Fred B

Members
  • Content count

    579
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Fred B

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

549 profile views
  1. Well Gary that is a really weird cotton harvester on that f-20. looks to be west, or central Texas, the men have coats on, cotton stalks have fair height, could be, it's already been hand harvested? those two guys probably put that thing together. i'ts possible there are brush rolls in those bottom tubes, i can see the one on the left is belt driven, which it then gear drives? the one on the right. the top tube (one each side) ( other not seen from this angle) would have a slit,(opening) to the inside, to suck the cotton inside and to the back,into the suction fan, then into a container/ sack? at back, (not seen) of tractor. this is very similar to today's cotton stripper, except the brush rolls are down in front,angle up at the back and use augers to bring the cotton to a central fan air stream. As the cotton stalks pass between the rolls, the rolls are rotating opposite each other, from bottom to top, on the cotton stalks. (Rotating just opposite from a corn picker.) Below is an example of what the brush rolls should look like from the bottom end on today's stripper. That's a very good homemade (if i'm thinking correctly) example of what we know today as a brush roll cotton stripper. There were two brothers (now deceased) in my area in about 1970 that used a rust cotton picker chassis and mounted brush roll strippers on it and used fan suction to remove cotton directly from behind the augers on each row and deliver it to the basket. They put out a brochure and tried to market them, don't know if they ever sold one. Here is a brochure. Very interesting. Thanks for posting. Fred
  2. actually anson, it's exhaust pressure using standard garden hose fittings from a diverter valve mounted on the exhaust manifold.under the muffler. On the plus side it basically was live because it worked whenever the engine was running and you could move the lift cylinder to different areas on the tractor. On the negative side, as the piston came out of the cylinder, it pulled up on a cable that ran under pulleys and through a pipe to do its job. I am thinking since the cable came down the side, it kind of pulled the piston plunger sideways. Of course the hot exhaust gas didn't help any. The valving mechanism was very problematic. I would think it robbed some horse power and it's my understand that it caused some burnt valves. oh well they tried.
  3. well, i've not put any time on a implement behind a horse, so i don't know of their hydraulic systems, but the farmall A & B had an exhaust gas lift system , maybe that's what the horse system was. just connect that bottom hose------never mind
  4. i don't remember the details but it seems jd bought paddle dirt scrapers from hancock in lubbock tx , for a while, then just cut out hancock, and built it themselves. also there was the law suit where jd tried to patent the color combo of green and yellow, when oliver had been using it for years.
  5. you'er right all it does is increase the leverage, you can also do it by extending the foot pad up' and at the same time move the pad back, and correct the pad angle to better fit the foot, when pedal is fully depressed .. look at the pad on a 560, the chassis is the same as a M, but the foot pad is about twice as far back, and some up. ( brake pads may also be further back on 560), also won't change ta linkage. just clamp new weldment pad to pedal shank, you will have to lift foot higher. my dad made one for his M in 1952.
  6. well, i'm sure he's a nice dog and all, but can he make straight rows?
  7. on rh side there is a small horizontal pressed u shape welded at front, there is a 1/2" hole near front using that hole, bolt flat iron behind it, about 5" drill another hole to rear about 2" , remove flat iron, cut u shape with hack saw behind hole, remove hood support weldment (that you just cut) and hood support link that side, remove radiator from that side, no need to remove hood.
  8. Sorry for late response. Been out of pocket for a while. Equipment Junkie, Thanks for your comments. While I was trying to make up my mind whether or not to put a loader on a tractor w/o power steering, some one else bought it. With the addition of an arm to the back axle, it looks like the 7108 would have been a good loader. While not necessarily heavy duty, I always liked the simplicity of the Schwartz front axle. To look at that photo of the broken 1066, it looks like w/tongue placed correctly in cheek, you could just get someone to guide the driveshaft back into the clutch disk, while operating the loader in the down position (to suck ram back closed) to bring torque tube back together and using chain and the turnbuckle type load binder from front to back to snug it up and you're good to go. LOL Too bad it doesn't work that way. It's possible some of the bolts were missing on the 1066 at the bottom which caused it to break. but of course, if you overload something, there's always a breaking point. If I'm thinking correctly, assuming loaded bucket resting on ground, the pressure on all the tractor wheels is down while the bucket is trying to go up. Once daylight appears under bucket pressure on front wheels is down, no pressure on back wheels , or back wheel weight transfers to front. And bitty, I looked up your loader # and it seems to bolt to center and w/2 bolts farther to front and an arm to back.
  9. I enjoy reading all these posts. This is my steel wheel story. My dad's first tractor was a JD GPWT, he said it made him so mad he swore he'd never buy another JD, then he got a IH Reg and liked it a lot better. He then in 1933 traded a pair of mules, some bundled hegira, (a sorghum type for cattle feed), and some money for a new case CC on steel, which he really liked. One day a couple years later he was working near the road, and a man with four new tractor wheels and tires in a pickup stopped and asked my dad to try the new rubber tires out. They were on rod spoke F&H wheels. He said he would put them on and would come back in a week. If liked, dad could buy them, if not he would put the steel back on. Dad kept the rear on rubber, but put the front steel back on as the tractor on front rubber would skid too much on turns. To this day that Case rear steel is still out there under the shed. When Dad first told me that, I wondered why someone would have a wheel for that Case tractor in his pickup. Later when I started collecting tractors, I realized that the JD GPWT, the Farmall Reg and 20 and the Case CC, Allis Chalmers WC and maybe some others all had the same 6 bolt rear wheel pattern. I remember the time in the mid 50s when dad sold that old CC for $50. i watched it go down the road. several years later my brother and i were poking around in a corpus christi scrap yard, and found it up in a pile of scrap. too bad. I do have CCs that I bought later.
  10. you will need the remote control valve, and a 1 1/2" hole in each side of tool box.
  11. that first McCormick-Deering tractor is a very early one, the dual tanks, w/ flat sides is either 15-30, or 22-36, but the early front wheels, w/ the cast spoke hubs w/ cast hub caps,,and the side covers w/ short louvers would mean an early 15-30.the back wheels look to be 32 spoke heavy road wheels, w/ 1/2 the spokes cut off at the hub. looks to be a staged photo. during ww2 ?. young ladies learning to do absent mens work ?. something isn't right the truck is backing up to collect the bales ?, the 4 girls are carrying the bale from in front of the baler ? the flywheel isn't turning.?. second photo looks to be later 15-30, because of the short LH fender. believe 22-36 would have long fender. what is that frame work on the back? . appears to be ussr. how many russians does it take to run a combine? Gary, I like your music also. can't get enough of that under the double eagle!! i played cornet in high school band, got as far as " our boys will shine tonight",(football) i was the only one of my pals in band i quit, regret it every since.now, can't play anything. deering
  12. i wonder why they didn't offer the tanks long side up like the plastic ones.
  13. Well, I may have gotten off by one digit. It seems the CC3 was a tricycle row-crop, and the CC4 was the 4 wheel standard conversion. You could change back and forth with the front end. My cousins a little older than me say their father had a CC in 1929 although the books say the CC didn't come out until 1930 (at one time they were using 4 cc's) (they farmed near Robstown, TX about 20 miles from Corpus Christi), . In the book Full Steam Ahead, p.172 it is stated that 'Model CC testing finally began in Corpus Christi, Texas, in early March 1929'. Then on p.174 it says 'Everyone who tried it liked it.' 'Deere and IH were both testing similar units of their own in the area, and field reports indicated that by the end of most days, the competitors' personnel were out watching the Model CC perform'. I've heard before that many of the companies tested in this area because we more or less could work our land year round.
  14. tubacase yeah that's what's unique about those cc's you could convert them to a standard by removing the gooseneck, pinning (need 3 pins & cotter pins) under a standard front axle, with the little riser block, ( to level the tractor) and using standard draglink, rotate steering wheel till the side arm points down, instead of up, connect draglink, and you'er off, with your new standard tractor but it's now called a cc3. of course it still has turning brakes,and adjustable tall rear wheels. its possible you need to change out the side steering arm for a shorter one.? rroommm!!!
  15. i am not suggesting you are wrong on your mounting, it's the way the factory did it, the 284 probably doesn't have hydraulics enough to do anything, on mine, i have to speed the engine io lift a 3 pt disc,. but all sizes are relevant , my thinking is if you (with the bucket resting on the ground, overloaded it with ih cast iron wheel weights), and you tried to lift it, and the hydraulics were good, the top of the ram would normally extend up, but can't, the bottom of the ram would extend down, instead, pushing all 4 wheels down, till the part the frame is bolted to (the clutch house) broke, which is what I believe happened in the case of the 1066. I think most of these quick tach loaders are bolted to the frame because they don't want to have to go underneath the cab to the back axle and I don't think they should be bolted to the tractor frame. I think they should be bolted as close as possible to the front and back axles where the load is carried to the ground. There is not an explanation on this picture that I can find but it looks to me like that is what happened,.note front of loader is on ground. I have got a 1086 with 2350 loader with forks and I carry a full tote of roundup about 2,600 lbs. but I drive a short and slow distance. Allan NE I hope you don't mind that I borrowed your photo.