0.25 KSP air intakes compared

[m1k3ol]

Ah, nice to see that...

Just a small balance note (so, an opinon ), but I think that the Radial Intake should have a drag stat as well ("option", I know there's a default one of 0.2)...albeit not as big as the RamAir or the ShockCone

I mean, it's quite big even if it just sits in the fuselage...but the amount of air it can take is big as well, so, balance is justified

This comes since, well, any new player making a plane will get the idea it should somehow intervene with the structure due to size, even if the idea of not having any drag ( other than the default the others' have) it's because it is not a "full intake" like the other ones, like, being in it's own category with the other radials...which the other ones are quite justified with the amount of air they can take, and the physical form (like the new one, quite streamlined)

Edited November 14, 2014 by m1k3ol

[numerobis]

What do you mean? All the intakes have drag. There's two bits to the drag coefficient:

1. The base drag coefficient, which is 0.2 for most of them, 0.3 for some.

2. Extra drag, which depends on area (more area => higher drag coefficient), angle of attack, and speed, max of 2.0 no matter what.

This means that at hypersonic speed, intakes have a total of 2.2 or 2.3 drag coefficient (which goes into the usual drag calculation); and that intakes with less area have lower drag coefficient at low speed.

[m1k3ol]

What do you mean? All the intakes have drag. There's two bits to the drag coefficient:

1. The base drag coefficient, which is 0.2 for most of them, 0.3 for some.

2. Extra drag, which depends on area (more area => higher drag coefficient), angle of attack, and speed, max of 2.0 no matter what.

This means that at hypersonic speed, intakes have a total of 2.2 or 2.3 drag coefficient (which goes into the usual drag calculation); and that intakes with less area have lower drag coefficient at low speed.

Yeah, as I mentioned above, I know there's a default one ( 0.2), but...somehow it feels "weird" that the Radial has just the same as any other intake...aside from others like the ShockCone which would be the ones getting 2.3 I guess...

As I added before, just an opinion , I know that even if the Radial could go from 2.2 to 2.25 it would be negligible to make any big difference .......but it would feel a bit "alright"

Edited November 14, 2014 by m1k3ol

[LordFjord]

Thankfully I got pointed to this thread as I am messing around with this kind of stuff lately.

I did some similar experiments here, but I based them around the intake area * intakespeed values, what I called intakevolume/sec.

I haven't run as many and as detailed tests as described here but I wanted to add my results to the discussion. Maybe we find the holy grail of air intakes or whatever

To sum up my findings:

Engines running on identical intakevolume/sec values, even though being powered by different types of intakes, flamed out at the same time.

There are more tests needed to really prove this, but its a start.

[battlefieldaces]

The same jet at the same altitude consumes a set amount of intake air. The source is not important as long as there is enough air to use. Well, that means the weight per surface area is the actual thing we should be looking at. If i remember correctly one of the radial intakes has physicsignifiance=1 so you should be better off using that one.

[DiamondExcavater]

What mod is that? that plane look awfully familiar. pretty realistic!

[GoSlash27]

All,

I ran the numbers based on Numerobis' script, and came up with some conclusions about "best" intakes for SSTO use.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/106114-Stock-KSP-90-intake-comparo-for-SSTO-turbojets?p=1648763#post1648763

The best performance will be had using the ram air intake. The best value (balance of price and performance) will be had using the circular intake. The best utility will be had using the XM-G50 intakes. Any other intake type will be inferior to these 3 choices.

My reasoning is that an SSTO spaceplane will need intakes that will keep the engine lit at 42 km altitude and 2,300 m/sec velocity. Any intake can do this so long as you spam enough of them, but they won't weigh the same, exhibit the same drag, or cost the same.

The big driver in these test results is the intake area. If all of these were normalized for equal intake area, then drag would become the dominant factor.

Best,

-Slashy

[g00bd0g]

Is the air supply affected by the slip angle of the intake?

[Janos1986]

In conclusion, the old radial intake is a bit OP despite its uglyness?

[GoSlash27]

Is the air supply affected by the slip angle of the intake?

It is.

Best,

-Slashy

- - - Updated - - -

In conclusion, the old radial intake is a bit OP despite its uglyness?

Not really. It's specs are actually pretty vanilla. It's just easier to attach more of them because they're radial mount.

The reason they do so well in these tests is simply because there are two of them in use.

Best,

-Slashy