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).
Various engine design schemes, their pros and cons, and future development strategy.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 19\3\ Scan031 | |
| Date | 15th February 1929 guessed | |
| contd :- -2- Sch.3. seems the only one where all the units continue to revolve in the same hand, and therefore ought to require no alterations except to their pinions which must grow in dia. unless the centreline of the camshaft could be lowered enough to keep all the wheel diameters the same. At the moment there seems little need of submerging the camshaft or of indirect driving of the camshaft. One other little point is the clearances of the units with the upper half. One supposes this would increase in Sch.3. though making several things more bulky. Naturally one thinks L.H. camshafts would be troublesome [struck-through text] and it cannot be got over by altering the order of firing. Would any other type of rod (tubular) enable oil trough on present SS.{S. Smith} it seems as though it is the big end bolts that would foul. If the L.H. camshafts move out twice the desaxe (sch.3.) could this have oil submerged? I fear Works would not have liked all tappets inclined - awkward for drilling etc. I dread the idea of increasing the bulk in any way because of the weight. We have got it down now and must not let it increase. Any new engine would have to be smaller and lighter fundamentally - sch.7. favours this slightly. Supposing Sch.7. was thought the best does this not ultimately bring both engines with the most interchangeable parts, and the best engine also when we have opportunity to re alter R.H. to the same, although it gives us slightly more trouble at the moment than either sch.3. or 4. If later on we had an 8 cyl. engine sleeve [struck-through text] type, or smaller engine supercharged, as we might, especially to save weight and tax, we should at the moment give ourselves the least trouble and expense in left handing, but this has never been my policy, I prefer to do the work in hand the very best way we know now, and let the future take care of itself. This seems to say sch.7. I think it would be worth while for you to go to Derby and decide with Mr. Bailey, Mr. Wormald, and Mr.Hives. (I do not think you need worry Mr.Rowledge because it is so influenced by production,) after you have studied the situation somewhat further on and drawingboard at WW. You have my idea | ||