Spey-engined Phantoms

[seagull61785]

Years ago somebody told me that the RAF's F4 Phantoms, which were powered by the Rolls-Royce Spey engine, were limited to a top speed of around mach 2 (I think).

The reason I was given at the time was that if you kept the throttle wide and the afterburner engaged, then the aircraft would 'accelerate until it disintegrated'.

My question to the WIX experts is this - Was this statement just a load of old Baloney? Or was there an element of truth in it?

Thanks

Barry

[Scooby]

Years ago somebody told me that the RAF's F4 Phantoms, which were powered by the Rolls-Royce Spey engine, were limited to a top speed of around mach 2 (I think).

The reason I was given at the time was that if you kept the throttle wide and the afterburner engaged, then the aircraft would 'accelerate until it disintegrated'.

My question to the WIX experts is this - Was this statement just a load of old Baloney? Or was there an element of truth in it?

Thanks

Barry

Yes, baloney.

The Spey was a superior engine. The Spey engined Phantom had a 30% shorter take-off distance, 20% better acceleration and climb.

One of the trade-offs was the wider fuselage and flaps and slats caused increased drag, so the top speed was reduced.

My cousin worked RAF Spey Phantoms, the engine was far more reliable mechanically than US engined Phantoms.

[JohnB]

Yes, it was a good engine...just not in the Phantom airframe.
RAF guys used to say they were the slowest, most expensive, Phantoms in the world.


The UK fanboys like to say they were the best Phantoms, but in many objective measurements they didn't measure up. The engines were selected ad much as for local content reasons as technical ones. Yes, they were newer than the J79, so they had several advantages.

If they were that much better, there would have been export sales of the Rolls-powered Phantoms to the Commonwealth (where the RR engines would have had a tariff/cost advantage...especially after the UK paid for the expensive R&D, and design work). That didn't happen.

[A68-1001]

good read about why the speys where slower on page 16 of this link
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=M7 ... ea&f=false

[Firebird]

Yes, it was a good engine...just not in the Phantom airframe.
RAF guys used to say they were the slowest, most expensive, Phantoms in the world.


The UK fanboys like to say they were the best Phantoms, but in many objective measurements they didn't measure up. The engines were selected ad much as for local content reasons as technical ones.

Main technical reasons was extra thrust to operate off our little carriers.......

Which we then, in true UK clusterf**k fashion screwed up by not converting the right carrier to operate the F-4, and then deciding we'll actually get rid of them anyway - and so hand over the F-4's to the RAF, which would have rather had the J-79 version to begin with to replace the F-111 order that got cancelled

[therealJR]

I was with the 57th FIS in Keflavik 77-78. We had F4C and E models at the time. We flew a couple of times with the RAF 43 Squadron, Fighting Cocks from Leuchars, Scotland. I recall they had F4K's. One of the blokes told me the fuselage was wider to accommodate the Rolls-Royce. They were also "smokeless" engines because as I was told, a conflict with the Warsaw Pact (at the time) would be fought below 5,000 ft. Anyway, when they left the "rock" they buzzed our flight line at about 100 ft and just below supersonic. We could see them come around in the distance, but no smoke trails like our oil burner C & E models.