Point-by-point response to suggestions regarding alterations for components like shafts and plungers.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 8\11\ 11-page068 | |
| Date | 24th February 1937 guessed | |
| (sheet 2) alteration may be of importance. As far as we are concerned the question can be determined as best suits production. (5) A slight reduction to the thickness under the thread is made, but we do not think this will matter. (6) Already referred to. (7) We are doubtful whether anything can be done to make a satisfactory job of a riveted pin which is .050 too long. We have no objection to a trial being made provided that if any disadvantage is found in use, we - revert to GW.934. We do not see that there is any point in perpetuating a bad feature for the sake of an existing piece which will go out of production when the new box comes into production. If G.57195 was also in use on the Phantom III there would be more reason to try and retain it. Servo Drive. (8) We should like to know what the saving is. Second Motion Shaft. (9) As No.(8) above. Reverse Shaft. (10) The cases are different. The reverse shaft is higher up in the box on the Wraith, and we have plenty of time to observe the effect of the removal of the plug. Experiments have shown that the plug is necessary on the Phantom III, and it must not be removed unless some compensating change is made. With regard to the further suggestions:- (a) We agree. (b) The Phantom plungers are not suitable for the Wraith because they require an extra .025 travel of the sliding piece before they are out of the grooves in | ||
From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).