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).
Petrol injection, diesel engine work, and comparative drag tests on cooling systems.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 173\2\ img203 | |
| Date | 3rd March 1954 guessed | |
| Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} II. PETROL INJECTION, DIESEL WORK. They were running a two stroke petrol injection engine 4-5/8 bore 6-1/2 stroke at 2000 R.P.M. 110 M.E.P. Four exhaust valves in the head radial intake in the base, 1" Hg.boost. A lot of the work that they have done is tabulated in report No. 471 1933 N.A.C.A., a copy of which I am bringing back and well worth reading, shewing the liberties that injection allows them to take with valve timing and the consequent improved performance gained. They were not sure that the petrol injection unit outlined above was much good because it gave the exhaust valves a bad time and was not particularly economical. However, they were getting by with fully sodium cooled exhaust valves with this 1" Hg. boost and it might lead somewhere where max. power per cu. inch was the primary consideration, or better fuels allowed them to lower [redacted] exhaust valve temp. by raising the compression ratios. Their main interest lay in an exactly similar unit running as a diesel where they were getting similar M.E.P.'s up to 2000 R.P.M. with max. pressures not exceeding 1000 lbs/sq" and 1" Hg.boost, with consumptions down to .43 pints. The exhaust valves here gave them little or no trouble here. They have a high opinion of the Junkers opposed piston unit which they think fundamentally should be slightly better than they can do. They still insist that the latest hydrogenated fuel has an octane valve of 92.5 and a flash point of 125. Say it has been on the secret list and that is why we didn't get any from Aldrin. Shall try again when I get to New York. I find from the Air Attache that some was sent off in July last. Perhaps it went straight to the ministry as I heard nothing of it. DRAG OF GLYCOL RADS. They have no definite comparisons of a water cooled against a Glycol rad. but have compared the latest Conqueror installation with oil cooler with the latest single row radial with the best known cowl, also the water cooled installation with no radiator and the water cooled in the wing sections with a shaft drive. These were all done in the wind tunnel. They did a further test with the latest double row radial and best cowling and this came out at practically the same drag figure as the water cooled with glycol rad. | ||