AgTalk Home | ||
| ||
Australian pull type combines Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page] | View previous thread :: View next thread |
Forums List -> Machinery Talk | Message format |
Jim in Sask |
| ||
A post about pull-type combines mentioned the JD 1051, which was sold in Australia. The Aussie pull types were quite a bit different from the ones here in North America. Perhaps our Aussie friends can elaborate on these machines. The John Deere 1051 is an interesting machine. Based on the German 955-size combine it had a 41" wide by 24" diameter 8-bar cylinder and a 14-bar concave. It had 4 walkers and a grain tank capacity of 225 bu. The platform was a 25-ft comb, and the brochure calls for a 107 pto hp tractor. One of the posters on the earlier forum mentioned he had used a 1051. The platform would rotate back behind the combine for road transport. This would have been useful on our machines so they could have used larger straight-cut headers. Other similar pull-types include the International 710 and the Massey 587 as well as the Horwood-Bagshaw. Like our pull-types in Canada, the Aussie machines would have been a cheap alternative to the self-propelled models. Here's a couple pictures of the JD 1051 from a 1984 brochure. (JD 1051 comb.jpg) (JD 1051 pt header.jpg) Attachments ---------------- JD 1051 comb.jpg (60KB - 819 downloads) JD 1051 pt header.jpg (24KB - 820 downloads) | |||
Mustard |
| ||
Kindersley Sk. | Thanks Jim that is real interesting information. I wonder how well that 576 header feed without a reel? I've spent many days out in front of a IH 1482 wondering how to match up a good sized cutting platform to feed the thing. Now I have a self propelled combine, problem solved. | ||
Jim in Sask |
| ||
I think it is a comb-type header, maybe similar to the stripper-headers that take mainly the heads and leave the straw. I read these heads were developed down there because the conventional reel and sickle header would shatter the grain and losses were too high. Again, I hope some of the Australians on here will weigh in on this a bit. | |||
Mustard |
| ||
Kindersley Sk. | They might not know what the heck we are talking about. Don't they use the word "Header" for Combine, and it escapes me at the moment what word they use for header? Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about ;~) | ||
Dan_wcIN |
| ||
It made a Crop | Front | ||
gough whitlam |
| ||
Jim - the combine (header) shown is exactly the type I had. In fact I also had one with a 22' open Front(header). They still have a knife and cut it where ever you like but they do not like big heavy crops. The trailing comb is a work of art and for their time they were a big header - cheap. They were common in Western Australia which is where my two were transported from. In a heavy crop of wheat they required 200 hp to make a good job of the sample and the 107 hp quoted wouldn't drive the rotor when full. | |||
henry19720 |
| ||
Hi Guy's, As mentioned we call the platform a "front". These pic's show a closed front. This was available here in Oz and was apparently good for lower yielding crops? There was no cutter bar as the heads were "combed" by the auger on the platform which featured serrated edges. You can see them on the auger if you look close enough. This was not unique to Deere. My father had a Massey 542 (made in Sunshine Vic, Aust) with a closed front. (I won't comment on his memories of it!! except to say he liked the 7700 JD he traded for!). Henry | |||
Ham |
| ||
Blvd d'Espair Bowhill, Sth Aust | I think originally the comb front didnt have a sickle, but Id say at least from the 1950's on, and quite likely earlier, they did. They were made to accomodate very light yielding standing cereals ( meaning say...10 bpa), harvested often in 100 plus F temp and single digit RH % conditions where shatter loss, particularly in barley, was a problem. They choked very easily with any sort of brassica weeds, and you'd often spend as much time going backwards to try and clear it, as going forwards harvesting. Ground speeds in those days were very slow. Now we run our American or European combines at 10 mph, and you are under and beyond the shattering head before it drops to the ground. These were still made at least well into the 80's, but I dont believe there are any Australian made harvesters any more, that i can think of. Personally, i dont miss them, and I had enough personal experience to hate them. But in their place and in their time, they served a purpose. They limited the amount of straw input which on a walker machine can be an issue because straw pulverises in our conditions, and makes seperation very difficult. Rotaries went a long way to solving that issue. Edited by Ham 7/8/2009 08:13 | ||
First Drop |
| ||
Central NSW, Australia | I'm with Ham but I would add a couple of points: (I have a 1051 exactly as illustrated above) While the comb fronts may have been designed with light crops in mind, they don't do a bad job in heavier crops so long as they weren't lodged. All the "modern" comb fronts that I have ever seen have had a sickle. The roller in front of the table auger and above the comb was designed to minimise the amount of straw taken in, but as Ham has said, could be a pain in certain weedy crops. With the roller removed I have successfully direct cut canola. In wheat I think I traveled at about 5 to 6 mph. I think they made them until about '91 or '92 I used mine up until about six years ago. I am still deciding whether my move to a Lexion 480 was a step up - just kidding! David | ||
nerfarm |
| ||
Charlton Vic Australia | Massey Ferguson 585 pto header 12 ft comb front 1965. These fronts pushed straw down where the knife cut just under the head. Later on we upgraded to a bigger machine Shearer CS105 14 ft. Late 60s Regards Stuart | ||
Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page] |
Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
(Delete cookies) | |