Anglo-French RR Spey timeline

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
3,250
Are you referring to the Gnat Mk 5 and its VG variants? As far as I know it was to be powered by a pair of RB.153 engines, but I'm prepared to be proved wrong.
I've never seen any reference to a Spey-powered Gnat successor (I say successor as the Mk.5 had little if anything in common from the Midge linage).
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
230
Reaction score
367
Step 6 - Allison jumps into the fray, takes a Spey licence for the USAF A-7D; the USN likes the idea, ditches the TF30 for the A-7E - and both go TF41. Rolls Royce has now crashed their way into the US military pot of gold.
Could the A-10 Thunderbolt II and S-3 Viking have the TF41 instead of the GE TF34? Would they have been better aircraft as a consequence?

If Allison bought a licence on the Conway as well could the C-141 Starlifter have that engine instead of the P&W TF-33? Would it have been a better aircraft as a consequence?
 
Last edited:

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
747
Step 9 - In passing, the Medway-Spey Anglo-French connection screws the Jaguar out of history; it goes no farther than the AFVG, leading to a Hawk - Alphajet split on trainers.
What do they buy instead of the Jaguar?
There were Spey powered trainer/light Attack I think from the Folland stable.
Are you referring to the Gnat Mk 5 and its VG variants? As far as I know it was to be powered by a pair of RB.153 engines, but I'm prepared to be proved wrong.

I think the most likely substitute is the BAC (Warton) P.45 because BAC was the British half of SEPECAT. That aircraft was to be powered by a pair of RB.172s or a single Spey. However, in this version of history it could have had a single Medway engine if more power was required.
AMX comes to mind as a subsonic Trainer/Attack platform in lieu of the Jaguar that was also Spey powered, though it doesn't match this timeline.
 

CV12Hornet

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
107
Reaction score
176
Could the A-10 Thunderbolt II and S-3 Viking have the TF41 instead of the GE TF34? Would they have been better aircraft as a consequence?

If Allison bought a licence on the Conway as well could the C-141 Starlifter have that engine instead of the P&W TF-33? Would it have been a better aircraft as a consequence?
I don't think the A-10 and S-3 could have used the TF41 given it's over twice as heavy as the TF34. Certainly they wouldn't have been better aircraft, the Spey has almost double the Specific Fuel Consumption even on dry thrust and for both those aircraft fuel efficiency is paramount.

Using the Conway instead of the TF33 is certainly possible, but it doesn't really make for a better aircraft. The two engines are in the same thrust class and are basically the same size; however, the TF33 is more fuel-efficient and the logistical benefits of the TF33 are better, due to sharing the engine with not only the military B-52H, but also large numbers of civil DC-8 and 707 airliners. As such, the USAF is buying into existing domestic supply lines with the TF33, while with the Conway they'd have to set up an entirely new supply line.
 

CV12Hornet

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
107
Reaction score
176
The USAF didn't even bother upgrading the engines until the 1980s, and the Medway wasn't ready for most of the KC-135's production run. And by then the USAF had the option of either cheap-as-balls surplus TF33s from the civil market, or brand-new CFM56 engines.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
230
Reaction score
367
Could the A-10 Thunderbolt II and S-3 Viking have the TF41 instead of the GE TF34? Would they have been better aircraft as a consequence?

If Allison bought a licence on the Conway as well could the C-141 Starlifter have that engine instead of the P&W TF-33? Would it have been a better aircraft as a consequence?
I don't think the A-10 and S-3 could have used the TF41 given it's over twice as heavy as the TF34. Certainly they wouldn't have been better aircraft, the Spey has almost double the Specific Fuel Consumption even on dry thrust and for both those aircraft fuel efficiency is paramount.

Using the Conway instead of the TF33 is certainly possible, but it doesn't really make for a better aircraft. The two engines are in the same thrust class and are basically the same size; however, the TF33 is more fuel-efficient and the logistical benefits of the TF33 are better, due to sharing the engine with not only the military B-52H, but also large numbers of civil DC-8 and 707 airliners. As such, the USAF is buying into existing domestic supply lines with the TF33, while with the Conway they'd have to set up an entirely new supply line.
Fair enough.

Where there any US military aircraft that could have used the TF41, Conway or Medway and been better for it?
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
230
Reaction score
367
The USAF didn't even bother upgrading the engines until the 1980s, and the Medway wasn't ready for most of the KC-135's production run. And by then the USAF had the option of either cheap-as-balls surplus TF33s from the civil market, or brand-new CFM56 engines.
CFM56 was a joint project between General Electric and SNECMA.

The CFM consortium might not be formed in this timeline and therefore there wouldn't be a CFM56 engine or at least GE has to develop it alone.

My thinking is that in this timeline Allison and SNECMA have what are scientifically known as "nice little earners" with the licence-built Rolls Royce Medway and Spey engines. Perhaps the three firms will follow this up by forming a consortium to produce an engine in the same class as the CFM56. If they do the Allison-RR-SNECMA CFM56 equivalent may well be the KC-135R's engine in this timeline.

Did RR have an engine in the CFM56-class on the drawing board in the early 1970s that could form the basis of this engine?
 

CV12Hornet

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
107
Reaction score
176
Fair enough.

Where there any US military aircraft that could have used the TF41, Conway or Medway and been better for it?
Not the Conway and Medway. Both are competing with the civil JT3D and don't offer enough advantage to overcome the existing domestic supply chain for that engine.

The TF41 has more potential. During the development of the YA-7F it was proposed to fit the F100's afterburner to the TF41. If that's actually doable, then an afterburning TF41 could potentially replace the F-14A's TF30s in the 1970s for a massive boost in available thrust. It's probably not the cure-all the F110 was, but it's available earlier, is a major upgrade, shouldn't have onerous redesign requirements on the F-14A airframe, and above all doesn't require a massively risky development program - it can be sold as an "upgrade" of an existing engine.
CFM56 was a joint project between General Electric and SNECMA.

The CFM consortium might not be formed in this timeline and therefore there wouldn't be a CFM56 engine or at least GE has to develop it alone.

My thinking is that in this timeline Allison and SNECMA have what are scientifically known as "nice little earners" with the licence-built Rolls Royce Medway and Spey engines. Perhaps the three firms will follow this up by forming a consortium to produce an engine in the same class as the CFM56. If they do the Allison-RR-SNECMA CFM56 equivalent may well be the KC-135R's engine in this timeline.

Did RR have an engine in the CFM56-class on the drawing board in the early 1970s that could form the basis of this engine?
Not really, no. The RB.199 is too small and the RB.211 sized for widebodies.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
The TF41 has more potential. During the development of the YA-7F it was proposed to fit the F100's afterburner to the TF41. If that's actually doable, then an afterburning TF41 could potentially replace the F-14A's TF30s in the 1970s for a massive boost in available thrust. It's probably not the cure-all the F110 was, but it's available earlier, is a major upgrade, shouldn't have onerous redesign requirements on the F-14A airframe, and above all doesn't require a massively risky development program - it can be sold as an "upgrade" of an existing engine.

Bingo. Make some many sense at every level. In passing, an afterburning TF41 A-7E instantly negates the need for the Hornet - or in a more subtle way, makes its range issue far more lethal.

When you think about it...
- A-7D/E gets an American Spey, the Allison TF41
- F-4K gets an afterburning Spey... for a British Phantom !
- F-111B and Tomcat later, are crippled by goddam TF30.

Yet... nobody ever thought of putting an A-7E / F-4K hybrid TF41/Spey engine into the Tomcat.

It's a pity, really.

I wonder if the USN or USMC ever thought of buying some British Phantoms and use them in Vietnam ?
The closest thing from that I can think off, are the VG Phantoms concepts, which had Speys.

A F100 afterburner on a TF41... or a Spey 203 afterburner !
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
1,520
Well more accurately the advanced Pegasus that suffered from being not quite compatible with existing Harrier fusilages.
Did RR have an engine in the CFM56-class on the drawing board in the early 1970s that could form the basis of this engine?
Sort of earlier, as it was possible to scale up what became the RB.199 to Spey size. This in Brough study P.146.

RR had variations on the Medway theme incorporating later technologies. Much as they had with Spey.

And much later XG40 technology was scalable to a Pegasus replacement for P.1216. But ultimately that fed into EJ200.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
230
Reaction score
367
CFM56 was a joint project between General Electric and SNECMA.

The CFM consortium might not be formed in this timeline and therefore there wouldn't be a CFM56 engine or at least GE has to develop it alone.

My thinking is that in this timeline Allison and SNECMA have what are scientifically known as "nice little earners" with the licence-built Rolls Royce Medway and Spey engines. Perhaps the three firms will follow this up by forming a consortium to produce an engine in the same class as the CFM56. If they do the Allison-RR-SNECMA CFM56 equivalent may well be the KC-135R's engine in this timeline.

Did RR have an engine in the CFM56-class on the drawing board in the early 1970s that could form the basis of this engine?
Not really, no. The RB.199 is too small and the RB.211 sized for wide-bodies.
As I understood it RR's insolvency forced the firm to abandon several engine projects. I wondered if one of them might have been in the same class as the CFM56.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
230
Reaction score
367
Step 1 - DH.121 is not shrunk into the Trident, and give the Boeing 727 a run for its money.
Some of this repeats what I've already written, but here goes...

How good a run for it's money? My inference is that the numbers sold would be about the same. Is that what you meant?

Off the top of my head Hawker Siddeley/British Aerospace built 117 Spey-Tridents to 1978 and Boeing delivered the 1,832nd 727 in 1984.

That's a total of 1,949 aircraft.

If I have inferred correctly between 950 and 1,000 Medway powered Tridents were sold in your timeline, which is between eight and eight-and-a-half times the number of Spey powered Tridents that were sold in the "real world." It also means that between 2,850 and 3,000 Medway engines were built by Rolls Royce to 1984 for the "Big Trident" instead of the 351 Speys built for the "Small Trident" to 1978.

The Wikipaedia entry on the Spey mentions a proposal for a Spey powered Boeing 727. The engines were to be built under licence by Allison and were designated AR 963 (which may be a typo for AR 163). My guess is that there'd be a proposal for a Boeing 727 with Medway engines built under licence by Allison in this timeline and they'd be fitted to many of the 950 - 1,000 Boeing 727s that were still built in this timeline.

If the "run on its money" is of that magnitude Boeing might not produce the 737 which means more sales for the Douglas DC-9 (some of which would have Allison-built Medways instead of JT8Ds) and the BAC-111 (which in "this version of history" would have Medway engines instead of Speys).
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
230
Reaction score
367
As I understood it RR's insolvency forced the firm to abandon several engine projects. I wondered if one of them might have been in the same class as the CFM56.
Checking the forum archives, the RB.432 is probably the closest to the CFM56.
As far as I know... Amongst the "casualties" of RR's insolvency and subsequent "rescue" of the RB.211 were plans to "re-fan" the Spey for improved versions of the BAC-111.

I remember reading in David Robinson's history of the British Aircraft Corporation that one of the Firm's senior managers said words to the effect that if the more powerful Spey was developed he could sell 400 BAC-111s and it wasn't he could only sell 200.

The "re-fanned" Spey eventually ran in 1984 in the form of the RB.183 Tay whose main applications were the Fokker 100 and its variants. However, it was also fitted to some Boeing 727s to produce the Boeing 727-100QF.

The above made me think that a re-fanning of the Medway might be possible in this timeline and if it was that engine might be in the same class as the CFM56. What do you think?
 
Last edited:

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,823
Reaction score
2,868
The two aircraft that might have been the basis for successful Anglo French programnes with the Spey or a similar engine seem to me to be

Variable Geometry Strike Fighter (AFVG/Miarge G)

Competitor to Boeing 737 and 727 based on
BAC211/Mercure with twin engines
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
230
Reaction score
367
The two aircraft that might have been the basis for successful Anglo French programmes with the Spey or a similar engine seem to me to be

Variable Geometry Strike Fighter (AFVG/Miarge G)

Competitor to Boeing 737 and 727 based on BAC211/Mercure with twin engines
There was the Br.120 which was Breguet's unbuilt competitor to the Mirage G. That aircraft (which has already been discussed in this thread) was to have had a pair of Spey engines.

I don't see BAC-211 (or HS.132 or HS.134) happening in this timeline because we've got Medway-powered Tridents and BAC-111s.

This is what I wrote in Post 75.
I think that an earlier BAC-211 and for that matter the HS.132 or HS.134 entering production is unlikely.

I think Hawker Siddely (and from 1977 British Aerospace) would copy what Boeing did. That is the American firm improved the Boeing 727 for as long as possible before switching to the Boeing 757 in the late 1970s/early 1980s. Therefore, I think that HS/BAe would improve the "Big Trident" until about 1980 too.

The aircraft that replaced the "Big Trident" would be an equivalent to the real world's Trident 4 and 5 that were proposed in the middle 1970s. However, as I understand it (and I'm not sure that I have) it was decided to abandon the Trident 4 and 5 in favour of the Airbus A310. If I am correct I think that HS/BAe will still go for A310 but because the "Big Trident" sold in greater numbers than the "Small Trident" it will have the money to invest in a greater "work share".

Meanwhile, I think that a Medway-powered BAC-111 would sell better and for longer against the Boeing 737 and Douglas DC-9 than the "real world's" Spey-powered version. The BAC Board would probably put the extra profits into improving the BAC-111 to keep it competitive against its American rivals rather than the BAC-211 because that aircraft is even less likely to succeed in a market that includes the third-generation "Big Trident" as well as the Boeing 727-200 Advanced.

The 1980s could be interesting. Will BAe put its money into further developments of the BAC-111 which would mirror what Boeing did with the 737 and McDonnell Douglas did with the DC-9/MD-80 or would it do what it did in the "real world"? That is the Airbus A320. Except that it can afford to invest in a larger "work share" due to the Medway-powered BAC-111 selling better than the Spey-powered version.
Having written that I've often thought of making BAC-111 and Trident "Proto-Airbuses" to increase their sales in Europe. That is BAC and Hawker Siddeley would offer French and German firms shares of the work if their state airlines bought the aircraft.

I think Lufthansa was the first export customer for the Boeing 737. If that's true and the airline decides to buy Medway powered BAC-111s (that have a significant part of the airframe built by German subcontractors) in this timeline Boeing might not launch the 737.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
230
Reaction score
367
Bingo. Make some many sense at every level. In passing, an afterburning TF41 A-7E instantly negates the need for the Hornet - or in a more subtle way, makes its range issue far more lethal.

When you think about it...
- A-7D/E gets an American Spey, the Allison TF41
- F-4K gets an afterburning Spey... for a British Phantom !
- F-111B and Tomcat later, are crippled by goddam TF30.

Yet... nobody ever thought of putting an A-7E / F-4K hybrid TF41/Spey engine into the Tomcat.

It's a pity, really.

I wonder if the USN or USMC ever thought of buying some British Phantoms and use them in Vietnam ?
The closest thing from that I can think off, are the VG Phantoms concepts, which had Speys.

A F100 afterburner on a TF41... or a Spey 203 afterburner !
Why is it just the F-111B? Why not all the F-111s? In Post 43 you wrote...
The more the merrier ! This story goal, after all, is world dominance of the Medway - Spey family. :p
Earlier in the thread I wrote that it might have been possible to have Allison-built Speys on all the A-7s in this timeline.

I also suggested that in this timeline no civil Spey for the "Small Trident" may mean that the military Spey is developed instead of the civil Spey with result that there were more Spey-Buccaneers (and fewer with the Gyron Junior) and the engine would definitely be available in time for the A-7A, B, C and the first 67 A-7Es to be built with it instead of the TF30.

The civil Spey is still needed for the Fokker F28 and Gulfstream II & III. However, by doing an "Eric Morcambe" that is the same engines in a different order - military Spey before civil Spey instead of vice versa - the civil Spey would still be ready in time to be fitted to these aircraft.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
Ha ha Nomysirruc you got me.

I now want all F-111s to have TF41s. ;) But I would say, the Navy and F-111B need the TF41 more than USAF, because carriers ops.

Still, it could be an "A-7D / E" in reverse: the Navy shoot first, the Air Force follows. But they urgently needed F-111s in Vietnam, also UK and Australia: all of them planned with TF30s. A brutal shift circa 1968 seems hard to make.

The F-111B by contrast is already hopeless, plus the Tomcat is coming: in both cases, introducing the TF41 seems easier...

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

There is so much potential for "better than OTL" Anglo-French programs in 1965...

Calling Liébert & Buyck to the rescue (their stupendous 2005 book on Mirage F1 and its ancestry, Volume 1)
En France, les services techniques ont lancé une série
d'études d'avant-projets d'avions à géométrie variable chez
Breguet, Dassault et Nord Aviation. Breguet s'est vu notifier
dès avril 1963 un marché de veille technique pour étudier ce
que la Nasa publie et pour suivre les démarches de l’Otan
dans le domaine de la géométrie variable; cette société a
également pour tâche d'établir un avant-projet sur le thème
du F-111 et de dégager un argumentaire justifiant l'emploi de
cette innovation: cette étude conduit à proposer un avion des
la taille du F-111 avec un fuselage très large et surtout avec
une généreuse voilure dont la flèche maximum dépasse 70 degrees.
Cette étude s'accompagne de la recommandation de construire deux prototypes probatoires de taille réduite équipés
d'un Atar 9. Le projet le plus proche du Mirage G est le Br 122
dont le dessins n'est pas sans rappeler celui du Jaguar
Néanmoins, en février 1965, le projet de Dassault est retenu.

Damn. Seems Breguet had a chance to avoid Jaguar and snatch AFVG (or something close) in the 1963-65 era.

Breguet 122 (1220) obviously is the next after the 121 (1210) better known as Jaguar.

Frack. We have now the beginning of a scenario where Breguet may snatch Mirage G / AFVG altogether - and avoid Jaguar that OTL sunk rather than helped the company, which ended digested by Dassault in steps, 1967-72...

Edit: I went chasing an older but excellent book: Les avions Breguets by the late Jean Cuny.

Shazaaam ! Breguet 122s / 1220s. In all their glory. Much like Dassault "Mirage G + number" "Breguet 122 / 1220" covered all their 1963-66 VG work, of every size: from MiG-23 to F-111, encompassing Mirage G, AFVG, Tornado and Su-24 sizes.

Dassault huge advantage that tipped the scales and send Breguet toward the British, ECAT and Jaguar: they derived the Mirage G from the ongoing Mirage F2 that flew as early as June 1966. Breguet had no such option.
This saved a lot of time and money: only 18 months to fly the "G" in November 1967.

Also, it proves that the old myth "Dassault started the Mirage G all alone to screw AFVG they didn't like" - is bollocks.

The reality is that the French Government started VG designs at public companies, Dassault and Breguet 18 months before May 1965 agreement & AFVG: late 1963.

The AFVG was very much an unseasy and doomed compromise between (on the French side) the Aéronavale and Armée de l'Air, whose needs were actually impossible to get together.

Foch and Clemenceau could handle something as big as a MiG-23 or... a Mirage G. A 17 mt single-engine type.

But the AdA wanted something like a 23 mt Tornado... AFVG... Mirage G4... RAGEL... Mirage G8. A large twin-engine type to eventually replace the Mirage IVA. Except it could never afford it (here we go again...) just like the ACF and 4000 afterwards.

For nearly a decade (encompassing AFVG) the AdA and Aéronavale split and fought over these different VG visions. Which doomed AFVG itself, in passing.

In fact they put small and underpowered M45s on it to try and drag it down below 20 mt and keep the Aéronavale variant afloat. Just like Rafale... or Hornet later. Small turbofans = smaller type, below 20 mt so that Clems carriers could handle it.
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    28.9 KB · Views: 16
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    39.8 KB · Views: 16
  • 3.JPG
    3.JPG
    53.9 KB · Views: 14
  • 4.JPG
    4.JPG
    26.8 KB · Views: 16
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
Ok so we have three different Breguet 122
- 122 = Mirage G, with big TF306E
- 122A = smallest possible type, with Atar 9K50
- 122B = F-111 size, with two RB.153s

On the last two, the VG wings had more than 70 degree of sweep, so much they were to be attached to the horizontal tail... and make a perfect delta ! In fact this looks a lot like a less radical Republic / Fokker Alliance own take at a VG-delta hybrid.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
230
Reaction score
367
If....if Government had allowed it RR Medway was the preferred engine on OR.339 submissions, rather than BS Olympus.
Assuming funding of TSR.2, Viggen will follow. Reheat addition is already funded in TSR.2 effort.
Making license for Mirage F2 F3 G etc....an easier proposition.
Furthermore reheat is based on US licensed technology, so a potential advocate for Medway would exist in the US.......
Drats, forgot the TSR.2.
If TSR.2 has Medway engines instead of the Olympus will this timeline's alternative to TF30 for F-111 be the Medway built under licence by Allison instead of the Spey built under licence by Allison?
 

CV12Hornet

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
107
Reaction score
176
The above made me think that a re-fanning of the Medway might be possible in this timeline and if it was that engine might be in the same class as the CFM56. What do you think?
You might get it into a similar thrust-to-weight class, but the Medway came just before significant advances in turbofan materials, aerodynamics, and structure hit. You're likely to get a less efficient and less reliable engine than the CFM56.

If TSR.2 has Medway engines instead of the Olympus will this timeline's alternative to TF30 for F-111 be the Medway built under licence by Allison instead of the Spey built under licence by Allison?
Besides the fact that, based on the JT8D-RM8 conversion I don't think a militarized Medway would be sufficient to replace the TSR.2's Olympus engines, a militarized Medway is also liable to be too big for the F-111. Jet aircraft tend to be touchy about what engine they fit and you're likely to get similar difficulties fitting a militarized Medway into a TF30 F-111 as the Brits did with the Spey Phantoms.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
230
Reaction score
367
The AFVG was very much an uneasy and doomed compromise between (on the French side) the Aéronavale and Armée de l'Air, whose needs were actually impossible to get together.
That reminds me of the British attempt to produce a single aircraft to replace the Hunter and Sea Vixen, i.e. the Hawker Siddeley P.1154.

This made me think of a possible tie-in with the Getting a British Phantom thread.

In 1962 the British and French Governments agree to develop a twin-Spey powered fighter to replace the Sea Vixen in the FAA and the Aquilon in the Aeronavale. (The Crusader is still purchased, but in this timeline as a stopgap for the twin-Spey fighter.)

And instead of the P.1154RAF a single-Spey powered aircraft is selected to replace the Hunter in the RAF. However, the P.1127 Kestrel is still built and in 1965 the RAF decides that it wants a mix of improved Kestrels (i.e. P.1127 Harriers) and the single-Spey fighter. So the Harrier is still built as in our timeline and 200-odd single-Spey fighters are built for the RAF instead of the Jaguar.

Or it's the other way around, that is, a development of the P.1127 is selected to replace the Hunter in 1962 instead of the P.1154RAF and in 1965 the RAF changes it's mind and decides that it wants a mix of Harriers and an aircraft powered by a single-Spey engine which becomes an Anglo-French project that takes the place of our timeline's Jaguar.
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
230
Reaction score
367
@Archibald is probably best qualified to answer this.

Contrary to popular belief Jaguar M wasn't cancelled for political reasons. Instead it was cancelled because it failed its carrier qualification trials and the modifications required to make it operable from Clemenceau and Foch were prohibitively expensive. However, the French Government bought more Jaguar A/E aircraft to compensate so that it still bought the 200 aircraft that it had committed to. The Etendard was instead replaced by the Super Etendard although only 71 were built for the Aeronavale instead of the 100 that were planned.

Similarly (and as far as I know) the RAF originally wanted 110 Jaguar B and 90 Jaguar S. However, when it was decided that the Jaguar was too expensive to operate as an advanced trainer the mix was altered to 37 Jaguar B and 165 Jaguar S so that the British still bought the 200 aircraft they had committed to.

This brings me onto the last paragraph of Post 106.
Or it's the other way around, that is, a development of the P.1127 is selected to replace the Hunter in 1962 instead of the P.1154RAF and in 1965 the RAF changes it's mind and decides that it wants a mix of Harriers and an aircraft powered by a single-Spey engine which becomes an Anglo-French project that takes the place of our timeline's Jaguar.
Assuming that the naval version of the single-Spey powered aircraft passes its carrier qualification trials and that 100 are bought for the Aeronavale the result is that only 100 are built for the Armée de l'Air as was originally planned for the Jaguar.

That means that the Armée de l'Air is 100 aircraft short. What is bought to fill the gap? I presume that they are built on the production line that was occupied by the Super Etendard in our timeline.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
230
Reaction score
367
In Post 85 @Archibald wrote.
How about KC-135 with Medways ?
To which @isayyo2 replied in Post 87.
RAF/Commonwealth variant? Same goes for the C-141, though you’d need to boast it up to a 19,000-22,000 lbf rating.
It's not my alternative history of choice. However...
  1. HMG buys 30 KC-135K Stratotankers powered by Medway engines instead of converting 30 Victor Mk 1 bombers into tankers. This aircraft aught to have a longer service life than the converted Victors, which if correct means that there's no need to convert any Victor Mk 2s to tankers in the second half of the 1970s.
  2. HMG buys 24 C-141K Starlifters powered by Medway engines for the RAF instead of the 10 Belfasts and 14 VC.10 C Mk 1 that were bought in our timeline.
This will cost more in absolute terms, but HMG can afford it because of the extra Corporation Tax that BAC, Hawker Siddeley and Rolls Royce are paying. There will be a considerable "Dollar Cost" but this should be offset by the extra foreign currency that the increased sales of the BAC-111 and Trident are earning plus the extra royalties from Allison and SNECMA.

If that did happen the 12 KC-135Fs might have SNECMA built Medway engines instead of TF33s.

The aircraft probably have Conway engines rather than the Medways. That's partially because BOAC was operating Conway powered Boeing 707s and partially because the VC.10 C Mk 1 had Conways rated at 22,500lbs of thrust. Coming to think of it buying tanker versions of the Boeing 707-420 (designation KC-137K) might be better for the RAF than KC-135Ks.

For the Commonwealth connection I was going to suggest that the RCAF acquire 12 StarLifters with Conway engines instead of the 12 CC-106 Yukons. However, that doesn't work on timescale grounds because the C-141 entered USAF service in 1964 which is 3 years after the Yukon entered service with the RCAF.

My alternative history of choice is...
  1. An alternative Operational Requirement 315 and Specification C.132. That is they are for a British equivalent to the StarLifter which is powered by Conway engines. An initial run of 30 aircraft (including the prototype) is built for the RAF instead of the 23 Britannias that were built for the RAF and 7 V.1000s that were cancelled. The Canadian Government buys 12 for the RCAF instead of the 12 Yukons. This is followed by a second batch of 29 aircraft that is bought instead of the 10 Belfasts, 5 Comet C Mk 4 and 14 VC.10 C Mk 1s that were bought in our timeline. That's a grand total of 71 airframes, i.e. 59 for the RAF and 12 for the RCAF.
  2. HMG allows the RAF to buy 30 VC.10 tankers to replace the Valiant instead of the 30 Victor Mk 1s that were converted to tankers. That increases the number of VC.10s that were built in this timeline to 70. (That is 54 built in our timeline less 14 VC.10 C.1 (subtotal 40) plus 30 VC.10 tankers, equals 70.) The VC.10 tankers aught to have longer service lives than the Victor Mk 1s so in common with the Boeing purchase there aught to be no need to convert Victor Mk 2s into tankers in the late 1970s.
In common with the Stratotakner/StarLifter purchase it's more expensive than what happened in our timeline, but also in common with that version of history the extra Corporation Tax that BAC, Hawker Siddeley and Rolls Royce are paying should be enough to cover the difference. Furthermore, there's no "Dollar Cost" which is good for the Balance of Payments.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
230
Reaction score
367
I remember from my Tony Butler books, a BAC type with such engines, think it was the P.141. It looked like a Phantom. Might be fun to blend a Mirage F4 with it, in place of both Jaguar and AFVG.
A Brough project. IIRC a good deal of info on it in “From Spitfire to Eurofighter”
It's in the section about possible Buccaneer successors. These also include the B.123 and P.135 which were to have had reheated Spey engines.

The first paragraph on the P.141 reads...
In 1965, as the brainchild of Rod Melling, came the last of our attack projects, the P.141. This was offered as an alternative concept to the MRCA (later Tornado). The approach was to avoid the size and complexity incurred by having an airframe with the capability of fulfilling a number of roles by a modular approach, where role-related major components could be attached, on the assembly line, to a common core, thereby producing a smaller and cheaper product.
The second (and last) paragraph about the P.141 says that the characteristics of the aircraft were...
  • Two Bristol Siddeley/SNECMA M45G turbofans of 7,460lb dry thrust and 13,000lb with reheat.
  • Wing area 400sqft.
  • Span 35ft.
  • Length 56ft.
  • Basic weight 23,000lb.
  • Normal take-off weight 38,000lb.
  • Maximum speed about Mach 2.
  • Radius of action up to 1,000 miles.
  • A good short-field performance was also a feature of the design.
 

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
923
Reaction score
516
I remember from my Tony Butler books, a BAC type with such engines, think it was the P.141. It looked like a Phantom. Might be fun to blend a Mirage F4 with it, in place of both Jaguar and AFVG.
A Brough project. IIRC a good deal of info on it in “From Spitfire to Eurofighter”
It's in the section about possible Buccaneer successors. These also include the B.123 and P.135 which were to have had reheated Spey engines.

The first paragraph on the P.141 reads...
In 1965, as the brainchild of Rod Melling, came the last of our attack projects, the P.141. This was offered as an alternative concept to the MRCA (later Tornado). The approach was to avoid the size and complexity incurred by having an airframe with the capability of fulfilling a number of roles by a modular approach, where role-related major components could be attached, on the assembly line, to a common core, thereby producing a smaller and cheaper product.
The second (and last) paragraph about the P.141 says that the characteristics of the aircraft were...
  • Two Bristol Siddeley/SNECMA M45G turbofans of 7,460lb dry thrust and 13,000lb with reheat.
  • Wing area 400sqft.
  • Span 35ft.
  • Length 56ft.
  • Basic weight 23,000lb.
  • Normal take-off weight 38,000lb.
  • Maximum speed about Mach 2.
  • Radius of action up to 1,000 miles.
  • A good short-field performance was also a feature of the design.

I've read that 'modular approach' line in Roy Boots book and never really understood what was meant by that - what were the possible options?
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,276
Reaction score
450

If TSR.2 has Medway engines instead of the Olympus will this timeline's alternative to TF30 for F-111 be the Medway built under licence by Allison instead of the Spey built under licence by Allison?
Besides the fact that, based on the JT8D-RM8 conversion I don't think a militarized Medway would be sufficient to replace the TSR.2's Olympus engines, a militarized Medway is also liable to be too big for the F-111. Jet aircraft tend to be touchy about what engine they fit and you're likely to get similar difficulties fitting a militarized Medway into a TF30 F-111 as the Brits did with the Spey Phantoms.
I would think it would depend on how the Medway makes it onto the TSR-2. If it gets shoehorned in after the Olympus problems in development - difficult. However, if it is allowed to be used as the plane’s engine from the start - as many design submisssions wanted - then it can’t really prove any worse than the Olympus.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
230
Reaction score
367
I wrote in Post 104...
If TSR.2 has Medway engines instead of the Olympus will this timeline's alternative to TF30 for F-111 be the Medway built under licence by Allison instead of the Spey built under licence by Allison?
To which @CV12Hornet replied in Post 105...
Besides the fact that, based on the JT8D-RM8 conversion I don't think a militarized Medway would be sufficient to replace the TSR.2's Olympus engines, a militarized Medway is also liable to be too big for the F-111. Jet aircraft tend to be touchy about what engine they fit and you're likely to get similar difficulties fitting a militarized Medway into a TF30 F-111 as the Brits did with the Spey Phantoms.
To which @starviking replied in Post 111...
I would think it would depend on how the Medway makes it onto the TSR-2. If it gets shoehorned in after the Olympus problems in development - difficult. However, if it is allowed to be used as the plane’s engine from the start - as many design submissions wanted - then it can’t really prove any worse than the Olympus.
I thought that was what @zen meant in Post 40 when he wrote...
If....if Government had allowed it RR Medway was the preferred engine on OR.339 submissions, rather than BS Olympus.
That was what I was commenting on in Post 104.

I thought it went without saying that TSR.2 had Medways from the start when I wrote Post 105. (Or should it be? It went without writing.) Which was why I didn't say it. (Or should that be write it?)
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
1,520
I've read that 'modular approach' line in Roy Boots book and never really understood what was meant by that - what were the possible options?
My take is different cockpit and nose sections. But it could mean other things as well.
 

red admiral

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
762
Reaction score
312
My take is different cockpit and nose sections. But it could mean other things as well.

"Modular" is generally Industry code for "reducing requirements"

Or you end up with things like the RF-5 nose variants and have to buy more airframes
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
230
Reaction score
367
Step 1 - DH.121 is not shrunk into the Trident, and give the Boeing 727 a run for its money.
Some of this repeats what I've already written, but here goes...

How good a run for it's money? My inference is that the numbers sold would be about the same. Is that what you meant?

Off the top of my head Hawker Siddeley/British Aerospace built 117 Spey-Tridents to 1978 and Boeing delivered the 1,832nd 727 in 1984.

That's a total of 1,949 aircraft.

If I have inferred correctly between 950 and 1,000 Medway powered Tridents were sold in your timeline, which is between eight and eight-and-a-half times the number of Spey powered Tridents that were sold in the "real world." It also means that between 2,850 and 3,000 Medway engines were built by Rolls Royce to 1984 for the "Big Trident" instead of the 351 Speys built for the "Small Trident" to 1978.

The Wikipaedia entry on the Spey mentions a proposal for a Spey powered Boeing 727. The engines were to be built under licence by Allison and were designated AR 963 (which may be a typo for AR 163). My guess is that there'd be a proposal for a Boeing 727 with Medway engines built under licence by Allison in this timeline and they'd be fitted to many of the 950 - 1,000 Boeing 727s that were still built in this timeline.

If the "run on its money" is of that magnitude Boeing might not produce the 737 which means more sales for the Douglas DC-9 (some of which would have Allison-built Medways instead of JT8Ds) and the BAC-111 (which in "this version of history" would have Medway engines instead of Speys).
As @Archibald hasn't objected the above...
Step 1 - DH.121 is not shrunk into the Trident, and give the Boeing 727 a run for its money
Does the BAC-111 have Medways instead of Speys? Allowing it to have a proper development programme would allow it to give the Boeing 737 and Douglas DC-9 a run for their money.
The more the merrier ! This story goal, after all, is world dominance of the Medway - Spey family. :p
Orders for the Boeing 737s, BAC-111s and DC-9s to the beginning of 1981.
  • 867 Boeing 737s
  • 245 BAC-111s (BAC, Hawker Siddeley and Scottish Aviation were nationalised in 1977 and formed British Aerospace.)
  • 1,071 DC-9s.
Total of 2,183 aircraft.​
Source: The Observer's Book of Aircraft 1981 Edition.​

If the Medway powered BAC-111 gave the 737 and DC-9 as good a run for their money as the Medway powered Trident about 1,100 would have been sold by the beginning of 1981.

That's an increase of about 850 aircraft for BAC/British Aerospace and 1,700 engines for Rolls Royce.
 
Last edited:

alertken

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
666
Reaction score
338
So let's explore why none of the above happened. Pace RRHT: Fast Jets - History of Reheat Devt. at Derby ISBN 1 872922 20 1, Cyril Elliott, 2001, it was the view of Hayne Constant in 1950s that RR had no clue of the metallurgy of reheat. He was DD/NGTE (1946-48, D/NGTE -1958), then Chief Scientist/A.M., MoD(Air). The Scientific Civil Service in those days believed they alone explored the tree of knowledge; rude mechanicals, such as at RR, Bristol Aero-Engines, plodded off down the roads so paved. Those folk in 1956 arranged for Solar A/c Co San Diego (exhaust manifold maestros) to provide USN-funded reheat data and issued it to Bristol for Olympii.

By-pass Conway-Medway-Spey was 1950s Derby; turbojet Olympii were 1950s Bristol, preferred by NGTE for military applications: Hives only got Conway onto Victor 2, 1957, by taking a financial punt, offering (apparent) fixed Production price, where B.Ol.200 was not.

Reheat, seen as hard enough on turbojets, was seen as a bridge too far for (to be) turbofans: so the boffins were spring-loaded to Bristol for the engine for (to be) TSR.2. Avon-reheat slowed Lightning's deployment. RR instead was given a seam of technology-demonstrator funds for endurance-centric applications, civil and military, leaving performance-centric technology to Bristol. That seam led ultimately to Big Fans at Derby, RB199 at Bristol, so the RR we know today. But on the way, as BSEL lost most bar B.Ol.593/SST, they were envious of 1962-65 spirals of Spey applications. It was reheated Spey 202/F-4M that would fund RR's 10/66 takeover of BSEL.

Medway, to be developed at Derby and assembled or more at Allison, was Design Baseline for (to be) Boeing 727 right up to Launch Order, 5/12/60, Eastern+United, American A/L 11/8/61, when Pratt leapt in and bought the business with a rapidly-sketched derivative. RR by then had penetrated 707+DC-8, displacing JT3D/JT4A, so Pratt defended its turf with...fixed production prices and Guarantees for this and that. Hives understood that - he had kept Merlin on TCA's C-4M just so - but expensively. RR simply judged any such Guarantee in 12/60 would be crippling if called upon. So RR settled for what BEAC thought they wanted, something smaller, and took our Launch Aid to make that happen. (Forget claims of Eastern's disdain of a limey engine: CEOs do not bet their Co based on hunch-bias).

Even if... DH had ignored BEAC, to stay with the larger Trident, such that BAC could have done 1-11/500 sooner and with Medway, we cannot assert either/both would have greatly increased sales. DH Dove and V-A Viscount had done supreme business in N.America...for 2 equal reasons: proper Product Support, to defeat remoteness (which was replicated for BAC 1-11, so tick that box) and a clear USP: those products were competitive (Dove) or superlative (Viscount). As soon as Boeing chose to enter the Caravelle/DC-9/1-11 sector and Launched 737 with Viscount User Lufthansa, a Medway/1-11/500 would have been merely sort-of-competitive, not superlative. Medway/Tridents would have been (precisely) burdened by weight of short-field wing and clag Autoland, adding no perceived Value.
 
Last edited:

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
3,250
Agreed, totals of 950-1,000 Medway Tridents and 1,100 Medway 1-11s are fantasy figures.
As Ken points out, Dove and Viscount and Comet didn't achieve those levels of market penetration when they had few direct competitors in those classes.

Actually the 1-11 did very well in some areas, in Latin America for example it actually achieved better market penetration than the 727 and DC-9 during the late 60s/early 1970s but lost its lead thereafter due to stretched American competitors the 1-11 could not match when capacity was required. But most Latin American orders were for 2-4 aircraft per airline. BAC actually succeeded to selling to many airlines it approached in the region. But even if it had secured every customer it sought to woo and got repeat orders in the late 70s the total is probably not much more than 20-40 aircraft.
Even if the Medway airliners got a few European carriers to switch, they might have added 200 orders.

The big market is the US - that's where the bulk of growth is and as Ken rightly points out, P&W and GE, Boeing and McD wouldn't sit idle watching market share slipping away.

Market share (to early 1980s) looks to be:
Trident: 5%
1-11: 10.6%
UK share = 15%
This is not a terrible outcome given the small domestic market and reliance on exports. But it does show Trident waaaaay underperformed.

If we assume an extra 200 sales each from Medway power that would grow the market penetration to:
Trident: 17%
1-11: 19%
UK share = 36%
That's a small 400 airframes over 20 years but its enough to take a third of the market. The only rub is that a Medway Trident and a Medway 1-11 might start to become direct competitors and eat into each other's margins.
 
Top