Harley motor in a homebuilt?

"David Hill" wrote
I'm working on a replica of a 1924 airplane originally powered by an
Indian Chief motorcycle engine. I've spent a year or two trying to find
a modern engine that somewhat resembles the Indian, and the best I have
come up with is a Harley-Davidson.

Do you really want your airplane to go "potato-potato-potato..." ? :-)

And on a more serious note, isn't the 45 degree configuration a lousy design
for vibration (or an excellent one, depending on how you look at it ) ?

Eric

"Eric Miller" wrote in message .net...
"David Hill" wrote
I'm working on a replica of a 1924 airplane originally powered by an
Indian Chief motorcycle engine. I've spent a year or two trying to find
a modern engine that somewhat resembles the Indian, and the best I have
come up with is a Harley-Davidson.

Do you really want your airplane to go "potato-potato-potato..." ? :-)

And on a more serious note, isn't the 45 degree configuration a lousy design
for vibration (or an excellent one, depending on how you look at it ) ?

Eric

In the world of high performance hovercraft, motorcycle engines
have been looked at for years. The only situations where they have
been made to work is where they are installed complete with gearbox
and rigged with a complex chain to belt PSRU. Also, they need to be in
an application where full power is rarely needed. After starring at
these harsh realities, most people choose between 2 stroke power or
Kohler reliability. Or for larger craft, a junkyard 4 cylinder car
engine.

"Eric Miller" wrote in message .net...

Do you really want your airplane to go "potato-potato-potato..." ? :-)

You could pretend it was a P&W R-2800.... ;-

Eric Miller wrote:
"David Hill" wrote

I'm working on a replica of a 1924 airplane originally powered by an
Indian Chief motorcycle engine. I've spent a year or two trying to find
a modern engine that somewhat resembles the Indian, and the best I have
come up with is a Harley-Davidson.


Do you really want your airplane to go "potato-potato-potato..." ? :-)

And on a more serious note, isn't the 45 degree configuration a lousy design
for vibration (or an excellent one, depending on how you look at it ) ?

Eric



Actually, I'd LOVE for my airplane to go "potato-potato-potato..."!
That's about the only think I like about a Harley. :-)

Yes, the 45 degree configuration is lousy regarding vibration (although
Honda has managed to smooth it out, just add 40 lbs or so of
counterweights). However, it's not as bad as the second engine that was
used in the original plane, the 28 hp Lawrance A-3 -- a two cylinder
opposed with a single crank throw, and no counterbalancing.

The buyer of the plane in 1926 commented on the excessive vibration in a
letter he write in the '80s. I know that in the late '20s someone came
up with a two throw crank conversion for these engines, but I only know
of one of these engines still running. And I'd rather fly behind a new
Harley engine than an 87 year old engine.

Interesting note on the Lawrance A-3 -- it does not have engine mounting
lugs. It has a grooved area around the base of each cylinder where you
*strap* the engine to the airplane. yikes!

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

On 23 Sep 2003 09:26 AM, David Hill posted the following:

Interesting note on the Lawrance A-3 -- it does not have engine
mounting lugs. It has a grooved area around the base of each
cylinder where you *strap* the engine to the airplane. yikes!

That brings up another point, it might be a really good idea to make a
safety cable from the engine to a lug on the fuselage, in case vibration
gets to be too much for the engine mount...

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/