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).
Merits of different engine balance weight schemes.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 14\2\ Scan115 | |
| Date | 12th April 1931 | |
| RG{Mr Rowledge}/TSN. E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} } FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} } (At Le CanadelHenry Royce's French residence.) R1/M12.4.31. X.5010. X.7010. ALL ENGINES - BALANCE WEIGHTS. (1) Our first objection of these is to reduce crankchamber stresses and deflections. (2) Our second object is to give longer life to bearings: evidently Chrysler have found this necessary otherwise engines become noisy and full of vibrations. We must not expect to do more than half balance so all the schemes help the bearing wear. The scheme of four only is the lightest for (1) but the least helpful for (2). My scheme is light and is most practical and is a perfect help for the most heavily loaded bearing, and some help to the intermediate. The balance weights can be forged on. TSN's three and Chysler's is the most perfect and can be arranged to help all the bearings, but is not the lightest - i.e. 4 units to my 3, and is considerably less practical because some are at awkward angles. To save time and confusion I think we had better universally go on with my scheme of 8 because of its practicability. We ought to be getting some benefit from this item, but my impression is that we are progressing too slowly. R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||