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 various crankshaft balancing schemes for different engine applications.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 14\2\ Scan110 | |
| Date | 21th November 1932 guessed | |
| -3- C. K's latest scheme. This is the lightest scheme and is the one we have adopted for aero use where we only balance about 40%. It takes the maximum amount of load off the centre main bearing. It is somewhat easier to attach the counter-weights with this scheme than with schemes A, B, or D.{John DeLooze - Company Secretary} D.{John DeLooze - Company Secretary} 12-Weight Scheme as used on Chrysler. This was the scheme III. in my previous note. The half-size balance weights are at odd angles and therefore not so easy to attach. It gives 100% balance. For the cars it would appear that the choice lies between schemes C. and D.{John DeLooze - Company Secretary} and which scheme is to be used and what percentage we can balance depends on what the torsional vibrations will stand. We propose to try scheme C. on 18.G.IV since it will go on to the shaft already made to take scheme E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer}, which appears to be a bit too heavy. We are looking into the possibility of converting 18.G.IV from scheme E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} balancing the crank only, to scheme C. balancing the big end as well. We can do little on P.II without developing a new crankshaft as well. Japan III. we understand is designed to take scheme E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} We would recommend an alternative design to be made for either schemes C. or D.{John DeLooze - Company Secretary} HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Tsn. | ||