• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Roll Royce Spey 205: 25,000lbs thrust mystery?

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
49
http://www.thrustssc.com/thrustssc/Engineering/engines.html

And then somebody suggested the Spey. 'Oh God! - not the Spey!' was Richard Noble's immediate response, but things got better when it was pointed out that a final development of the afterburning, bypass turbofan Spey fitted to Phantoms had been developed with crystal turbine blades that allowed either greater power or longer life - guess which one the Thrust SSC team were interested in? Although the programme did not go into production, fortuitously some of the people who'd worked on it were still around. Not only that, but they also knew the whereabouts of two of only twelve engines to be built in this format and since the need for them had long since gone away, Thrust SSC soon found itself the proud owner of two 25,000lbs thrust Spey 205 engines still in Rolls-Royce wrappings, plus a couple of 202's for shakedown runs and systems checks.

I have never seen a reference to the Spey 205 in Jane's All The World's Aircraft.

Was the reheated thrust indeed "25,000lbs" as opposed to the 20,500lbs of the Spey 202/203?

What was the dry thrust of the Spey 205?

Did the mass flow differ from the Spey 202/203?

Was the Spey 205 ever shipped to China?
 

Mike Pryce

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,056
Reaction score
135
The idea was to use the Spey 205 in RAF Phantoms when the intention was to run them on until 2000 or so. When they were withdrawn in 1992 the project had just started, with a small number of Spey 205s available, which became surplus so Noble et al could get them.

I don't think it ever flew, and in RAF service the thrust would have been lower to allow a longer overhaul life. Thrust SST only needed a short life so could run at max possible thrust.
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
487
As I don't want to start a new tread I add it here ...

Hopefully someone can help me, as I'm looking for the following specifications of the Spey 202 / WS-9: ???

Thrust to Weight Ratio:
TIT (℃):
Airflow kg/sec (lb/sec):
Dry Weight kg (lb):
Maximum Diameter mm (in):
Length mm (in):


Thanks in advance, Deino
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,358
Reaction score
3,379
Mk 202

Max thrust (dry) 12,250 lb st (with afterburner) 20,515 lb st.
Length: 5,204 mm (204.9 in)
Diameter: 825 mm (32.5 in)
Weight: 1,857 kg (4,093 lb)
Mass flow: 91.63 kg (202 lb)/s
T/W ratio would be 20,515/4,093 = 5.01

(From Janes Aero Engines)
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
487
Thanks a lot !!
... and do You have the same data for the MiG-23's engine, the R-29 ?

Thanks again, Deino
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,358
Reaction score
3,379
Not sure on mass flow - will check tomorrow elsewhere when wife isn't asleep in bedroom with all my aviation books. ;D
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
487
Thanks ... but two additional questions reg. diameter: I found somewhere 1,093mm ... and regarding TIT in °C ?? ... any info ?
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,358
Reaction score
3,379
I imagine that 825mm is inlet diameter, and 1093mm is the maximum diameter at its widest point.

Bypass ratio should be 0.7 and pressure ratio 20.7. Not found TET/TIT figure.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,358
Reaction score
3,379
SPEY 202 figures from RAND report. Notable differences.

BPR: 0.64
pressure ratio: 16.9
TET: 2,043 deg F
Mass flow: 234lb/s
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
487
Found some (more or less) official dat afor the WS-9 posted by "tphuang" at http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=252&page=19

this is a piece on WS-9, thanks to chenium on CDF for posting it.

Quote:
航空报
本报讯 2007年12月28日,凝聚着中国几代航空人心血与汗水的“秦岭”发动机通过生产定型,标志着我国航空发 动机研制跨入一个新的阶段。

“秦岭”发动机由中国一航西安航空发动机(集团)公司主承制。它的生产定型是对研制企业生产过程、工艺流程 、质量管理、基础管理及批生产能力的一次大检阅,是我国航空发动机生产史上一次重大突破,必将为提高企业的 核心竞争力,促进企业持续稳定发展创造更加有利的条件。“秦岭”发动机为中国“飞豹”战机装备了一颗强健的 “中国心”,并成为国内批量装备部队的较大推力的涡扇发动机,对于提高我军的装备水平、促进航空发动机产业 发展具有重大的推动作用。

“秦岭”发动机研制是国家重点科研项目。在研制过程中,党和国家领导高度重视,各有关部门通力合作、全力支 持,面对繁重的生产科研任务,各参研单位以振兴航空为己任,密切协作,不断探索,勇于实践,超常拼搏,稳扎 稳打抓产品质量,群策群力促任务完成,管理措施落实到位,生产系统全面提速,大力加强技术创新,不断探索新 工艺、新方法,按照研制要求进行工装设计制造,突破了一系列技术难题。各参研单位积极进行管理创新,调整生 产布局,进行大规模技术改造,极大地改善了“秦岭”发动机的生产条件,保证了秦岭发动机研制工作的开展,为 我国航空发动机的研制积累了宝贵经验。(马宽新)


——————————————————————————————————————

秦岭”MK220涡扇发动机在保持WS-9发动机外廓尺寸和附件布局基本不变的情况下,在继承国内成熟技术的基础上,通过运用大量成熟的先进技术和 多项预研成果,从增加发动机涡轮前温度和减轻结构重量两个方面对WS-9(斯贝MK202)原型机进行现代化改进,大幅度提高了发动机的技术性能,达到了 M53P2发动机的技术水平。

“秦岭”MK220发动机从1994年开始进行原型机研制到2005年通过设计定型审查,历经1 2个春秋。

“秦岭”MK220涡扇发动机在WS-9原型机的基础上作了如下几个方面改进:
1. 采用全新设计研制的带气动雾化喷嘴的环形燃烧室,高压涡轮叶片采用气膜加对流复合冷却技术
2.对风扇,压气机的结构重新进行了设计,在设计过程中借鉴了国外一些先进涡扇发动机的结构设计方案,风扇 由原来的5级改为4级,高压压气机右12级改为10级。
3.采用鱼鳞板结构的收敛--扩散超音速尾喷管

技术参数:
最大加力推力(daN)    9800
中间推力(daN)      6370
加力耗油率(kg/daN/h)   2.02
耗油率(kg/daN/h)     0.67
推重比          6.55
空气流量(kg/s)      96.9
涵道比          0.62
总增压比         21.5
涡轮进口温度(K)     1550
最大直径(mm)       1095
长度(mm)         5211
质量(kg)         1527
作者: 先进射水鱼 发布日期: 2008-1-03
达到了M53P2发动机的技术水平--
据说近年来生产的WS9部队反映很好,据说得到了"皮实"的评价.

I find this kind of interesting, they are comparing it to M53P2 used on M2K. Interestingly, the thrust seemed to have increased from dry thrust of 54.3 kN and 91.3 kN for the original Spey MK202 with a T/W ratio of 6.55
 

norseman

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
42
Reaction score
34
I know dry thrust Speys & TF41's were bench tested in the 17,000 - 17,500lb region and a variant of the A-7 Corsair was mooted at one point. Afterburning versions in the 27,000lb+ area were also talked off though not sure how far the testing got. I had heard that upgraded TF41's were offered for the F14 and F111 and considering their engine problems in the early 70's it would have been a good fit. I had also heard that over 25,000lb thrust was dooable in 1967 from RR with a Spey model.
Another interesting avenue which was dropped after a lot of bench testing was the military Medways (which the Spey was developed from). A friend of mine who worked in RR way back in the day talked of a dry thrust in the 22,000 - 23,000lb area for this engine with afterburning well over 30,000lb. Target aircraft for it were the Saab Viggen and the Vickers competitor to the TSR2 though I do remember this engine being mooted for the TSR2 as well. Seemingly it was the original preferred choice for the Viggen until RR cut the purse strings. Considering the American and Russian domination in military turbofans in these thrust regimes it does seem Britain really missed a trick.
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,345
Reaction score
117
AW&ST in April of 1967 had a very good article on RR-Allison efforts on an afterburning TF41. In the test cells, both theirs and the ones at AEDC, they were getting 26,000 lbt in full afterburner, quite reliably.
 

norseman

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
42
Reaction score
34
Had an interesting conversation with my ex RR friend last night about this topic and he remembers well the potential of the Spey and Medway designs which as per usual funding issues got in the way of. I asked him about the Spey thrust in the late 60's and he confirms 26,000lb+ reheat was no problem in 67/68 and was very reliable and could have been made available very quickly for a customer. He also says they did actively look at 18,000lb+ dry and 28/29,000lb reheat options and felt they were achievable by the early 70's if not sooner in a reliable and commercially viable way. He also confirmed that F14 and F111 options were looked at along with Mirage F1, a couple of Mig 21 re-engine projects and also a Hawker Hunter re-engine project though was unsure about what variants though half remembered a 13,500lb version dry for the Hunter. He also said 14,500 - 15,500lb dry versions were offered for the Nimrod as well so it is ironic it has taken up to the MR4 version 40 years later to get this kind of thrust!
I quizzed him more on the Saab Viggen Medway but he says funding for integration was cut quite early into it's design but Saab were very keen to pursue this but not all at their own cost, he reckons on 22,500/32,000lb approx for the production Medway for the Viggen and bench testing had been very positive and successfull and there was potential for a lot of growth. He also lamented a bit on the RR RB106 which he said had the chance to be a world beater in the mid to late 50's as it was a league above what anyone was producing in the fighter tubojet market at the time. He says it was drop in replaceable for the RR Avon but was more fuel efficient and initial production models were pitched in the 15,500 to 17,500lb dry - 21,500 to 26,000lb reheat bracket but again it was canned after winning the competition to be engine for the Avro Arrow. He is also pretty sure they tested a slightly bigger version pitched for some of the huge projected fighters of the day and also as an upgrade for the Arrow possibly called the RB.108? which was aimed for the 20,000lb dry, 30,000lb reheat bracket.
Noy sure of the intake requirements but can you imagine something like the Lightning with twin RB.106 engines!
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,006
Reaction score
710
Gosh to have some decent figures for the RB.106!

The increased daimeter version is the RB.122 for the F155T fighters.

Most interesting however would be the smaller diameter version as offered on the EE's P6D. The power of almost an Avon on something rather smaller in size.

VERY interesting to hear about the Medway, those figures are quite high compared to those I've read for the submissions of fighter and strike aircraft.
 

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
49
An interesting post on the Spey MK.205 from another forum:

j79guy said:
Military Spey Folklore

A few years ago, when I worked for a natural gas company, we needed some overhaul parts for our Mk-1900 Industrial Spey engines. Being unhappy with Roll's parts pricing and delivery times, I was poking around to see what aircraft Spey parts might be compatible. I was at a turbine convention in Ontario, California, and bumped into a fellow who said that he had a number of Mk-203 Military aero Spey engines, and would sell one to me relatively cheap, to do a compatability study. We made the deal, and a few weeks later a whole Mk-203 Spey engine arrived, fresh from the engine bay of a Royal Airforce F4 Phantom. We stripped it down, and yes, there was a high degree of compatability. We paid for engine No.1, and negotiated the purchase of three other units. Engine No.2 arrived, exactly the same as the first, but the last two, were significantly different inside, and the engine data tag stated that they were "Mk-205". Nobody seemed to know anything about them, so we sent the HP Turbine blades for analysis. HP.1 Turbine blades were DS Cast, and HP. 2 Turbine blades were single crystal! HPT Stg-1 nozzles were completely different too, with a revised blunt-nose profile with three rows of film cooling holes, and 40% increased cooling air flow, combined with the trailing edge cooling slots.(As opposed to trailing edge cooling holes as per Mk-203/Mk-1900) Turns out our supplier of the engines had a good repoire with the British MOD, and a few months earlier had been notified that The MOD was to surplus Qty-62 Military Aero Spey engines. He had negotiated with The MOD a first option to purchase Qty-10 engines, and of this he made good and duly purchased the engines. About this time, Rolls Royce was working with the Chinese to build a military aero Spey shop in Xian, China to license build Speys there, in anticipation of the wholly indigenous, new Chinese fighter, the Chengdu J-10 "Vigourous Dragon" Rolls figured that they had an inside track with the MOD, and had exclusive access to the Qty-62 engines. They were livid when it was revealed that my guy had scooped them on Qty-10 engines, and cherry picked them at that! In the end, Rolls bought all of my guys' remaining parts, at his price. (Yes, he is now comfortably retired, somewhere in Cypress.) A couple years later, the Chinese can sniffing around my shop, inquiring as to whether I had any military aero Spey parts for sale. "Well as a matter of fact I do" They took every bit, and were especially happy to get their hands on the Mk-205 unique parts, as Rolls would not share that technology with them. (Mk-203 to Mk-205 status represents a 3000# increase in total thrust per engine, a significant boost in performance.)
This was well before ITARS clamped down on everyone, and today, I could not do the same, without appropriate export licenses, and permits.
Story doesn't end here.
Later, my guy in the UK says "I found two more Mk-203 Speys, in As-Removed condition, intersted in them?" Sure, why not? I bought them for a reasonable price, and a few weeks later they arrive.
Definately run, but not in too bad of shape. I strip them down, and put the industrial compatible parts in storage. So, I ask him,"I thought all the military aero Speys were gone to the Chinese", to which he replies, "they are, I found these in a scrap yard on The Isle of Wight". Now who the heck would have these engines on the Isle? Mr. Richard Noble. Yes, these two engines were from the Thrust SSC program, which currently holds the world land speed record of 763 miles per hour, set in 1996. Now Mr. Noble claims that the record was set using Mk-203 Speys. Rolls did supply him with a total of four engines for the Thrust SSC program, two Mk-203sand two Mk-205s. If this is indeed the case, the Thrust SSC car on display in The Smithsonian, has the never ran Mk-205s installed, and I gave away all the HP Turbine blades as paper weights to various friends and highschool classes who toured through my shop. I still have a few bits from these Mk-203 engines, if anyone is interested in some (potential) memorabilia. Can't be confirmed, and likely denied, but I think I have the real story.

Robin.

http://www.gas-turbines.ca/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
609
Reaction score
97
How would the more powerful engines have effected the Phantoms performance?
 

j79guy

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Don't mean to bring up a dead subject, but I have to start posting somewhere. New to this site, and I am the fellow who wrote the note on another forum regarding the comparisions between the Mk-205 Spey and Industrial. Back to the OP, to the best of mk knowledge, the whole purpose of the Mk-205 Spey program was to give the "K" Spec Phantoms better carrier performance. The Phantom was a bit of a dog off carriers, so the Brits wanted to improve the performance a bit. The result of the upgraded engine hot section bits simply allowed a higher TIT thus expansion ratio across the engine and thus a higher net thrust. To answer the question, simply, the Phantom would have had a better thrust to wieght ratio. Yes the MK-205 engines and components all ended up in China, with the exception of two engines which were stripped, evaluated and placed into industrial gas compression service in Western Canada. They performed well in that service duty.

j79guy
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
Carriers were long gone by the early 90s so they dont seem to fit the time-line for the 205, it is plausible that the concept had been considered for the K variants prior to carrier retirement and the idea was resurrected later on.

The Medway was effectively killed by the scaling down of the Trident to use Speys and selection of the Olympus over the Medway for TSR-2, a shame really as it could have been an outstanding engine for both applications. IIRC it was also selected for the AW.681 with the addition of thrust deflectors to aid STOL performance (in competition with Pegasus).

Bristols Turbofan line basically ended with the cancellation of the BS.100 (Could an evolved straight-through version have allowed for larger UK airliners at an earlier date?) and its forced merging with RR. IIRC there were various Bristol fan schemes, RB.102, Olympus with a large front fan?
 

alertken

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
598
Reaction score
167
Medway was a very late imposition by MoA. 681 had been funded 5/3/63, engine TBA. Farnborough Show, 9/63 had a 681 model with the (Pegasus) nacelles covered up. BSEL had Olympus 22R/TSR.2, 593/Concorde, Pegasus in Kestrel and looking good for a plethora of (largely) German V/STOL schemes; on 25/3/63 they had beaten twin-Spey for P.1154. RR had...zilch or less and was in dire straits. Medway was resurrected for 681, 9/63; then F-4K was ordered with very hot Spey, 27/2/64 and soon it was flavour of the year.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
So much time and effort expended on vectored, diverted, deflected thrust and lift engines by both Bristol (Whilst BS.100 tech, western world most powerful turbofan, never evolved into a viable commercial engine) and RR (RB.211 bankrupts them)......
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,582
Reaction score
884
j79guy: would those two 205s in Western Canada be the Speys for the Dempster Highway line?

[I saw an online ref to a Cooper Bessemer Coberra 3045 gas turbine compressor package with the gas generators being Rolls-Royce Spey "with a fuel rate of 7600 BTU/BHP/Hr at IS0 conditions -- 16,200 BHP 7600 BTU/BHP-H".) These were planned (back in 1978) for Station No.3 (Chilled) and Station No.7 (Unchilled).]
 

Similar threads

Top