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).
Aero engine design, discussing issues like liner distortion and advocating for a new construction model.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 178\3\ img119 | |
| Date | 21th March 1932 | |
| CG. FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} (At Le CanadelHenry Royce's French residence.) C. to CC. WGR. C. to HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} EH. E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} re. AERO ENGINES. R2/M18.3.32. Sent from NW.{N. Walker - Patents} 21.3.32. x3993. x3866 From time to time I have asked for a clean new model engine, as we should prefer to make it today, unhampered by anything or anybody. I fear that in some particulars we are not doing this, but are trying to carry on with our present cyl. construction, which has certain defects that may show up at any time in the hands of even careful people who are not well acquainted with our engines. This trouble refers to the liner distortion. Unless the base upon which it is crushed down is quite rigid, or equally flexible all round (neither being possible) the effect of this distortion may lead to seized pistons or broken blocks. Certainly it can be reduced by stiffening the parts but it cannot be cured. I regret very much reducing the stroke, and I do not agree to reducing the bore, not so much on account of the reduced output as the great confusion of jigs, tools, and spares. It is about 3 yrs. ago that the alternate scheme of construction was suggested, and after much delay it was made and tested, found good but rather heavier, but little or no attempt has been made to find out how much of this extra weight can be saved before we run into some troubles through weakness. I am very definitely of the opinion that however light our old scheme may be it cannot be considered satisfactory, and we must accept the extra weight, or as I believe quite possible, reduce it to nearly that of the old construction. Perhaps I do not know all the pros. and cons. why we should not go straight for this alternate construction, but to my mind it is much the best thing we know of that is possible at the moment. (1) | ||