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).
Comparing the 'Fisher' and 'Quicktho' window schemes, discussing patent licensing and application in different car bodies.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 136\5\ scan0082 | |
| Date | 8th February 1934 | |
| - 2 - Sg{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD}1/KW8.2.34. Fisher Scheme yet granted to the inventor, consequently they are not yet in a position to issue the licence to us. Nevertheless they are prepared to give us authority to supply the scheme to customers provided we give them an undertaking that we will later on take out a licence. This does not seem desirable because by the time the patent is granted a better scheme may have become available, and we may no longer wish to take out a licence. We have already tried this scheme. Quicktho Scheme. We are anxious to get experience with this in order to ascertain its advantages and disadvantages. In close-coupled Saloons such as the Continental 40/50 and the Special Touring Saloon 20/25, or in fact in any four-light body, we must of necessity reverse the order of things and put the hinged portion of the rear window at the rear end of that window, otherwise if it is put at the forward end where normally it would be, the incoming draught is immediately playing on the driver's head. Therefore, that portion of the window which in the Fisher scheme would drop would be in front of the deflector, which completely neutralises your remark that with the deflectors adjusted and the windows down you get no draught. You will probably have noticed that all the American cars to which this scheme is applied are six-light bodies and the middle window has no such fitting." Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} | ||