Quite possibly the best SSTO I've ever made...

[Cupcake...]

Hey, I'm a total scrub with VTOLs and single stage stuff, but I followed the flight path laid out in the OP and only made it to about 1700m/s before my jet engine died on me. Repeated a few times. Could I need to throttle down and go slower?

Also, is the initial assent supposed to be super slow? I mean no criticism cause this things are totally amazing and I really wanna mess with them! Just wondering if their is anythin

Hmmm, no that shouldn't be right, you are leveling out at 40k right? That's where you can build up enough speed to get past orbital velocity. Are you running any mods by any chance? As for the takeoffs all my SSTO's are pretty slow off the ground so don't worry about that.

Cupcake...

[RocketBlam]

I hate to be that guy, but... the reason this craft works is because you spammed 8 air intakes for one jet engine, Right?

I mean, it's a nice, aesthetic design, and I like how you hid the mechanicals, but without 8 air intakes for one jet, it would barely be able to make Kerbin orbit, if even that.

[Cupcake...]

I hate to be that guy, but... the reason this craft works is because you spammed 8 air intakes for one jet engine, Right?

I mean, it's a nice, aesthetic design, and I like how you hid the mechanicals, but without 8 air intakes for one jet, it would barely be able to make Kerbin orbit, if even that.

I absolutely spam intakes (although the ones on the front/back are more decorative then useful), I won't pretend or claim otherwise. I kind of want to push the perfomance of my craft as hard as I can and if that means spamming intakes then so be it. Saying that I do have some rules I play by. I won't for instance use command seats if a craft has to re-enter the athmosphere, but you know, that's just how I play and everyone has their own rules. For some people that means 1 intake per jet for other people it means 4, each to his own, you know?

Cupcake...

[soulreaver1981]

I absolutely spam intakes (although the ones on the front/back are more decorative then useful), I won't pretend or claim otherwise. I kind of want to push the perfomance of my craft as hard as I can and if that means spamming intakes then so be it. Saying that I do have some rules I play by. I won't for instance use command seats if a craft has to re-enter the athmosphere, but you know, that's just how I play and everyone has their own rules. For some people that means 1 intake per jet for other people it means 4, each to his own, you know?

Cupcake...

100 airintake's per engine is my basic rule

butt most of the time there is not enough space on the plane to put them

example:

[Cupcake...]

Sweet baby jesus! You could take that thing to the Mun and back just using the jet! Now that ladies and gentlemen is how you spam intakes!

Cupcake...

Edited April 20, 2015 by Cupcake...

[Majorjim!]

100 airintake's per engine is my basic rule

butt most of the time there is not enough space on the plane to put them

example:

http://i.imgur.com/ipT2MWv.jpg

You know that after around 4/5 intakes you don't get any further benefit from them. That many is a waste and just adds weight.

[soulreaver1981]

You know that after around 4/5 intakes you don't get any further benefit from them. That many is a waste and just adds weight.

Oh okay.

its a old plane 0.23 i think.

[RocketBlam]

I absolutely spam intakes (although the ones on the front/back are more decorative then useful), I won't pretend or claim otherwise. I kind of want to push the perfomance of my craft as hard as I can and if that means spamming intakes then so be it. Saying that I do have some rules I play by. I won't for instance use command seats if a craft has to re-enter the athmosphere, but you know, that's just how I play and everyone has their own rules. For some people that means 1 intake per jet for other people it means 4, each to his own, you know?

Cupcake...

Ah, ok, well that's cool. As long as you recognize that just sticking more and more intakes on the aircraft until it does what you want isn't exactly engineering genius, then we are agreed.

[Majorjim!]

Ah, ok, well that's cool. As long as you recognize that just sticking more and more intakes on the aircraft until it does what you want isn't exactly engineering genius, then we are agreed.

Having said that, anybody can just add more intakes. Only Cupcake can do what he does. He IS a KSP genius.

[Roflcopterkklol]

You know that after around 4/5 intakes you don't get any further benefit from them. That many is a waste and just adds weight.

Ya want about 22.40 air intake (10-15 per engine) if you are only using shock cones, this will let you fly to 35km reliably, i have 28 inside my SSTM

Edited April 20, 2015 by Roflcopterkklol

[Rune]

You know that after around 4/5 intakes you don't get any further benefit from them. That many is a waste and just adds weight.

Depends heavily on the type, and if do the air-routing thing so the jets spool down without flameout you can get by on a ridiculously low amount. Seriously, lately my usual 4:1 ratio of ram intakes:jets is turning into 2 or three shock cone intakes, and those are slightly worse than the old ram intakes. Airhogging is much less of a thing now. OTOH, the "low velocity" radial intakes are worse than having nothing: strictly aesthetic. Having a big air reserve is only really useful if you use it to actually circularize on canned air.

Rune. I haven't seen that done in a while, actually.

[Majorjim!]

Depends heavily on the type,

Well... Yes.

In the case above, using any more that 4/5 of those intakes will give very, very little extra performance. There was no mention of a minimum..

Anywhoo, its all moot. Times they are a changin'.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Majorjim

[Roflcopterkklol]

Depends heavily on the type, and if do the air-routing thing so the jets spool down without flameout you can get by on a ridiculously low amount. Seriously, lately my usual 4:1 ratio of ram intakes:jets is turning into 2 or three shock cone intakes, and those are slightly worse than the old ram intakes. Airhogging is much less of a thing now. OTOH, the "low velocity" radial intakes are worse than having nothing: strictly aesthetic. Having a big air reserve is only really useful if you use it to actually circularize on canned air.

Rune. I haven't seen that done in a while, actually.

So the canned air orbit can actually be done? Interesting i will have to try and make something that does it.

[Majorjim!]

So the canned air orbit can actually be done? Interesting i will have to try and make something that does it.

You have 7 days.

[Rune]

Well... Yes.

In the case above, using any more that 4/5 of those intakes will give very, very little extra performance. There was no mention of a minimum..

Anywhoo, its all moot. Times they are a changin'.

That's very true, they are and this info will perhaps get outdated real quick. But don't sell the horse quite yet, I reckon things while changing a lot, won't really change a lot, if you get what I mean. Bottom line, if it looks right, it'll fly right, that's my guess. But we'll just have to wait and see!

Rune. The hype is palpable now.

[Majorjim!]

Rune. The hype is palpable now.

I know I can can taste it! Soooo clooose.

[panzer1b]

I like this, but like most of your designs, it weighs so much (cant really be helped with such inefficient 48-7ss).

I myself have more or less switched to purely ion craft. They are smaller, lighter, and have better dV then an equivalent conventional craft. Im actually looking into ion dropships, but sofar its quite hard to get a ion ship to carry a 10t tank (let alone a 50t heavy tank), with ions, and land in one piece all while staying below 20t itself and having under 30 engines!

[Cupcake...]

I like this, but like most of your designs, it weighs so much (cant really be helped with such inefficient 48-7ss).

I myself have more or less switched to purely ion craft. They are smaller, lighter, and have better dV then an equivalent conventional craft. Im actually looking into ion dropships, but sofar its quite hard to get a ion ship to carry a 10t tank (let alone a 50t heavy tank), with ions, and land in one piece all while staying below 20t itself and having under 30 engines!

I think DV figures can be quite misleading in some ways. For instance ion engines will give you loads of DV but the T/W is so poor you're gonna struggle to land on most planets/moons, especially if you have an SSTO with jets/fuel tanks. In some circumstances you're better off with medium efficiency/high thrust engines as engines with high ISP/low T/W ratios can end up burning more fuel just overcoming the effects of gravity. Hope this makes sence!

Cupcake...

Edited April 21, 2015 by Cupcake...