the LV-T30 (and the LV-T45), when compared to other lower stage engines. It doesn't make any sense that small engines are more efficient than large engines for the same task, unless the goal is to annoy players with older computers.

Performance and efficient is what i look for in any rocket. its also what people in real life will look for when we start using more ships in space

Poddle got 2.5 degree thrust vectoring.

It's one of the highest values in a game.

That's a reason why sometimes you might want to use it instead of T-30 which doesn't have ANY vectoring at all.

i understand it has no vectoring, but i have not seen nor may understand why its used, when i am able to use the RCS

[magnemoe]

Poddle got 2.5 degree thrust vectoring.

It's one of the highest values in a game.

That's a reason why sometimes you might want to use it instead of T-30 which doesn't have ANY vectoring at all.

Yes the high vectoring range and the low profile make it nice for larger landers.

If you mouth 4 T-30 you can just as well use a skipper, you can mount them radial but I prefer LV-N for this. so am poodle and LV-N combo is nice for many lander types like kethane miners.

[Vahal]

So using RCS is adding more weight. So less TWR. So less efficiency.

replacing a Poodle by more T30 is finally marginally better since you have to put [more] monoprellant, and increase the part count. Plus the size of the T30.

[LethalDose]

Eh, I think the Poodle is fine as it is for reasons noted above: Efficiency (Vac ISP 390) and convenience (low profile vacuum engine w/ 2.5m mount). It may be that the T30 is marginally better, but it's not worth the sacrifice of the convenience of the poodle.

Poodles possibly make nice pets but they're useless at pushing rockets ^^. Like the Mk55, Skipper and Mainsail it's an engine to avoid.

so, in your opinion, the only 2.5m engine worth using is the LFB?

Edited July 13, 2014 by LethalDose

[Red Iron Crown]

If you go by the numbers only, the LFB is the only good choice among the 2.5m engines. For scenarios where the LFB is not a good fit, clusters of smaller engines are better than the other 2.5m engines.

There are other considerations, though. Part count, joint strength, engine length and aesthetics play a part in which engine to use.

[technicalfool]

I've found the poodle can be pretty good for larger Mün and Minmus landers. It's the only engine with any power that'll fit under the landing legs.

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a slight increase in I^sp, if only to give it the edge over a T30 + adapter for vacuum ÃŽâ€v. Maybe even boost the T30's atmospheric and nerf vacuum I^sp right down to make it an early-game lifter engine, NOT a space engine.

[SilentSkills]

The Poodle is a bad engine, if you're only interested in performance. On the other hand, if you want an engine that fits nicely in a rocket stack, it has a lot of potential as an upper stage and vacuum engine.

The real issue here is the high efficiency of the LV-T30 (and the LV-T45), when compared to other lower stage engines. It doesn't make any sense that small engines are more efficient than large engines for the same task, unless the goal is to annoy players with older computers.

A bit off-topic but a few months ago I read an article that mentioned how in real life clusters of smaller engines were more efficient than a large single engine. Even if it means more complexity and chances for things to go wrong.

[rtxoff]

Almost in all cases you will be better with a cluster of 6 Rockomax 48-7S than a single poodle. The save in weight is just not to underestimate.

Here an comparison with 2 Landers with both combinations:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Poodle: mass: 11.9t

TWR: 1.88

dVvac: 1566m/s

6x48-7s: mass: 10t

TWR: 1.83

dVvac: 1751m/s

Edited July 13, 2014 by gpisic

[xcorps]

A bit off-topic but a few months ago I read an article that mentioned how in real life clusters of smaller engines were more efficient than a large single engine. Even if it means more complexity and chances for things to go wrong.

I think that has to more to do with combustion stability than efficiency. The Soviet designs used clusters (smaller chambers, but more numerous) to defeat the instability, the F1 used fuel injection dampening.

[r4pt0r]

Almost in all cases you will be better with a cluster of 6 Rockomax 48-7S -snip

im stealing your design when .24 drops, and im not paying you royalties.

[KerikBalm]

For the sake of our CPUs, the large engines should be on equal footing with the small, ones, lest we balloon our part count.

The new NASA parts have multiple nozzles, but only count as one part, which is good if you want clusters for visual purposes.

The issue with the poodle is that it is simply too heavy, or too low thrust (take your pick), its TWR is abysmal. I think it has sufficient thrust for its obvious uses, so I'd just make it lighter.

Only the nuke and the ions have a lower TWR.

Even the LV-909 is too weak, in almost every case, substituting a 48-7s is better.

The skipper on the other hand: I'd make it like a big LVT-30/45, give it 370 vacuum isp

I've modified the stats on my game such that the skipper gets 370 ISP, the poodle is half a ton lighter, and I swapped the ISP values for the mainsail and the 48-7s -> I think its much more balanced that way

[John FX]

I`d agree the poodle needs some love. I only choose it these days if I am going for a certain look at which point I will have to upgrade the lower stages to add the Dv lost through using the poodle. It either needs an Isp boost or an weight drop. To me gimbal is pretty digital, you either have it or you do not. A larger gimbal range alone is not appealing enough to make the engine one that would be chosen on its own merits.

[Pthigrivi]

Theres a weird kind of thing here where the Nuclear engine is so good I use it for practically everything past Kerbin. It be nice if I had to make a choice more often.

[Red Iron Crown]

Almost in all cases you will be better with a cluster of 6 Rockomax 48-7S than a single poodle. The save in weight is just not to underestimate.

Here an comparison with 2 Landers with both combinations:

http://imgur.com/a/mAnhW

Poodle: mass: 11.9t

TWR: 1.88

dVvac: 1566m/s

6x48-7s: mass: 10t

TWR: 1.83

dVvac: 1751m/s

Just FYI, but you can flip those cubocts upside down and they'll stay hidden inside the tank with the engines flush to its surface. You won't be able to move them after placing them, though.

[rkman]

The issue with the poodle is that it is simply too heavy, or too low thrust (take your pick), its TWR is abysmal.

I don't think low engine twr is a problem if that downside is offset by high isp. In that respect the Poodle follows the same principal as the LV-N, which is usefull in spite of having even worse twr than the Poodle. Low engine twr becomes a problem only if the vessel that it propels has low mass to begin with, then an engine with lower isp but also significantly lower mass might provide more d-v.

But the Poodle sort of lost its niche when some of the other engines were buffed. I'm not sure what would be the best fix for the Poodle, but i think giving it high isp and high twr is not the right solution.