H-D blueprint for 1954 Panhead frame changes

[Speeding Big Twin]

I’m chasing a Harley blueprint regarding the three frames used for 1954 Panheads and apparently the blueprint indicates when the changes occurred: first wishbone to second wishbone and then straight leg. Any info about such a blueprint would be greatly appreciated and I’d be happy to pay in advance to cover all costs. Thank you.
Eric

[ryan]

I’m chasing a Harley blueprint regarding the three frames used for 1954 Panheads and apparently the blueprint indicates when the changes occurred: first wishbone to second wishbone and then straight leg. Any info about such a blueprint would be greatly appreciated and I’d be happy to pay in advance to cover all costs. Thank you.
Eric

I would also be interested in the prints as well, but I am almost sure they will not become available.

[FCJ]

I’m chasing a Harley blueprint... Eric

Eric: Responded to your post elsewhere. Don't know exactly which drawing you are looking for, but it sounds like you want a version that includes the top table (with the numbered, dated change notes that correspond to the circled numbers in the body of the drawing). The top table is not included in the examples of Semi-Frame Assembly Drawing No. 47004-49A pictured below.

There are various versions of various drawings (e.g., of motors and rigid and swingarm frames) floating around (e.g., on ebay and file sharing sites). Some are more legible and less modified and otherwise better than others. Most are missing the top table.

Photo 1:


Photo 2:


Photo 3:


Photo 4:


[END]

[Speeding Big Twin]

Thanks Fletcher. I have 47004-49A. Hard to read in some versions but it’s dated 8-22-51. And near the lower edge it has an addition dated 1-5-53: added stamping spec (date code).

The blueprint I’m chasing indicates when changes occurred re 1954 Pan WB and SL frames but I don’t know the blueprint number. In his 37-64 SE Palmer said the factory drawing number was 47000-40A but that is wrong because 47000-40A is instead the PN for a Harley frame and it’s in my H-D catalog.
Eric

[FCJ]

Thanks Fletcher. I have 47004-49A.

Do you have a version of 47004-49A with the table of notes at the top?

[FCJ]

In his 37-64 SE Palmer said the factory drawing number was 47000-40A but that is wrong because 47000-40A is instead the PN for a Harley frame and it’s in my H-D catalog.Eric

As to the chased drawing, how do you know that Palmer’s statement is wrong (i.e., how do you know that 47000-40A is not the chased drawing number)? Do you believe that the statement is wrong because the same number is used as (a) a part number or (b) the part number for the mid-1954MY style frame?

[Speeding Big Twin]

I don’t have a version of 47004-49A with a table of notes at the top. Apart from the pictures you posted, another copy I’ve seen was framed. I didn’t buy it but it was for sale recently via blacksmithvintage.

As to the chased drawing, how do you know that Palmer’s statement is wrong (i.e., how do you know that 47000-40A is not the chased drawing number)? Do you believe that the statement is wrong because the same number is used as (a) a part number or (b) the part number for the mid-1954MY style frame?

In his 37–64 SE Palmer said on page 54 that 47000-40A was a factory drawing: ‘Per the factory drawing 47000-40A, the first 3500 1954 Big Twins have the wishbone frame.’

But on page 52 he'd said that 47000-40A was a PN for a frame: ‘The part number of the frame changed to #47000-40A to reflect the change in the tool box bracket and the top motor mount.’

I agree it's a frame PN due to 47000-40A being listed on the catalog page I posted earlier. What then is the number of the drawing/blueprint re the 54 frame changes? I do not know but I don’t think it’s 47000-40A because that is the PN for a frame.

The book also contradicts itself regarding when the SL frame appeared. Pages 54-55 describe the early-54 WB, mid-54 WB and late-54 SL but captions on pages 950-951 say mid-year change to SL. Page 952 FYoF list mentions return of the SL frame, mid-season change at approx 54FL3501. This indicates that approximately the first 2500 BTs had WB frames, given SNs for 1954 Pans began at 1000. But that contradicts page 54 which said the first 3500 1954 BTs have the WB frame.

And there is someone who reckons the blueprint says that after frame number 3000 they were all SL. Obviously this meant the change from WB to SL occurred around 4000 as far as engine SNs are concerned. But that is in direct conflict with Palmer, regardless of which page is read.
Eric

[FCJ]

What then is the number of the drawing/blueprint re the 54 frame changes? I do not know but I don’t think it’s 47000-40A because that is the PN for a frame.

May be separate issues. Is Palmer correct about the drawing number (DN) of the drawing that he refers to as 47000-40A? And, is that drawing the chased drawing?

As to Palmer, I would assume that he may be correct about the DN. I believe (based on details included in the books) that he likely had access to the drawing and, consequently, may know more than we do about the DN. I’m aware of reasons to doubt certain statements in the books, but I am not currently aware of any reason to doubt the statement as to the DN.

I don't know if it was a standard design industry practice, but it may not have been unusual to assign the same number for both the PN and the DN. When there is a master assembly part/drawing and separate subassembly parts/drawings, the same number may also be used for a part (portion) of each subassembly DN. I think it makes sense and links the parts and the drawings together.

Non-HD examples would include: the leather cover type Deluxe Solo Saddle (Milsco PN H031 and DN H031); the Royalite cover type Deluxe Solo Saddle (Milsco PN H037 and DN H037); and the Super Deluxe Buddy Seat (Milsco PN H093 and DN H093) and related cover subassembly (Milsco PN G405 and DN CH093 and CH093-1).

I don’t know if HD had a standard practice or was any more consistent with DNs than HD was with PNs. I’m aware of examples where HD didn’t use the same number for both the PN and the DN, but that doesn’t mean HD never did.

[FCJ]

The book also contradicts itself regarding when the SL frame appeared. Pages 54-55 describe the early-54 WB, mid-54 WB and late-54 SL but captions on pages 950-951 say mid-year change to SL. Page 952 FYoF list mentions return of the SL frame, mid-season change at approx 54FL3501. This indicates that approximately the first 2500 BTs had WB frames, given SNs for 1954 Pans began at 1000. But that contradicts page 54 which said the first 3500 1954 BTs have the WB frame.

Palmer can be contradictory and inconsistent with certain terms (e.g., full or partial years; calendar or model years; and early, mid, late, and very late references), but I don’t know if those particular statements are necessarily contradictory.

With some benefit of doubt, page 54 could be read as describing the early, mid, and late versions relative to each other within the 1954 year (unspecified, but presumably production year).

Page 55 suggests that the middle version was replaced by the late version near the end of the “1954 production year.” I believe that MY1954 production ended on or about July 9, 1954.

Looks like typo elsewhere on page 55 (“late-1955-1957” should probably be “late-1954-1957”).

Pages 950-951 can be read to describe the “mid-year” 1954 change as a mid CY1954 change.

As to Palmer’s statement on page 952 and the statement on page 54, the statement as to 3,500 is attributed to the drawing and HD (not Palmer).

Note that, as used by Palmer, the term “season” generally refers to the production season (aka production year or model year). But, as used by HD, the term “season” can refer to the production season (aka production year or model year) or the sales season. HD sometimes uses more specific terms (e.g., “Sale Season” and “Sales Season” and “Selling Season”).

It’s a bit of a stretch. I don’t know how intentional or precise any particular wording choice actually was. Sometimes it seems like he is just trying to mix it up for the sake of mixing it up. Using different terms to refer to the same concept sometimes causes problems.

[Speeding Big Twin]

H-D catalogs list 47000-40A as the PN for a frame as I demonstrated above. Palmer agrees on page 52 that it is a frame PN. But on page 54 he refers to a factory drawing with that number. Some people, including me, were always going to question the same number being used for those two different things. That could have been avoided if the applicable section of the drawing was included in the book, IF the frame and drawing had the same number. But I still see no evidence that the one number was used for both things so I continue to doubt it.

Also re page 54, I know it relates to the drawing but Palmer later contradicts what the drawing is alleged to indicate.

You believe Palmer likely had access to the drawing? On CAI in 2015 someone said Palmer had the blueprint. And it was also said the blueprint indicates that after frame number 3000 (approx engine SN 4000) they were all SL. This contradicted Palmer’s book as I mentioned earlier. But regardless of how anyone interprets Palmer’s info, the only way to find out for certain what the blueprint says is for it to be posted and that is what I suggested in that CAI thread five years ago. Silence was the response.

In June-July this year, here on AMCA, the same contradictions surfaced about 1954 frame changes. Again I asked for the blueprint to be posted because that is the only way to find out exactly what it says but again the reply was silence.

I emailed Palmer but received no answer. I thought maybe my email had gone astray so I tried again two weeks later but no response. In mid-August I tried for a third time but there was no reply.
Eric

[FCJ]

As to the DN, like you, I have yet to see any evidence that HD ever used the same number for the both the PN and DN for any part. So, like you, I doubt that Palmer is correct about the DN. I think we are generally on the same page as to the DN. I just wouldn't put it as strongly as you do ("that is wrong") because I assume there is still at least some small chance he could be correct.

As to what drawings Palmer has or may have had access to, I will skim back through some of the discussions to refresh my memory. Maybe I can explain some of my assumptions and you can poke holes in them and help me see the light.

I agree with you on most things. Pretty easy to agree with you (and difficult to disagree with you) as to objective matters and other matters because you are diligent and thorough and organized and pay attention to details and obviously exercise care and thought when you write. You explain your rationale and back up your statements with photos and other support. I appreciate your posts.

[FCJ]

Eric: Excerpt below from page 21 of SE:



[END]

[FCJ]

Eric: I disagree with some of Palmer's statements, including some of his descriptions of drawings (e.g., "really a cross reference"), but I continue to believe that versions of drawings (or versions of sheets from versions of drawings represented by multiple sheets) with tables of change notes (aka "Variations" per HD) are the most likely source of information for many of the specific statements in his books as to changes and when the changes occurred. Not saying he couldn't have obtained the info from some other document or source or that he couldn't have surmised some things or backed into certain conclusions or assumptions some other way. Just saying I believe that he likely had (and probably still has) copies of at least some versions of drawings that we haven't seen. What Palmer refers to as forging numbers (and factory numbers) are just early PNs that may not have been updated as often as they probably should have been (kind of like HD DNs and HD PNs). May be impossible to track all the subassemblies (and subassembly parts and changes), but the subassembly part numbers and subassembly part drawing numbers are clearly listed in the tables of parts in some of the most common versions of the sheets that are out there.

[Speeding Big Twin]

Thanks Fletcher. Seems contradictory for page 54 to say ‘factory drawing 47000-40A’ after page 21 said ‘This “drawing” is really a cross reference to the actual frame assembly drawing 47003-49A …’

Is page 21 correct about 47000-40A being used for two different things? I do not know. When it refers to drawing number 47000-40A, maybe it means 47000-40A is a drawing of a frame which has that same number? Anyway, IF the same number was used for two separate things then it could have been mentioned on page 54 for obvious reasons.
Eric

[FCJ]

My opinions as follows: Palmer generally knows his stuff. Most of the issues in the books (e.g., false statements; contradictions; inconsistencies; etc.) appear to be attributable to poor writing/editing. But, because he generally knows his stuff, the statements are not that far off and it’s typically pretty easy to cut through the poor writing and determine what he means (which is generally correct). But, in this particular case, he doesn't understand how the drawings were used.

You should ignore the cross-reference statement. Based on what he said, I believe that he probably has a single sheet (or possibly multiple sheets) from a single version of DN 47000-40A and a single sheet (or possibly multiple sheets) from a single version of DN 47003-49A.

But, even for drawings without the change note tables, the subassembly part numbers can still tell the story. Lots of different reproductions of DN 47004-49A with different quality and different modifications, but all of them that I have seen appear to be based on the same version of the drawing. Do you agree that the drawing is most likely a drawing of a version of a 1958 frame?