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).
Outlining required design work for the Ph.III model based on French testing results.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 91\1\ scan0526 | |
| Date | 29th September 1937 | |
| To By.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} from Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/Les.{Ivan A. Leslie} c. Da.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} X 300 Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/Les.9/MH.{M. Huckerby}29.9.37. PH.III. The following design work is required on Ph.III in order to make full use of the next French Testings. We are particularly keen to have the final design for threaded shackles. (1) Rear axle buffers. The buffers on 32-EX in France were unsatisfactory. The type of buffer fitted to Ph.III and the Packard appears to be more satisfactory. (2) Threaded Shackles. The provisional scheme for threaded shackles at the rear Lec.5668 has been satisfactory on 32-EX in France. We should like final designs for threaded shackles for the rear, and a silentbloc bush for the front end of the spring. (3) Cross-member behind radiator. There have been two cases of the front pan cracking. One on 34-EX which went to Niarobi, and the other, 35-EX in France. We think it is necessary to fit a sheet metal cross-member behind the radiator, as has been done on wraith. (4) Armstrong rear dampers. These have been fitted experimentally behind the rear axle on 33-EX, and enable one set of connecting links to be used for the dampers and roll rod. (5) Propeller shaft hits 3rd. cross member. This occured with the Hardy Spicer shaft on 32-EX in France. Although the contact at the top of the cross member is probably worse due to the buffer failures, there has also been contact either side of the slot in the cross-member. (6) Centre radiator stay. In view of the small rate of production and the fact that 32-EX was quite exceptional for radiator movement, we think it is unnecessary to fit the single stay if it means large design alterations. If, however, the result can be obtained by using the bonnet hinge tube as a stay and thus saving the cost of the present triangular stays, it would be worth the change over. Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/Les.{Ivan A. Leslie} | ||