Propellor shaft vibration issues on B.V. cars and potential solutions.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 159\5\ scan0045 | |
| Date | 9th September 1940 | |
| C O P Y. Ev. {Ivan Evernden - coachwork} from Rm. {William Robotham - Chief Engineer} c. Rm {William Robotham - Chief Engineer} /WJH. Rm {William Robotham - Chief Engineer} /Wym. {G. Harold Whyman - Experimental Manager} PROPELLOR SHAFT VIBRATIONS. ------------------- The propellor shaft vibrations are so bad on B.V. cars that we shall certainly have continual complaints from customers unless we effect a very marked improvement. Experience on 9.B.V. indicates that there is considerable difficulty in selecting a good propellor shaft in the first place, and that a good shaft does not stay put more than about three or four thousand miles. It seems to be a fact, however, that the long wheel base cars are much better for this propellor shaft trouble than B.V.s. We say this because 3.B.50, 4.B.50 and 30.G.VII have all done quite a big mileage and, at the moment, their propellor shafts are giving no trouble. This fact seems to offer a possible chance of solving the B.V. problem and we should like Ev. {Ivan Evernden - coachwork} and Rm {William Robotham - Chief Engineer} /WJH between them to make an analysis of possible reasons why increasing the wheel base should have an effect on it. At the same time, we should like Rm {William Robotham - Chief Engineer} /Wym. {G. Harold Whyman - Experimental Manager} to go into the question of fitting the Rolls-Royce joint on a B.V. car, as past experience indicates that this was better than the Spicer joint for staying put. Rm. {William Robotham - Chief Engineer} | ||
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).