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).
Letter from Ransome & Marles Bearing Co. Ltd. discussing a proposed double row bearing design and cost.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 94\2\ scan0091 | |
| Date | 28th November 1936 | |
| London Office: 17, VICTORIA STREET, WESTMINSTER, S.W.1. Telephone: ABBEY 3876 (2 LINES) Telegrams: OFFISLUNDA, SOWEST, LONDON BALL & ROLLER R&M BEARINGS Contractors to H.M. Admiralty, War Office, Air Ministry, Colonial Offices &c. RANSOME & MARLES BEARING Co., LTD., MANUFACTURERS OF BALL & ROLLER BEARINGS NEWARK ON TRENT. Branch Offices: LONDON, BIRMINGHAM, MANCHESTER, LEEDS, NOTTINGHAM AND- Telegraphic Address: "BEARINGS, NEWARK" Telegraphic Code: "BENTLEYS" Telephone Nos: NEWARK 456-457-458-459 Branch Offices: SHEFFIELD, BRISTOL, GLASGOW, NEWCASTLE, DUBLIN, BELFAST. Our Ref. Tech.Dept. FOH/AD. Your Ref. + 328 S. H.{Arthur M. Hanbury - Head Complaints} Grylls, Esq., c/o Rolls-Royce, Ltd., Experimental Department, D E R B Y . 28th November, 1936. My dear Grylls, With reference to your letter of the 26th instant, and our various telephone conversations, I am enclosing drawing S.5632 herewith outlining the scheme as proposed, using a double row double purpose bearing, and this is, I believe, self-explanatory. In comparison with the existing scheme using a single row bearing, it will be appreciated that by dividing the loads a theoretical increase in capacity of 100% is obtained, while as in addition 50% more balls are used in the bearing, this further increase is obtained, and still further, an actual increase in service is obtained owing to the angular contact of the balls making the bearing much more satisfactory for the nature of the loading. With regard to your later query respecting cost, there is no doubt that this bearing will be more expensive than the alternative which you have later suggested, viz. standard MJ.45, and as a rough estimate this will be at least 5/-d, but, on the other hand, it occurs to me that this small margin in cost is more than worth while if the servicing expenses can be eliminated, apart from any question of prestige. As in any case the thrust loads on this job would Enclosure | ||