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 The Bristol Aeroplane Company regarding higher octane fuel standards, including minimum octane values and lead content.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 27a\4\ Scan151 | |
| Date | 13th July 1933 | |
| LONDON OFFICE: BUSH HOUSE, ALDWYCH, W.C.2. TELEGRAMS: INLAND - AVIATION PHONE FILTON. FOREIGN - AVIATION FILTON. CODES: WESTERN UNION, BENTLEY'S & A.B.C. TELEPHONE: CITY 7793. TELEGRAMS: "BRISTAIRCO ESTRAND, LONDON" Handwritten: 815821 "Bristol" Aeroplanes and Aero Engines. TELEPHONES: OFFICES AND WORKS. TELEPHONE Nos BRISTOL 45051 & 45057. PRIVATE BRANCH EXCHANGE. THE BRISTOL AEROPLANE COMPANY LTD (SBAC Logo) SIR G.{Mr Griffiths - Chief Accountant / Mr Gnapp} STANLEY WHITE, BT.{Capt. J. S. Burt - Engineer} (MANAGING DIRECTOR.) FILTON HOUSE, BRISTOL, ENG. Your Ref. Our Ref. ENGINES F/E/SP{Mr Spinney}/84. 13th July 1933. Handwritten: RG{Mr Rowledge} many thanks please return Rg{Mr Rowledge} E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} W. Hives, Esq., Messrs. Rolls Royce Ltd., DERBY. Dear Mr. Hives, Further to my letter of the 12th. acknowledging yours of the 10th., and with reference to your views on the higher octane fuel, it may be of interest to you to know that Major Bulman and Mr. Foord were down here yesterday for a conference, and during the discussion the question of higher octane fuel was mentioned. Mr. Foord then informed us that this fuel would have a minimum of 87 octane value, and that a maximum lead content of 4 c.cs. T.E.L. per gallon would be permitted, and that in view of this fact all our type tests on the specially rated engines would have to be carried out with a minimum of 4 c.cs. of T.E.L. in the fuel. I quite agree that there would be a certain advantage in sticking to D.T.D.134 as the base fuel, and adding only just that amount of T.E.L. which is necessary to increase the octane number to 87. Our view is that 3 c.cs. would be more than ample, but I am doubtful whether we ought to disturb the Air Ministry on this point after our strenuous endeavours to get a higher octane fuel standardised. I should be glad to hear your further views on this | ||