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).
Typed memorandum discussing design considerations for wing stays, stiffeners, and wiring protection.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 67\1\ scan0261 | |
| Date | 23th March 1927 guessed | |
| (2) (3) The branch from the front stay to the nose of the wing is not a good way of stiffening the nose. We would prefer a stiffener to be welded to the inside of the wing, and not be a part of the stay. We would add also that on the 10,000 miles test we have no record of the noses breaking with our stays, even though we have no stiffeners. (4) We agree that a packing piece should be placed between the wing stay and the frame of about 1/8" thickness. The coachbuilders might well do this. (5) The objection that the wing stay becomes full of mud and eventually the wiring insulation rots is no doubt true to some extent. We were under the impression that the wiring in this place was waterproof. If it is not waterproof, whether it be in the wing stay or outside, it will still rot. The wing stay filling itself with mud is not harmful provided that the stay itself is well protected. If necessary we can decrease the number of ways for the access of the mud. We would much prefer the wiring inside the stay where it is protected from damage, than to have it outside. Lastly we would suggest that since we have used a similar stay on the 20HP for some years with a fair measure of success, to do the same on the 40/50 would be an advantage. That the design or scheme is not perfect is realised, and as soon as we are able to confirm any improvements by tests in France, we would adapt them to both the 20HP. and the 40/50. DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} | ||