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 to A.F. Sidgreaves Esq. discussing turnover, work charges, and issues with the Myth chassis frame.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 144\2\ scan0131 | |
| Date | 7th October 1941 | |
| -2- A.F.Sidgreaves Esq., 7-10-41. (2) TURNOVER. There is some misunderstanding here, as I cannot recollect having said I had been pressed to obtain the maximum turnover, or that to do so I have been forced to neglect any work in connection with bodies. I did, however, recently mention to Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} when he was here, that in the past this Company had made a loss and that it was my ambition to prove to you that a profit could be made. (3) CHARGES FOR WORK. I am fully aware of the fact that any work we do for R.R. will be paid for by them and could not possibly be under any other impression, having regard to the fact that at the Derby Meeting of the 4th March last, you were good enough to say that R.R. would even pay us for any drawing work in connection with the production of bodies for the Experimental Department. (4) MYTH CHASSIS FRAME. As you say, when you saw the Myth frames at the Clan Foundry on the 25th July last, all the parts were there except for the Front Pans, but I do not think that it is realised what these involved. However, they have been finished for some little time now and the frames ready for welding, but this has proved another problem. You will, I feel sure, appreciate that welding such thin gauge metal is a difficult matter and necessitated quite a lot of investigation and experiment. Moreover, we had no plant capable of tackling the job, and I was compelled to order a suitable machine, which it is only fair to say will come in very useful for other work. Unfortunately, I had endless disappointments over delivery of this new machine. When it eventually turned up towards the end of August, it was found to have been damaged in transit, and although the Carrier's regulation is that damage sustained in transit may not be made good before their Inspector has seen it, I took a chance, and in order to save valuable time went ahead with the dismantling of the machine in the | ||