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).
Insufficient cooling on the Phantom II model and the inefficiency of its bonnet ventilators.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 24\5\ Scan317 | |
| Date | 1st September 1930 | |
| Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} X766. X766 X1085 X7260 To Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} from Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} Copy to Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} C. P.II. Cooling. Sg{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD}24/E1.9.30 You will remember that ever since I came back from America I have been expressing views to the effect that I thought our margin of safety was insufficient for the adequate cooling of P.II under conditions of maximum heat such as is met with in hot countries. My views on this subject still remain the same. I found on the car I was using in France that during the heat wave even running 30 or 40 miles an hour it was necessary to open the back ventilators on the bonnet to keep the temperature below 90. In a report of a brand new car delivered the other day, 195-GN, our man Fleck says that after running the car about 6 miles with the shutters and sliding ventilators fully open, the red light showed and he could not prevent it from doing so. The mean air temperature at the time was round about 90. I appreciate that we are now standardising four bonnet slides instead of two and the sooner this comes in on production, the better. There is one point in which I am very much interested and that is that, when we dropped from 4 shutters on P.I to two on P.II, we retained the back ones in preference to the front. I can only assume that this was done because tests at that date indicated that the back ones were more efficient than the front, but Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/RmR/AD21.8.30 points out that the ones we retained are the least efficient of the two. I should be glad if you would look into this matter with a view to finding out how it was when we came to make this change we retained the least efficient ones. I cannot believe that we did so purposely. Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} RECEIVED 2 OCT 1930 | ||