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 from Gordon Armstrong Patent Suspension discussing the design and production of dampers for the Phantom III.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 152\1\ scan0303 | |
| Date | 26th April 1937 | |
| 1293 TELEPHONE: BEVERLEY 321 GRAMS: ARMSTRONG'S SUSPENSION. The Gordon Armstrong Patent Suspension COMPANY LIMITED OUR REF: GA.WC.1. WALTHAM WORKS, OPPOSITE ST.{Capt. P. R. Strong} MARY'S CHURCH, BEVERLEY E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} YORKS. GORDON ARMSTRONG. A.M.I.A.E., F.{Mr Friese} Inst. PAT. N. O.{Mr Oldham} TILL. YOUR REF: Messrs. Rolls-Royce Ltd., DERBY. 26th April, 1937. For Mr.Leslie's attention. Dear Mr. Leslie, Thank you for your letter of the 23rd inst. and we are proceeding as per your requests in making up dampers. As you anticipate putting these on the Phantom 111 I would very much like to get a longer inside shaft bearing; we can easily do this by extending the boss providing you can accommodate this boss by putting a hole in the bracket. Failing having a hole put in the bracket, it would mean taking the flange further towards the back of the shock absorber and using more offset in the arm. The pressures that you are now testing out demands, I think, something better than a short bush that we have in that position. If this is done I do not see any reason why the damper should not stand up to the Phantom 111 work, as we have tested castings out this morning, and find that they stand pressures of 5 tons per square inch before bursting. Regarding the split intermediate lever, this should be easier to produce on the 1⅛" spindle than on the small one, as there is not nearly the amount of strain on the serrations at that diameter as there would be on the small shaft. With the outside arm, of course, there is no difficulty because if it is good enough for the inside it should be equally good for the outside, in which case the whole shock absorber could then be taken adrift without difficulty. Your new valve seems extremely interesting, and although we did not see that it would work at all when we first looked at your drawing, we are satisfied now that it has possibilities and should reduce the spring loads considerably. At the moment we do not see anything against it, but we are making one up to try it out. cont'd.. | ||