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 improvements for the Phantom radiator and bonnet, focusing on integral shutters and dimensional changes.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\Q\January1927-March1927\ 79 | |
| Date | 14th February 1927 | |
| TO DAY. HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} Ffc Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} (At Le CanadelHenry Royce's French residence.) R5/M10.2.27. DESPATCHED FROM WW. 14.2.27. [STAMP] ORIGINAL [STAMP] RECEIVED E.C. to BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} WOR.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} RG.{Mr Rowledge} PHANTOM RADIATOR AND BONNET. X7260 EAC.8. FOR IMPROVED APPEARANCE X7250 AND INTEGRAL SHUTTERS. X8250 X8260 I have very carefully examined 7-EX. at Le CanadelHenry Royce's French residence, and conclude - (1) Everyone must agree that integral shutters are an improvement. (2) Everyone must agree that the increased vertical dimension is good, i.e. 23" instead of 22" matrix, 1/2" lower in the frame. (3) Integral shutters have increased the apparent thickness of the radiator. This is the only point that is in doubt. The dimensions of the tank have become about 6.25" fore and aft, and would be better reduced, but this can only be done by shortening the matrix (at present 4.5" tubes) or by altering the construction of the radiator, by - (a) Saving the .5" that the matrix forms a recess at the back. (b) Adopting Mr. Day's suggestion of saving .2 by altering the number of shutters, and the scheme of building. (c) Reducing the matrix .5". Our radiators are thicker than most, and personally I should try this larger radiator with shorter tubes. We could then make the tank dimensions perhaps down to 5 1/2", and reduce the weight and cost, and improve the appearance. I do not think we should test (b) unless it is thought to give better construction, but unless I hear to the contrary I should say present sch. is the better, and it would not pay us to alter for the amount gained. Regarding Sales suggested alteration to the tank by increasing the thickness, and radius at the shoulders, this would be bad, and should not be done. Regarding my other suggestions of reducing the tank at the centre .25" I do not think this would do much good or harm, and more would be bad, so I think we should forget this idea. Regarding the bonnet, either the present or the one following Mr. Day's analysis to avoid twist, will be OK. I am very interested in the new bonnet fasteners. You have a completely new one to try (RR. patent) and also some modifications to the 20HP. type (2nd. modifications.) Also still very anxious to get a better scheme of lock. Let us make an effort to get the scheme here agreed upon on next car for France, which should leave in a few weeks. (1) | ||