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).
Design modifications and alternative proposals for the Phantom radiator and bonnet.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 15\1\ Scan020 | |
| Date | 2nd February 1927 | |
| CERTIFICATE OF INSPECTION ROLLS-ROYCE ENGINES AND SPARES 7250 To CWB. Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} From DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} c. to C. PHANTOM RADIATOR ETC. DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}1/M2.2.27. X.8250 X.7250 Referring to CWB4/GM1.2.27. when we received express instructions in R1/M3.1.27., and R2/M6.1.27., to get something done in the matter of the radiator and bonnet appearance, we understood as a result of EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}'s visit to London that Sales had independently evolved a radiator almost identical with that in R1/M3.1.27. It looked from this that general agreement would not be difficult to obtain, and we prepared N.schs. 2346 and 2350 which we then believed embodied both Mr. Royce's and Sales ideas. Subsequently we learnt from CWB18/GM24.1.27. that .250 is the amount Sales wish to reduce the top tank, instead of .375 (or .400) as we originally understood, though there is an inconsistency between this .250 and the height (.385) which the shoulders have been raised. Mr. Royce also gave us .250 as an alternative. Constructionally it does not make any difference which is used, in fact, .250 is slightly easier. There is a slight loss of area which we regret, but probably it is not serious. The width of the flat at the top is also immaterial to us constructionally, though we have some doubt as to its effect on the appearance. If it is agreed, we suggest that Sales model (which, until we received CWB18/GM24.1.27 we thought was also Mr. Royce's and our model) should be left as it is, and either an alternative top to N.sch. 2350 be made for it, or an entire new model made to that drg. This would confine the discussion to these two slightly different shapes, and an agreement could certainly be come to. We are prepared to abandon the .400 tank reduction in favour of the .250, but we think there is still some controversy as to the width of the flat, angle of sloping sides, and size of filler. As regards the thickness of radiator in the side view, we do not think this is controversial as we are all agreed (we believe) that this should be increased as little as possible, and proposals have been made by us and embodied by us in N.sch.2346 sent to Leroy - to reduce it to within .250 of its present width. We send to CWB. a copy of DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}1/M25.1.27 for his information. DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} | ||