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 iterations and modifications to the Phantom radiator to improve body lines.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 66a\4\ scan0240 | |
| Date | 1st February 1927 | |
| Da.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} Copy to:- C. Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} x8250. CWB4/GM/1.2.27. PHANTOM RADIATOR. With reference to Da{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}4/M8127, this question of the radiator now appears to have become very involved. I have read R1/M8127 which deals with the whole of the aspects of the situation and I think that Sales general views on this matter are in entire agreement with R's views and those of others. The only possible point of difference would appear to be our dislike of the very thick radiator with integral shutters, and R.{Sir Henry Royce} in paragraph 6 of R1/M8127 says "But thick radiator may look heavy or dwarf the length of the body", and it is this heaviness which was so disliked by Sales. We like the shutters integral. As regards the front elevation of the radiator, Sales proposals originated from the coachbuilders who were very anxious, in order to improve their body line, to raise the shoulder of the radiator considerably. 1 5/8" was the original suggestion. In order to consider this matter a model radiator was made which embodied this proposal. At the same time the top of the radiator (the flat under the filler) was raised 3/4" this being considered the very maximum which could be permitted from the point of view of visibility. When examined this did not look like a Rolls-Royce radiator at all and various alterations were then made in order to endeavour to give the coachbuilders as much rise at the shoulder as possible and still maintain the now well known and handsome appearance of the radiator front elevation. It may be interesting to follow the various changes made and the reasons for making them. First.- With the shoulder raised 1 5/8" and the top raised only 3/4", the bottom line of the tank being raised with the shoulder, the tank became 7/8" shallower than formerly and appeared altogether too shallow. The rise of 1 5/8" at shoulder was then decided to be too much and after several trials it was settled that 7/8" was the maximum possible. Even with this the tank appeared too shallow and so the bottom line was slightly lowered relative to the shoulder and a reasonable appearance was thought to be obtained when the CONT: | ||