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 and fitment issues of sheet steel wing stays for the Phantom model.
Identifier | ExFiles\Box 18\2\ Scan024 | |
Date | 28th March 1927 | |
to BY from Da{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} Y7390 EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}2/28.3.27. copy to (HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}) RE SHEET STEEL WING STAYS PHANTOM. We thank you for your BY16/H.25.3.27. re the above. EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} will be going to London in the course of a few days and will discuss the subject with the coachbuilders and with "Sales". We would, however, like to make the following observations. (1) The stays were set out for EAC.VIII. on H.Sch.2136. Having no means of setting out the contour of a Barker or Hooper front wing at W"W. we asked Derby to set the stays out to suit the Standard Barker front wings being supplied for the first EAC.VIII. car 12.EX. We do not therefore see why Barkers should have any objection to the shape of the stays, although it is only natural that if they do suit Barkers they will not suit Hoopers. (2) This problem must arise on the "Twenty" and how is it overcome? We presume that the stays are made hot and bent. If this is so, can we not do the same with Phantom? (3) On H.Sch. 2136 we suggested 30 ins. lamp centres, and it was to be ascertained when setting the scheme out at Derby to suit the actual Barker Standard Wings for 12EX. whether this dimension were possible. From BY/Cgh{W Clough}19/G.22.3.27. we are given to understand that this was so. We do not therefore see why Barkers should fail in this. (4) The bonnet catch is a problem on the present production cars. We believe that pockets are fitted in the wing when the latter is of such a shape to cause the inside valance to rise steeply. This is rendered more difficult by the sheet steel stay and it would appear necessary to (a) move the stay slightly forward, if this is possible or (b) use the revised catch which we sent on H.Sch.2312. We would prefer this latter proposal and would be glad if BY would tell us what are the chances of introducing it, provided we can get R's consent. Such catches were fitted to 14 EX. and he has since not opposed them. (5) In common with the "Twenty" there is some difficulty with the wiring to the headlamp when disconnecting the wing, and of mud collecting in the stay and rotting the insulation. (6) The coachbuilder's difficulties are not perhaps all technical. They have a large forge which they must keep occupied. Our efforts to introduce the use of sheet steel to replace hand forgings are possibly opposed on this ground. | ||