RR Spey
I have just read through this thread and am surprised to see no input from military Spey guys who worked on the Phantom. Yes, the CASC was indeed a mind boggling piece of kit to understand but the military Spey 202/203 had the additional joy of reheat complete with it's own fuel and oil systems. I had a fun time trying to change a CSDU for the first time when I found out about the oil outlet pipe which came out through the top of the unit and was near impossible to disconnect and reconnect. This was also the 'wrong ' engine for the F4 and took a team of five a full 8-10 hours to do an engine change as it didn't fit too well. Once it was in there though it was a truly impressive sight in full burner especially at night!
Bear in mind that the other military use of the Spey was on the Nimrod. The sortie profiles were unique, involving high and low level and routine in flight shutdown and relight. On the maritime aircraft at least one engine would be shut down on the majority of sorties. Relighting was usually accomplished by windmill starting for routine relights or air assist cross bleed when relighting following engine failure in 2+2 configuration. It was a reliable power plant, I never had one fail in flight or fail or to relight in 13 years on the aircraft.
YS
YS
From my dim and distant memories of engine changes on the Trident (where it was allegedly supposed to fit ), those took the best part of a shift to accomplish.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: manchester
Age: 74
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CSDU on the F4 was indeed a nightmare to replace. The comment made about changing it in a bay situation is absolutely correct.
We found this out when a couple of Woodhall Spa engine bay lads were posted on to the squadron (111) and were astonished to find out we were expected to do a CSDU change on wing.
However, I found the bigger CSDS on the 1-11 easier as it was slightly more accessible and the stand supplied was replaced by 2 fitters.
We found this out when a couple of Woodhall Spa engine bay lads were posted on to the squadron (111) and were astonished to find out we were expected to do a CSDU change on wing.
However, I found the bigger CSDS on the 1-11 easier as it was slightly more accessible and the stand supplied was replaced by 2 fitters.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,369
Received 86 Likes
on
60 Posts
For those whose ear drums were the recipients of the dulcet sound.........
A bit off topic but I always understood the problems with the F4 and the Spey were induced when we decided to waist the fuselage and shoe-horn the engine in....not helped by the No 7 ? tank in the fin......which leaked. Had some dealings with British World...some very good engineers there.
A bit off topic but I always understood the problems with the F4 and the Spey were induced when we decided to waist the fuselage and shoe-horn the engine in....not helped by the No 7 ? tank in the fin......which leaked. Had some dealings with British World...some very good engineers there.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: manchester
Age: 74
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "coke bottle"shape of the F4 was straightened out to get the Spey in. This affected the area rule characteristics.
The 7 tank was not in the fin, it was the last tank between the engines. It was permanently locked closed, valve controls in the right undercarriage bay (I think).
It was not used because it was prone to venting on rotation, straight on to the reheat flame.
The 7 tank was not in the fin, it was the last tank between the engines. It was permanently locked closed, valve controls in the right undercarriage bay (I think).
It was not used because it was prone to venting on rotation, straight on to the reheat flame.
Last edited by John Eacott; 3rd Jun 2019 at 23:05.
And another Spey lift, this time a Phantom Spey out of Leuchars to the Ark Royal. Better engine coverings or better preparation of the engine in its carrying mount!
So the final 7 years of Ark Royal had the two FJ squadrons using the same basic engine in completely different aircraft types, Buccaneer S2 and F4K Phantom: was this paralleled anywhere else?
So the final 7 years of Ark Royal had the two FJ squadrons using the same basic engine in completely different aircraft types, Buccaneer S2 and F4K Phantom: was this paralleled anywhere else?
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,369
Received 86 Likes
on
60 Posts
The "coke bottle"shape of the F4 was straightened out to get the Spey in. This affected the area rule characteristics.
The 7 tank was not in the fin, it was the last tank between the engines. It was permanently locked closed, valve controls in the right undercarriage bay (I think).
It was not used because it was prone to venting on rotation, straight on to the reheat flame.
The 7 tank was not in the fin, it was the last tank between the engines. It was permanently locked closed, valve controls in the right undercarriage bay (I think).
It was not used because it was prone to venting on rotation, straight on to the reheat flame.
I've always understood that the Spey was chosen solely to give UK manufacturing input and it did adversely affect performance - "lots of money for a worse aeroplane."
However I've recently read that without the Spey - or more accurately, with the original engines - we couldn't have used it on our carriers.
This goes against the accepted story but if it's true why isn't it better known?
Bear in mind - "I know nothing" - it's only something I read somewhere fairly recently.
However I've recently read that without the Spey - or more accurately, with the original engines - we couldn't have used it on our carriers.
This goes against the accepted story but if it's true why isn't it better known?
Bear in mind - "I know nothing" - it's only something I read somewhere fairly recently.
Dog Tired
Dunno if it is fact but I was informed (during the course) that there was, in the US, a senior eng person who was able to squeeze the engine into our newly-built F4s because the yanks couldn't.
Ever wondered where the Spey engines and engine spares went to from the RAF F-4M FGR.2 Phantom fleet?
90 Speys Mk202s were sold to China for use in their Air Force and Navy Xian JH-7/JH-7A Flounder fighter bomber fleet.
From the e-disposals document that used to be online.
'Spey Mk202 Engines. The contract to supply 90 Spey Mk 202 engines to an overseas customer, which started in 2000, was successfully completed on schedule in June 2001. The engines, which were sold through Rolls Royce plc and also included a large package of ex-RAF spares supplied by Military Aircraft Spares Limited, were originally fitted to the RAF’s Phantom aircraft until they were retired from service.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_JH-7
China also licence produced the Spey Mk202 as the WS-9 Qinling.
90 Speys Mk202s were sold to China for use in their Air Force and Navy Xian JH-7/JH-7A Flounder fighter bomber fleet.
From the e-disposals document that used to be online.
'Spey Mk202 Engines. The contract to supply 90 Spey Mk 202 engines to an overseas customer, which started in 2000, was successfully completed on schedule in June 2001. The engines, which were sold through Rolls Royce plc and also included a large package of ex-RAF spares supplied by Military Aircraft Spares Limited, were originally fitted to the RAF’s Phantom aircraft until they were retired from service.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_JH-7
China also licence produced the Spey Mk202 as the WS-9 Qinling.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spey pedigree.
RAF Requirement for Canberra Replacement was issued 9/57. RR schemed RB.140, then derived RB.141/142 Medway. Bristol Olympus won TSR.2, but Medway was design baseline for DH bid for BEAC's medium haul Reqt, until they reduced its size. RR scaled down, 14,000lb to 10,000 as Spey, ordered for DH.121 Trident, 1/3/58. Medway continued to be schemed in parallel and was design baseline for Boeing 727, mid-59 almost to its 30/11/60 launch. Spey/BAC-111 followed, launched by Laker, 5/61. Medway continued to be offered, selected for RAF HS681 V/STOL transport, 9/63 till cancellation 2/65. SAAB had chosen it for Viggen, but then moved to P&W JT8D.
RN had been lumbered with P.1154, 18/2/63 with single BS.100, common with RAF: what RN had decided they wanted, as early as 1960, was reheated Spey-in-F-4B. Not J79 because Phantoms would first be deployed on Ark Royal, Eagle and Victorious (eventually on aspirant CVA-01/03). The calculation was the bolter case, where half-second slam reheat response was seen as available on Spey, not on J79.(RN had secured dry Spey, ordered for Buccaneer S.2, 1/62). RN was allowed to buy F-4K/Spey and quit P.1154, 2/64.
When P.1154(RAF) was cancelled 2/65, RAF wanted straight F-4D/J79. Roy Jenkins, Minister of Aviation, knowing TSR.2 was also for the chop (4/65), persuaded Ministers that something must be preserved for UK industry: Spey-for-RAF F-4M was agreed (as was to be Harrier, which RAF had not then wanted; so was MR Comet-with dry Spey: Nimrod). As offset for F-111K, US DoD put Spey as TF-41 into later A-7s; many other applications followed (inc. a licence to Xian Red Flag, 12/75 for Harbin H-7).
In 1966 RR was cascading Speys, whereas Bristol Siddeley was scratching for business, making a JV with P&W to join JT9D: that would threaten RB211 so RR bought BSEL and killed UK-in-JT9D. They could not have afforded that without Spey business.
RN had been lumbered with P.1154, 18/2/63 with single BS.100, common with RAF: what RN had decided they wanted, as early as 1960, was reheated Spey-in-F-4B. Not J79 because Phantoms would first be deployed on Ark Royal, Eagle and Victorious (eventually on aspirant CVA-01/03). The calculation was the bolter case, where half-second slam reheat response was seen as available on Spey, not on J79.(RN had secured dry Spey, ordered for Buccaneer S.2, 1/62). RN was allowed to buy F-4K/Spey and quit P.1154, 2/64.
When P.1154(RAF) was cancelled 2/65, RAF wanted straight F-4D/J79. Roy Jenkins, Minister of Aviation, knowing TSR.2 was also for the chop (4/65), persuaded Ministers that something must be preserved for UK industry: Spey-for-RAF F-4M was agreed (as was to be Harrier, which RAF had not then wanted; so was MR Comet-with dry Spey: Nimrod). As offset for F-111K, US DoD put Spey as TF-41 into later A-7s; many other applications followed (inc. a licence to Xian Red Flag, 12/75 for Harbin H-7).
In 1966 RR was cascading Speys, whereas Bristol Siddeley was scratching for business, making a JV with P&W to join JT9D: that would threaten RB211 so RR bought BSEL and killed UK-in-JT9D. They could not have afforded that without Spey business.
Last edited by tornadoken; 5th Jun 2019 at 10:39.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, we once did a proposal for the US Navy essentially changing out the Civilian CF on a Challenger 601 for a Military TF-34 as the S-3 version, at least, has an additional Generator pad. Very useful when you're looking for all the Electrical power you can get for your "Systems Trainer" aka Jammer Bird.
BTW I'm not sure there's much commonality between the Olympus 593B in Concorde and previous Military but lower thrust versions.
BTW I'm not sure there's much commonality between the Olympus 593B in Concorde and previous Military but lower thrust versions.
I've always understood that the Spey was chosen solely to give UK manufacturing input and it did adversely affect performance - "lots of money for a worse aeroplane."
However I've recently read that without the Spey - or more accurately, with the original engines - we couldn't have used it on our carriers.
This goes against the accepted story but if it's true why isn't it better known?
Bear in mind - "I know nothing" - it's only something I read somewhere fairly recently.
However I've recently read that without the Spey - or more accurately, with the original engines - we couldn't have used it on our carriers.
This goes against the accepted story but if it's true why isn't it better known?
Bear in mind - "I know nothing" - it's only something I read somewhere fairly recently.
BTW I'm not sure there's much commonality between the Olympus 593B in Concorde and previous Military but lower thrust versions.
After the cancellation of TSR2 there had been a suggestion that the aircraft could be used for developing the Concorde engine - but that was too big to fit.
Last edited by kenparry; 7th Jun 2019 at 16:44. Reason: typo