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).
Feasibility and technical requirements for Ricardo single sleeve and opposed piston engine designs.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 178\3\ img203 | |
| Date | 4th June 1932 guessed | |
| (3) application of a Ricardo single sleeve 2 stroke design at WW. for which it is easily possible to get the necessary information from Derby, and direct from Mr. Ricardo. I am therefore keeping Mr. Eyre a month at least on this work to see if we can find anything hopeful. In connection with the single sleeve, to get real satisfaction we want the austenitic hardened liners, and if it is possible to produce such a thing with its hard surface and better expansion ratio we feel it would justify a very large increase in the cost. It is with such a liner of substantial thickness, the only hope we should have of getting reasonable reliability because its extra expansion would follow the jacket closely, therefore maintaining the oil film and a reasonable sleeve temperature. We should expect to require the spherical form to the little end and the oil cooled piston, both of which Mr. Ricardo has schemed and tested, and the extra lubrication to the junk head and rings. We do not think these items are at all unreasonable and we must not expect to get success without liberal expenditure. (5) It will be understood that it is somewhat beyond our business to criticise the possibilities of what Mr. Ricardo proposes in connection with a complete engine of Kestrel size with some Kestrel parts, but if I were asked I should say he is much too optimistic, and the engine, so far as the designs we have seen, does not promise to be reliable at the rating suggested. (6) I was very pleased to see that RC.{R. Childs} did not at once condemn the opposed engine which I thought the best form when we wished to put 2 cyls. per crank, but thought that in the flying boat and other work for which we think this type of engine most suitable, it would not be of an objectionable form. My object in proposing it was in the hope that it would result in a lighter engine owing to the good mechanical properties of the opposed pistons. (7) In conclusion, I have pointed out to RC.{R. Childs} that anything we (RR.) do or promise, we should have a very reasonable hope of fulfilling, because whose-ever money we are spending, we think it is only right that those responsible for the spending of this money should not expect a greater performance than we can hope to obtain with passable reliability. R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||