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 development, production, and potential modifications for the Bensport engine.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 3\4\ 04-page116 | |
| Date | 2nd November 1932 | |
| XH553 SG.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} } WOR.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} } FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} R1/M2.11.32. HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} } BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} } E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} } BENSPORT ENGINE. ---------------- Firstly, I should like a conference to take place between WOR.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager}, HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}, BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer}, and E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer}, as to what is to be done to J.1. before reproducing it for Bensport production work. This means that we can use the engine exactly as it is, so far as it is suitable, for a trial, and in the meantime if the Works can manage it I suggest we rebuild it like J.3. and Peregrine before we sell it in bulk. This would make it very helpful as regards interchangeability with certain parts for 'SpectreCodename for Phantom III'. It has occurred to me that in addition to altering the sump and crankcase casting for the smaller flywheel for clearance etc. we might find it necessary to make some modification to the exhaust ports, as it was thought that the exhaust valves were affected by the grouping of 1 & 2, and 3 & 6. HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} and E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} should be able to give good advice on this. The next thing to do is to run an endurance test of the engine under exactly the conditions in which we propose to use it in Bensport. As the speed and power will be in excess of our usual practice with this engine, we might find other reasons for changing it to the J.3. type because of the advantage in separating the damper wheel from the half time drive, and the steadiness of a rear flywheel owing to the double bearings etc. Naturally I have not the slightest intention of altering the length of the stroke from the 4.5", which shorter stroke has definite advantages for the high revs. Is the capacity suitable for competitions (say 3 litre) or is this of no importance? This is rather a commercial question. As we hope it will run for several years without alterations it should be corrected and brought up-to-date now, even if it is a few months late, or would the Commercial Dept. prefer to have a trial flutter as it is, to see how it sells? R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||