TinWing said:
norseman said:
With these engine problems I am even more baffled why the option on the TF41/Spey wasn't looked at further especially with 17,500/27,000lb available in this timeframe (and an option of 28,000lb reheat on customer requirements - RR option from 71). Considering the reliability record the Spey derivitives had created (not least with the A-7) would have been an interesting fit and even better fuel economy and improved servicing was on the cards from what I have read. The British Phantoms with these engines would have been very interesting indeed.
While the thrust levels were improved over the TF-30, the TF-41 had its own issues, both with maintenance and reliability.
The notional Advanced Technology Engine that the F-14 designed around had to meet other requirements besides just increased thrust (unrestricted throttle movement, rapid response, function at high angle of attack, improve reliability, etc.). I doubt if the TF41/Spey could have met those, and if it couldn't what would be the point of moving to it? Come to think of it, the F100 didn't meet those requirements until it was faced with competition from the F110. Also, the TF41/Spey was still pretty much a "paper" engine. The TF41 was excellent in the A-7, but that was also a much less demanding role.
The Navy didn't have the money anyway, and if they did, they'd rather have put the money into something that would give them what the gov't originally promised. They finally got it with the arrival of the F110.
Also, the Navy watched what happened in the UK with the Spey on the F-4. The Spey Phantom was a disappointment, and in retrospect many concede that doing it was a mistake, given its performance vs. its cost. The USN probably saw no reason to spend all the money, even if they could have gotten it, on a similar experiment.
)
