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).
Design modifications for torque arms, engine suspension, and gears.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\V\October1930-February1931\ Scan240 | |
| Date | 24th January 1931 | |
| A.{Mr Adams} FROM E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} C. to EE. WCR. HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} [Struck through] C. to EH. HY.{Tom Haldenby - Plant Engineer} RHC.{R. H. Coverley - Production Engineer} ORIGINAL El/M24.1.31. x577D. We are sorry that the scheme shewing the torque arms was a disappointment, and are modifying it as per your telegram and letter. We had retained the spring tie plates because of the great length of frame between the cross members fore and aft of the engine and gearbox - e.g. 54". It was thought that this would parallelogram in plan view without some assistance from the power unit. With regard to the engine suspension at the front we did not put the engine support tube through the radiator as shewn in your sketch owing to the difficulty of removing the radiator when required, but no doubt the power unit could be held up by other means while this was being done. With regard to the engine gears at the rear we had arrived at the scheme with three timing wheels only, and HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} HY.{Tom Haldenby - Plant Engineer} & RHC.{R. H. Coverley - Production Engineer} who were down here last Wednesday are of the opinion it was understood that with this small number of gears the drive at the rear is practicable. If necessary the dynamo pinion could be eccentric mounted but we should avoid this if possible for the sake of simplicity. We attach herewith a print of a sketch we had prepared shewing an arrangement of the engine accessories which wouldsuit either right or left hand chassis. It was thought that the ignition tower on either chassis would have to be on the carburetter side owing to the proximity of the exhaust, and hence there was no sacrifice on account of the left hand chassis as regards the additional drive. We may be wrong about this however and will look into it again in view of the arrangement suggested in your memo. [Stamp Text] RECEIVED 1931 JAN 26 H E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} | ||