RB.106, RB.122 and RB.128 and Zeus turbojets

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
886
Reaction score
1
We rather need a decent definition of what the RB.106 was, we have a few bits of information and even a rumoured name as the "Thames", which I find a little suspect for a fighter engine, but it does fit RR's naming conventions.

Supposedly a 'drop in' replacement for the Avon. RR seems to see it as a powerplant for single engined fighters, and one thats superior in the supersonic regime. Seems also to put out more power at low speeds compared to the Avon, but its efficiency falls back to similar levels in the transonic regime, perhaps a feature of diameter?

Reheat seems rather closer to the later reheated Spey, does this reflect their development of the reheat unit?

RR also seems to have toyed with the idea of a scaled down variant for twin engined fighters, we know of at least two aircraft designs that incorporated this.

A scaled up version is aimed at the F155T fighters, by increasing diameter.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,104
Reaction score
1
Zen,

You beat me to it. This is probably the most interesting of the never-were post-war British engines. The scaled up RB.106 for the F.155T was RB.122 and there is an RB.128 designation floating around as well. Apparently there is a sketch of the RB.128 somewhere in the national archives.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
886
Reaction score
1
The 'normal' figure I have from BSP.1 is 15,000lb and the reheated figure seems a little more fluid though over 21,000lb.

Scaled up version must be able to match the Gyron at least (RB.122), the scaled down version has two figures (unknown RB No.), possibly reflecting either the understanding of what they could get out of it or different sizes (diameters) of engine. Those being 7,000lb (for the Bristol design) and 10,000lb (for the EE design) both the mach2 soaking effort (I forget the ER number). The latter is said to have a reheated thrust of 12,100lb, possibly so low because of a small chamber diameter or due to the efficiency of the turobjet in burning up the oxigen and leaving so little left for reheating.

But does this relate to nearby RR numbers? Such as the very small RB.123?

We do know it superseeds the scaled up Avon.
We also know its a two spool engine, and it uses a lot of titanium.
Rumour has it the Orenda Iriquois had a lot of its influence on it.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,104
Reaction score
1
R.B. 106. No official mention has yet been made of any engine with this designation, but references to such a unit have appeared several times in various publications. All such reports referred to it as a high-thrust turbojet and it is described as having a two-spool layout. An American report states that westinghouse are anxious to manufacture it under licence.
From: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1956/1956%20-%201246.html?search=RB.106

CF-105 and RB.106: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1956/1956%20-%201246.html?search=RB.106
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,037
Reaction score
8
National Archives

AVIA 65/12 Sponsorship of RB 106: financial policy 1953
AVIA 53/457 Westinghouse Corporation/Rolls Royce Ltd agreement for technical collaboration in axial engine field 1953-1958
AVIA 54/1333 Rolls Royce turbine engines: general data 1949-1955
AVIA 65/592 Rolls Royce Avon engines: development policy 1955-1961
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,104
Reaction score
1
Derbyshire record office: D5290/2/5 1960s

Contents:
Miscellaneous file containing drawings of RZ.2, RZ.3, RZ.12 and RZ.14 rocket engines, plus drawings of RB.128 jet engine and other aeronautical projects, 1960s

Also, Professor G L Wilde worked on the RB.128 supersonic engine: http://archive.pepublishing.com/content/0k715gp17xm85717/

Flight Global estimated that expenditure on the RB.106 totaled £100,000- a paltry sum given that £4.75 million had been spent on the Orion turboprop at cancellation.

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1967/1967%20-%201672.html
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,037
Reaction score
8
Anyone have specs for RB.106? I have RB.122 and RB.128 specs but not RB.106.
 

Hot Breath

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Rolls Royce designed a successor to the Avon turbojet, the RB106. It was intended to be approximately the same size but have a higher thrust. The only thrust I've found mentioned for it was 21,750 lbs. Was this wet or dry?

Bristol designed an engined named the "Zeus" which was intended to be a competitor to the RB106 but I have been unable to find any specifications for it. Does anybody know what it's size/performance was intended to be? Did it ever make it off the drawing board (or even that far)?
 

Hot Breath

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Bristol Zeus Reported
THE following is a rough translation, from the Italian, of a recent paragraph in Alata:

"People in industrial circles are speaking of a new Bristol turbojet with the name Zeus. This engine is to have an expected rating of 9,000kg(19,200lb) thrust."
[http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1955/1955%20-%201647.PDF]


BE.30Bristol Siddeley Zeus two-spool turbojet.Intended for Avro 726 interceptorRated at 8000 / 10000lb (35.6 / 44.5KN).
[http://www.skomer.u-net.com/projects/turbines.htm]
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,037
Reaction score
8
Hot Breath said:
Rolls Royce designed a successor to the Avon turbojet, the RB106. It was intended to be approximately the same size but have a higher thrust. The only thrust I've found mentioned for it was 21,750 lbs. Was this wet or dry?

Bristol designed an engined named the "Zeus" which was intended to be a competitor to the RB106 but I have been unable to find any specifications for it. Does anybody know what it's size/performance was intended to be? Did it ever make it off the drawing board (or even that far)?

RB.106 thrust level was 15,000lb dry and with afterburner, 20,750lb
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,037
Reaction score
8
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/rd/9f558749-716b-465a-864d-f846111b69a1

Pencil technical drawing of the RB.128 jet engine

Derbyshire Record Office
New Street
Matlock
England
DE4 3FE
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,104
Reaction score
1
Bristol BE.30 was proposed in late 1953 and utilised contra-rotting spools, proposed for a developed version of the AW.169. Bristol competitor to the RB.106?

I have to say, with Bristol, Rolls Royce, Armstrong Siddeley and DeHavilland all working on supersonic jet engines in this period (and at least three of them getting government funding, DeHavilland, RR and ASM) the sense of waste through duplication is remarkable.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
966
Reaction score
0
Or the incentive of competition driving them on? Rationalisation seemed to slow things down. Aubrey Jones was against the over concentration of the industry and state direction/control. Odd how right wing Sandys and Amery pursued it.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
966
Reaction score
0
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1427535/Aubrey-Jones.html

Jones supported a different form of rationalisation, with firms having a more diverse base as with Hawker Siddeley taking over Brush. He recognised it was not competetive against the US. Fewer projects were needed but still from private firms who competed.

Sandys and Amery still believed the UK could take on the US, with European collaboration if needed. Concorde, VC10, Trident resulted.

Jones' section outlining his views is the most modern sounding part of the Plowden report.
 

rinkol

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
There seems to be several common threads in the decline of the British aircraft industry

1. Too many players competing for a limited market. This goes back to the pre-war period. One of the things that always mystified me was how Napier was able to continue in the aero engine business through the 1930s - the Dagger had to be more trouble than it was worth. I would agree that there were too many projects for supersonic engines and that it would have been better to put more attention on engines that could be used for commercial aviation.

2. Hide bound business management . Outstanding people such as Roy Fedden, Frank Whittle and Stewqrt Tresilian were hamstrung by inept business leaders (who often owed their positions to family connections) and ended up being pushed out.

3. Faulty planning. Surely someone in a position of authority must have realized that the big flying boats had limited prospects in the post-war environment.

I would note that these sorts of things were not unique to the UK, but the UK was not in a position to afford them.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,104
Reaction score
1
And Sandys was, at a base level, absolutely correct. UK industry was weak because it was fragmented but the skills and technology were there. Its a shame about come investment decisions though.
 

kitnut617

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
212
Reaction score
0
rinkol said:
One of the things that always mystified me was how Napier was able to continue in the aero engine business through the 1930s - the Dagger had to be more trouble than it was worth.
I would note that these sorts of things were not unique to the UK, but the UK was not in a position to afford them.
It caught up with them during the war with the Sabre resulting in English Electric buying them out.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,037
Reaction score
8
This was cut from my P.1121 book.

Rolls-Royce RB.106

RB.106 was an advanced twin-spool jet engine design apparently intended to be dimensionally interchangeable with the Avon. Initially aimed at 10,000lb thrust, by November 1954 this design was clearly too small for the OR.329 fighter and a scaled-up RB.106 (37in diameter increasing to 41in) was being prepared (this becoming the RB.122). Development of the smaller design continued with design and materials improvements, eventually being expected to have a design thrust of about 15,000lbf, 20,750lbf in reheat. The RB.106 project was cancelled in March 1957, at a reported total cost to the taxpayer of about £100,000.

Rolls-Royce RB.122

This engine was essentially a scaled-up RB.106 for OR.329 fighters. It used eleven compressor stages across two spools, possibly a four-stage LP compressor and seven-stage HP compressor though this could not be verified. The first stage was transonic and two stage turbines were used on each spool, with design turbine inlet temperature being 1,275ºK. Dry thrust was 19,500lbf, and 27,800lbf with reheat. Compressor diameter was 40in, maximum diameter 41.3in, and reheat pipe diameter 45.25 in. Weight was expected to be 4,642lb compared to 4,200lb for PS.26 Gyron, due to the greater compression ratio requiring more stages, while design air mass flow rate was almost identical to Gyron. It promised similar thrust to the Gyron at a slight weight penalty but with lower fuel consumption, and hence was listed as the first choice engine by several F.155T submissions. Relatively little work was done on it, but as a scaled-up version of RB.106 (which had resulted in some hardware) Rolls-Royce were confident in their ability to deliver. However, Rolls-Royce would not commit company resources to make prototype engines without a sizable and firm order, which ruled it out of consideration the P.1121.

Rolls-Royce RB.128

A further development of RB.122, which was even larger with increased mass-flow and pushed thrust to 23,000lbf dry and 31,600lbf with reheat. Weight was 250lb higher than RB.122, SFC 7% higher in dry thrust but 6% lower with reheat. The second issue of Fairey's F.155T brochure proposed a revised design with RB.128 engines and rocket engines deleted. Like the RB.122, lack of orders meant it did not proceed.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
886
Reaction score
1
Interesting and impressive. Thank you for sharing that.

Any and all of these developments, would have quite some potential had they been turned into hardware.

Did you come across anything on the scaled down version during your research?
 
Top