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).
Letter clarifying a misunderstanding regarding the company's views on different engine bearing materials and associated lubrication systems.
Identifier | ExFiles\Box 115\4\ scan0079 | |
Date | 13th June 1940 guessed | |
- 2 - Cont'd.{John DeLooze - Company Secretary} Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}2/ML. I would be glad if you would consider this a personal matter because John Howlett, you and I are very good friends and we are not going to quarrel over business. All the same, you will appreciate that I do not intend to be told that I am stabbing anybody in the back. It occurs to me that some of John Howlett's competitors who are also, like a great many people in the automobile business, very good friends of mine, may have been inadvertently misquoting me to Pilkington. Alternatively, Pilkington may not have got a clear picture of my views on bearing materials. To clear up any misunderstanding, my picture of bearings is as follows : There is no better bearing material than Babbitt of the type that we have been using for the past 20 years, if the bearing load will permit of it being used without failure from fatigue. It's load carrying capacity has been improved lately by reducing it's thickness. However, high output aero engines and oil engines will not permit of Babbitt bearings being used unless the engine length is increased to an unreasonable extent. When one has to depart from Babbitt to high load carrying capacity materials then one has to choose from some form of lead bronze or A.C.9. We have never been able to demonstrate, nor, as far as we know has anybody else, that, given the necessary adequate supply of lubrication A.C.9. is not as good as anything that is on the market. In many cases on single cylinder tests under high output conditions A.C.9. has given better results than lead bronze. I could not possibly at any time have said that Rolls Royce have dropped it because we have never been in production with it on aviation engines and it was still being fitted to the last car we turned off the production line. As a matter of fact, we have had an astonishing run of success with it as a big-end bearing on that car, but we had to do a lot of development work to get the lubrication system right. There is no doubt at all that on the engine where you are having trouble the lubrication system does not conform to our latest practice. On your latest flat 12, however, you have brought the lubrication system up to date - Continued - | ||