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).
Internal memorandum discussing the design modifications and specifications for the Phantom radiator and bonnet.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\Q\January1927-March1927\ 72 | |
| Date | 2nd February 1927 | |
| TO CWB.) FROM DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} ) ffs DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}1/M2.2.27. Copy to G.{Mr Griffiths - Chief Accountant / Mr Gnapp} PHANTOM RADIATOR ETC X8259 Referring to CWB4/GM1227., when we received express instructions in R1/M3127., and R2/M6127., to get something done in the matter of the radiator and bonnet appearance, we understood as a result of EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}'s visit to London that Sales had independently evolved a radiator almost identical with that in R1/M3127. It looked from this that general agreement would not be difficult to obtain, and we prepared N. schs. 2346. and 2350. which we then believed embodied both Mr. Royce's and Sales ideas. Subsequently we learnt from CWB18/GM24127. that .250 is the amount Sales wish to reduce the top tank, instead of .375 (or .400) as we originally understood, though there is an inconsistency between this .250 and the height (.875) which the shoulders have been raised. Mr. Royce also gave us .250 as an alternative. Constructionally it does not make any difference which is used, in fact, .250 is slightly easier. There is a slight loss of area which we regret, but probably it is not serious. The width of the flat at the top is also immaterial to us constructionally, though we have some doubt as to its effect on the appearance. If it is agreed, we suggest that Sales model (which, until we received CWB18/GM24127. we thought was also Mr. Royce's and our model) should be left as it is, and either an alternative top to N. sch. 2350. be made for it, or an entire new model made to that drawing. This would confine the discussion to these two slightly different shapes, and an agreement could certainly be come to. We are prepared to abandon the .400 tank reduction in favour of the .250, but we think there is still some controversy as to the width of the flat, angle of sloping sides, and size of filler. As regards the thickness of radiator in the side view, we do not think this is controversial as we are all agreed (we believe) that this should be increased as little as possible, and proposals have been made by R.{Sir Henry Royce} and embodied by us in N. sch. 2346. - sent to Derby - to reduce it to within .250 of its present width. We send to CWB. a copy of DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}1/M25127. for his information. DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} | ||