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).
Secret memo discussing seven possible design schemes for a left-hand SS engine, focusing on camshaft and component interchangeability.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\T\January1929-February1929\ Scan153 | |
| Date | 15th February 1929 | |
| E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} ) FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} ) (At Le CanadelHenry Royce's French residence.) BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} ) C. to SG.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} WOR.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} SECRET. ORIGINAL R1/M15.2.29. REC'D AT WW. 18.2.29. SS.{S. Smith} ENGINE. X7722 LEFT HAND. 7090 I was sorry you did not say in your memo. which of the 7 possible schemes you preferred. To me No.7. seems best because- (1) We need not change in any way at present our SS.{S. Smith}R.H. (this is imperative.) (2) It meets the present requirements and gives us an opportunity of finding if both the drive and the oil submerged camshaft are preferred. (3) As it seems impossible to make everything interchangeable we think we might get some benefit or experience, with possibility of improvement, out of the variety (though naturally there is a small risk of undesirable experience.) (4) It would be an advantage if the units revolved the same way as at present - i.e. (a) Exactly the same camshaft carried over (b) dynamo, (c) magneto, (d) pump, (e) ignition tower drive, (f) oil pump. One or more of these would need to be altered and should be weighed in the comparison in addition to wheels. I intended my inclined tappets to take the place of BY's offset tappets, both engines alike as in his case. I think if we have one desaxe we ought to have the other, or our people at Derby, London, and America will imagine they cannot silence one or the other. I should only venture a difference if we could submerge in oil. So far I do not like either BY's or my idea. The decision is most complex. Sch. 3. seems the alternative to Sch. 7. though (4) is in the running, but also reverses all the units. There may be a distinct gain or loss in reversing the water pump. Anyway it seems this must be handed in some way. So that we could have 3. 4. and 7. Sch. 3. seems the only one where all the units continue to revolve in the same hand, and therefore ought to require no alterations except to their pinions which must grow in dia. unless the centreline of the camshaft could be lowered enough to keep all the wheel diameters the same. At the moment there seems little need of submerging the camshaft or of indirect driving of the camshaft. (1) | ||