What IS an airhogging craft?

[hempa2]

Before you all type in comments "It's when you put alot of intakes to some engines" i wanna be clear with some things:

1. I know what airhogging is.

2. The question is actually: What is the maximun intake to engine ratio not considered airhogging?

3. I want the community to answer, not by comments, instead i'll use a strawpoll.

Click HERE to vote for the right answer.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

IMO it is not the amount of Intakes per Engine but if you clip intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes.

[SunChaser]

Yeah, if you're using part clipping to spam intakes, I'd call it an airhog.

[Alshain]

IMO it is not the amount of Intakes per Engine but if you clip intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes.

You can easily air hog without clipping.

[magnemoe]

IMO it is not the amount of Intakes per Engine but if you clip intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes into intakes.

Yes, however this is often done to make the plane look decent. Planes with lots of intakes all over look stupid.

I like the new radial one as you can have plenty of intakes and still have a decent looking plane.

[SkyRender]

Thanks to the new inline air intakes, it's easy to airhog without clipping and still have a pretty functional-looking craft. Generally I put the airhogging threshold at a flame-out at 24,000m. If you can go higher than that on jet engine power, you've got too many intakes (and if you only flame-out at that altitude, you have quite a lot more than you really need as it is).

[Red Iron Crown]

Poll needs a >4 option.

[sal_vager]

Airhogging is intakes clipped in such a way they'd not even work in real life, such as on backwards, or inside other parts, or stacked ridiculously.

There are real aircraft that deliberately use extra or extremely large intakes for high altitude work however

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Airhogging is intakes clipped in such a way they'd not even work in real life, such as on backwards, or inside other parts, or stacked ridiculously.

There are real aircraft that deliberately use extra or extremely large intakes for high altitude work however

I think I am on the same page as sal.

[mrwinesauce]

Varies wildly from 4/1 engine to 19/28 engines on my giant SSTO, because rule of cool.

[Moar Boosters]

It's not down to a specific number. It's whether or not you're blatantly exploiting game rules to create something that performs better than a realistic plane, but generally looks like a pile of rubbish which wouldn't work in real life.

If you've made a flying wall of intakes that wouldn't even fit into a wind tunnel for testing, then you're exploiting game rules. If you've put intakes somewhere where they wouldn't receive airflow, then you're exploiting.

If you decide to use 6 radial stuck to an octagonal strut instead of one of the normal intakes, then I wouldn't classify that as exploiting game rules. You just bodged together an intake which works better than any of the single-piece stock ones.

[Srpadget]

I'm a terrible cynic. Near as I can tell, pretty much everybody's real working definition of airhogging is "something other people do which is more extreme than what I do, and makes airbreather SSTO's too easy/ugly. It's cheaty. What *I* do, on the other hand, is just making use of the physics of the Kerbal universe and isn't cheaty airhogging at all."

[Chiboko]

I'd say its putting intakes in a place where they wouldn't actually get any airflow such as directly behind another intake. Anything else is fair game though personally I think covering the entire leading edge of a wing with intakes looks ugly.

[Jouni]

Generally I put the airhogging threshold at a flame-out at 24,000m. If you can go higher than that on jet engine power, you've got too many intakes (and if you only flame-out at that altitude, you have quite a lot more than you really need as it is).

By this definition, your airhogging threshold is around 1 intake per 2-4 engines, depending on TWR.

The intakes-to-engines ratio is a fundamentally flawed metric, however. In high-altitude flight at near-orbital velocities, the thrust of a jet engine is proportional to the amount of intake air available. Thrust, in turn, is only needed to overcome drag, which is proportional to vehicle mass (assuming stock aerodynamics). Therefore the service ceiling of a plane depends on the number of intakes per tonne of mass, while the number of engines is mostly irrelevant.

[Levelord]

Airhogging is intakes clipped in such a way they'd not even work in real life, such as on backwards, or inside other parts, or stacked ridiculously.

There are real aircraft that deliberately use extra or extremely large intakes for high altitude work however

But What if I put my intakes backwards but still maintain a 1:1 intake/engine ratio? Is that still airhogging?

[sal_vager]

But What if I put my intakes backwards but still maintain a 1:1 intake/engine ratio? Is that still airhogging?

Kinda hard to pull air backwards into your engines in real life, so see how that works for ya

[Levelord]

Kinda hard to pull air backwards into your engines in real life, so see how that works for ya

Dangit! I always wanted my planes to look aesthetically cool

[Overfloater]

I say it's air-hogging when you can circularize on jet motors alone.

[Captain Vlad]

I'm a terrible cynic. Near as I can tell, pretty much everybody's real working definition of airhogging is "something other people do which is more extreme than what I do, and makes airbreather SSTO's too easy/ugly. It's cheaty. What *I* do, on the other hand, is just making use of the physics of the Kerbal universe and isn't cheaty airhogging at all."

This seems to be the most honest and accurate definition.

[lordlundar]

Kinda hard to pull air backwards into your engines in real life, so see how that works for ya

Difficult, but not impossible. Conventional (ie not RAM or SCRAM) are turbine systems after all so it's bound to get some air. It's just horribly inefficient. But then I'm pedantic like that.

[Brotoro]

Clipping intakes inside other intakes or other parts is beyond airhogging...it's into the realm of too unrealistic for my tastes.

Intakes behind other intakes where they couldn't get air is also too unrealistic for me.

Spamming on a massive number of air intakes is basic, everyday airhogging. Usually ugly. But a real-world ship could be designed with a large intake(s). I feel that I'm exploiting the game if I go beyond two of the large intakes per engine. Those new structural intakes have smaller intake area, so I might not be uncomfortable with more of those.

Happily, the new Shock Cone air intakes are wonderfully efficient, and I've found I can get similar results by replacing two of the old Ram Air Intakes with one of those Shock Cone intakes.