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).
Various engine options for a chassis, comparing the J.1, Peregrine, and a supercharged variant.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 179b\1\ img126 | |
| Date | 24th October 1932 | |
| FROM E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} TO SG.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} WOM. DV. ORIGINAL BENSPORT ENGINE. X & SC's I quite agree (and nearly added to my last memo. on this subject) that failing a blower we must change the idea of the engine. I think HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}' suggestion of applying the J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 1. engine to this chassis very good indeed, especially as it fits, and fills the space for the Peregrine plus the blower - i.e. just the right size. At the same time I understand that there will be a certain amount of pattern making work to be done such as changing the sump and altering the flywheel casing, as the present ones would be too near the ground. It will be remembered that when we made J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. we were surprised with the lightness. I cannot remember now whether it was the engine only or the whole chassis that was 1 cwt. lighter, although larger. For this, and several other reasons which I have not the energy to mention just now, it would appear much better to convert the J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 1. engine into a proper small edition of J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. and Peregrine of aluminium construction like J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. and fit it with cyl. liners so that a good many of the parts would be interchangeable with the proposed engine for 'SpectreCodename for Phantom III', which I understand now is to be the same bore. We think it would be a more satisfactory engine to build, partly because of separating the timing wheels from the crankshaft damper wheel, as well as making a considerable difference in the acceleration of the car due to the saving of weight. I hope this suggestion will be acted upon. Naturally it will be found that this particular car, as suggested, with the larger engine, will have much better accelerating power than the supercharged smaller engine. I believe this scheme finds favour with Mr. Bentley and several others of our staff, but it suffers the disadvantage of tax, and insurance, and it may lose on high top speed performance. It will gain on acceleration, silence, and probably smoothness, in fact, it becomes a first class RR. sporting car, which may or may not altogether meet the commercial dept's views. If however we decide to go on with the supercharged Peregrine, I must first express my disappointment at the poor progress we have made with blowers. As one understands the situation, the Powerplus blower is not sufficiently reliable and efficient for the reputation of our Co. to fit, and that the Roots (1) | ||