Talk:Rolls-Royce Spey

Low altitude fuel consumption

Flying at low altitude requires much more fuel; the air-fuel mixture needs to be kept very close to a constant value to burn properly, so more air means you need to use more fuel. is incorrect, it just harder to move through high dencity air. PeterGrecian 12:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the phrasing isn't really the best, but the general idea is correct -- with a higher *amount* of oxygen at lower altitudes, the engine needs more fuel to burn, or it'll run too lean and flame out. (You're also correct, of course -- there's more drag at lower altitude due to higher air density as well, but this is only a minor contribution to the greater fuel burn.)--chris.lawson 15:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

PeterGrecian is correct: more drag needs more thrust needs more fuel. 86.181.115.142 (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Medway / Conway

This excellent webpage states that the Spey was derived from the Rolls-Royce RB141 "Medway", but the Wikipedia article states that it was derived from the RB.80 "Conway". Which is correct? -Ashley Pomeroy 00:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It was derived from the RB141 Medway - see 1967 Flight article here: [1] the RB163 Spey was basically a reduced-size Medway with improvements included that were learnt after the basic Medway had been designed.

The Medway fell by the wayside after BEA reduced the size requirements for the de Havilland 121 design. BEA then had to later have a fourth booster engine added to the Trident to restore performance back near to what it would have been with the original three Medways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Are these stats correct as a friend of mine (ex RAF) reckoned the dry Spey was approx 1200kg and also shorter and thinner than these figures, anyone confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.246.150 (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Time between overhauls

The Conway article has this:

Nevertheless the Conway was successful on these designs, and was the first commercial aero engine to be awarded clearance to operate for periods up to 10,000 hours between major overhaul.[3]

(It's worth mentioning here that [3] is a (dead?) link to a Rolls-Royce website).

So, what is the authority for the claim in this article that the Spey was the first 10,000 hour engine?

86.176.163.224 (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a 1967 Flight International article on RR that cites a world record 10,000 hour TBO for the Conway RCo.12 here: [2]

It may be as well to point out that the Spey wasn't a commercial engine, at least not initially. It was a military one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Not so: it came into being to power the Trident airliner! 81.131.247.66 (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right - I was thinking of the Buccaneer. The initial civil Spey was the RB163-1 of 1959 - the first military Spey was the RB168-1 in 1960.[3] BTW, the first Speys were flight tested in the inner nacelles of an Avro Vulcan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that:

A fact from Rolls-Royce Conway appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 3 March 2008, and was viewed approximately 27 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know that the Rolls-Royce Conway, a turbofan engine, was the first commercial aero engine to be awarded clearance to operate for periods up to 10,000 hours between major overhauls?

and thought that it was about time to delete the claim from this article! 86.181.177.63 (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)