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 comparisons and component sharing between the Peregrine and Bensport models.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 1\8\ B001_X100 Engine Chassis-page032 | |
| Date | 4th July 1932 | |
| X4027 To Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} from E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} E.3/HP.4.7.32. X4027, X4553, cc Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} By.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} re Peregrine and Bensport. Regarding your enquiry of this afternoon, I had some discussion with R.{Sir Henry Royce} re size of Bensport, and he feels strongly that Peregrine and Bensport should have as many parts in common as possible, the principal being crankshaft, con rods, pistons, valves, gearbox (except for side change) etc. etc. The extra that we have to put into Bensport in the way of stiffening up and increased bearing surface for supercharging will go to add to the life of Peregrine. Bensport should be looked upon as a car of less durability than Peregrine. R.{Sir Henry Royce} also considers that any increase in the bore of Bensport would be a mistake as the tax would then be more than £18. and the car would become confused with the 20-HP. class. He therefore proposed a stroke of four inches which would reduce Peregrine 3% in capacity. Regarding the question of blower position, we must go forward with our experiments, but R.{Sir Henry Royce} is now of the opinion that on account of the effect of a backfire and the question of snap acceleration, the side position is the one we should design for. He is satisfied that the Powerplus blower has a much better performance than the Roots, and will suit us very well provided it stands up well mechanically. E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} | ||