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).
Oil cooler test failures and quality control issues with a Bentley Dummy Shutter set.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 131\1\ scan0363 | |
| Date | 28th October 1937 guessed | |
| -2- through the standard Mk.VI block. If you could carry out the standard matrix test and determine this head in advance of the writer's visit, it would be possible to test the defective block while the writer is at your works, and discuss the results. We are waiting to hear from you when the pieces are ready for the latest oil coolers so that the writer can come over to follow through the building of these coolers. We have tested the one which the writer brought back with him, and which was dipped as a whole, the top side and bottom plates being pressed together. This stood 395 pressure rises (to 200 lbs/sq.in.) before failure occurred at the edge of one of the side plates. Other dipped coolers have withstood 500 rises. However, we have cut up and examined the cooler and the solder band appears to be very good, and the cause of failure is not obvious. We will bring this cooler over for your inspection, however. We have now had a second dipped cooler fail on the test bed and sectioning and examination of same indicates clearly that the cause of failure is a poor solder bond due to poor metallic contact. We trust that you will urge the completion of the parts for the new coolers as far as possible. With regard to the Bentley Dummy Shutter set which we have received - frankly, we are astounded that you should send in a sample set of shutters which is intended to represent the production article with so much evidence of shoddy workmanship. We have attempted to fit these shutters to one of our matrix units, but this is hopeless, for the following reasons - (1) The bottom support plate holes are too small. (2) The holes in the top supporting angles are hopelessly out of position, as much as 1/2" in places. Further the finish of the top supporting angles is very bad, sharp corners have not been radiussed etc., while whoever marked out and drilled the locating holes apparently had two attempts at it, since one set appear to have been filled up and the new set drilled in the wrong place. continued. | ||