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).
Future aero engine development, proposing a smaller, lighter engine over an inverted or intermediate-sized one.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 179b\1\ img338 | |
| Date | 24th February 1933 | |
| From R.{Sir Henry Royce} ORIGINAL C. to Mr. H.S. re. AERO ENGINES. H.S. was here on Wednesday the 22nd. inst., and during the talk that we had he pointed out that it would be many years before we got anything out of either the inverted engine, or the one of intermediate size, because they would have to go through the long process to prove soundness and efficiency, followed by a period to get the interest of the aircraft constructors, and even then its suitability to replace types developed in the meantime, with the improved Kestrel (altogether perhaps about 4 yrs.) Here again then it may be wrong to spend our energy and money at the moment. The thought occurred to me that since we can put the Kestrel up such a long way we could make it about 750HP. at 12000 ft. with the fuel at present promised. We should do better if we extended the range of our engines downwards instead of upwards. (The difference between Kestrel and Buzzard is an increase on Kestrel of about 40%, or a decrease on Buzzard of about 30%.) A smaller engine than Kestrel with its considerably lighter weight might make a very useful high speed military machine, and let us back into the 500HP. class (at 12000 ft) there appears to be nothing of such a size. I make these suggestions for consideration as to the best way of spending our money. A smaller model would not be a costly enterprise except for tools, which need not be made until the engine has been tested and found whether it attracted the attention of the aircraft constructors. I want it to be clearly understood that I am not proposing to make this and the P. V.{VIENNA} engine, but I should be cancelling the engine of 5.5" bore. The chief reason for this suggestion is that the smaller engines ought to put up such a wonderful performance for their dimensions - 33% reduced HP. ought to save 40% in weight. R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||